New Tory Leader

[Well b back 3,309]

2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Isn’t it a bit early in the day to be drinking?

And then come back with an insult to try and belittle you, nice.

[Nuff Said 5,246]

13 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Are you his PA or just sticking up for someone you know **** all about?

Or an annoying troll?

[Nuff Said 5,246]

12 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

The trouble with "trickle-down" is that it doesn't.

Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequality Rampant (businessinsider.com)

Yep, was going to post something similar, the problem is which study to choose as there are loads of them showing trickle-down, or even the less lunatic fringe “supply side” version just doesn’t work.

[sonyc 5,541]

This graphic today shows just one indicator of the kind of regional inequality we have allowed to see happen in the country. "Allowed to happen" is a deliberate choice of words. Incredible difference between 14% and 30% in terms of fuel poverty as well as the rate of change.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by sonyc

[Creative Midfielder 2,004]

14 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

On 'windfall profits' I suspect Truss's idealology is about to meet political reality rather like no hand outs. 

It will be impossible not to have a larger contribution from the excess unexpected profits of the oil and gas producers especially as their profits balloon and government debt explodes.

You would have thought so wouldn't you - I'm sure that most taxpayers would be relieved to see energy prices capped but at the expense of still bankrolling the massive excess profits of the energy companies through higher taxes and even more hollowing out of our public services for years to come - I don't think so.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,613]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

I always get worried with ideologues be they religious, political or indeed environmental. By their nature they believe they are right and have some privileged knowledge even in the absence of any facts or prior experience. I don't care if they are politically left or right - such ideologues are always one step removed from reality. The Tory's have been bedeviled by ideology since 2016 and look where we are! 

Truss is clearly such an ideologue on her proposed tax cuts from borrowing. It's been tried before and failed - the notorious Barber 'boom'. Then again her aversion to windfall taxes - nothing wrong in windfall taxes on such extreme unexpected profits. Thatcher did it when required for all you Truss ideologue blues! It simply called economic competence.

 

A lot of truth in this. What I would say is that the volte face from remain supporter to actively and energetically trying to build relationships outside the EU post-Brexit speaks more of a pragrmatist than an idealist. 

A large part of what sunk Johnson was his very unconservative fiscal approach of being very comfortable with spending money. This is why a large part of the party, including Sunak, was set on undermining him in my opinion. 

With that in mind, it makes sense for Truss to be making the right noises to placate that part of the party as the new incumbent. Whether that translates into what she actually does, we'll just have to wait and see. 

Regarding windfall taxes on oil and gas, it's an easy populist sell to the public in the current climate, but given the government is trying to encourage more production in the North Sea in the face of  increasing difficulty of exploiting offshore resources in the North Sea, that sort of move risks reducing our security of supply at a time when risks to supply of fossil fuels are greatly increased. 

Edited September 8, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 6,095]

43 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Yep, was going to post something similar, the problem is which study to choose as there are loads of them showing trickle-down, or even the less lunatic fringe “supply side” version just doesn’t work.

Or, more precisely worded, it doesn't work for everyone. It works very nicely if you're already ultra-wealthy, or in with the political powers that be at the time.

Anyway, I'm listening to this at the moment: 

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[Yellow Fever 3,851]

8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

A lot of truth in this. What I would say is that the volte face from remain supporter to actively and energetically trying to build relationships outside the EU post-Brexit speaks more of a pragrmatist than an idealist. 

A large part of what sunk Johnson was his very unconservative fiscal approach of being very comfortable with spending money. This is why a large part of the party, including Sunak, was set on undermining him in my opinion. 

With that in mind, it makes sense for Truss to be making the right noises to placate that part of the party as the new incumbent. Whether that translates into what she actually does, we'll just have to wait and see. 

Regarding windfall taxes on oil and gas, it's an easy populist sell to the public in the current climate, but given the government is trying to encourage more production in the North Sea in the face of  increasing difficulty of exploiting offshore resources in the North Sea, that sort of move risks reducing our security of supply at a time when risks to supply of fossil fuels are greatly increased. 

I have not got a problem with very short term gas development - things that can brought online in 2 to 3 years or less - but long term no - we need to move away from such (or to use a very dated Thatcherite era phrase - the dash for gas) and into other greener energy sources. Fossil fuel sources that take take 10 or 20 years to develop is a nonsense. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

4 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Your angry response suggests your serial emails probably fell into the “delete” category.  In fact because you sent so many they were perhaps automatically filtered out as spam.

My anger is because you know nothing about him as our local MP. His background, his wealth, his family, his attitude to local matters. Yet you assumed I had sent trolling messages. I asked him serious questions during the pandemic. Our family had a thriving catering business and that is now no more. The questions I asked were unanswered. He is a cnut. He didn't even acknowledge the questions and fob me off. He just fecking ignored me.

And these Tory liars told us they were representing people who didn't vote for them but it was incumbent on them, especially with their bullshine about levelling up and one nation, to listen and reply. I loathe and detest him.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

What another sham from the new Levelling Up Minister Simon Clarke. When asked what the Government had been doing since July and Johnson's demise, he said there was nothing they could do because they weren't the Government until Monday. So they couldn't implement the brilliant new measures they have.

So why didn't we have a GE?

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,613]

6 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I have not got a problem with very short term gas development - things that can brought online in 2 to 3 years or less - but long term no - we need to move away from such (or to use a very dated Thatcherite era phrase - the dash for gas) and into other greener energy sources. Fossil fuel sources that take take 10 or 20 years to develop is a nonsense. 

Long term, I don't think there's much future for the North Sea anyway. The North Sea has long been way down the pecking order globally in terms of how attractive it is as an investment prospect. There is no such thing as an easy, short-term development in the North Sea. 

Completely agree with you on the need to move to other sources, but the increasingly painful prices of the product will ensure that the reduction in demand will take care of itself to a fair extent without needlessly making ourselves vulnerable by killing off the North Sea by taxing the modest production we have; the bits of the oil and gas industry making the really huge profits aren't within the reach of the treasury. 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,613]

16 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

My anger is because you know nothing about him as our local MP. His background, his wealth, his family, his attitude to local matters. Yet you assumed I had sent trolling messages. I asked him serious questions during the pandemic. Our family had a thriving catering business and that is now no more. The questions I asked were unanswered. He is a cnut. He didn't even acknowledge the questions and fob me off. He just fecking ignored me.

And these Tory liars told us they were representing people who didn't vote for them but it was incumbent on them, especially with their bullshine about levelling up and one nation, to listen and reply. I loathe and detest him.

Really sorry to hear about your business. It's always the self-employed who get worst hit in any crisis. 

You are here calling him a cnut like he was personally responsible for your misfortune though. Do you think it's possible something in your letters gave away your latent hostility to the guy that might have made him suspect answering would be a hiding to nothing? Just a thought. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

21 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Really sorry to hear about your business. It's always the self-employed who get worst hit in any crisis. 

You are here calling him a cnut like he was personally responsible for your misfortune though. Do you think it's possible something in your letters gave away your latent hostility to the guy that might have made him suspect answering would be a hiding to nothing? Just a thought. 

No, I made a point of asking pertinent questions and with as much correct grammar and etiquette as possible.

I don't hold any one person responsible. Some fall through the net and we were one of them. As a family we have recovered and those who need to work are doing so. Mrs KG and I are retired and not missing any meals. But we did employ people and we think we were good employers by paying good wages, great conditions and perks. They are all working but not in the job they liked when they worked for us. But even if he had said sorry would have been a recognition.

In fact what is even more galling is that he was staunch Brexit and jobs for locals etc but employed foreign workers whereas we employed locals.

[KiwiScot 1,491]

New support package. Is that it? Really?

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

Truss is clearly such an ideologue on her proposed tax cuts from borrowing. It's been tried before and failed - the notorious Barber 'boom'. Then again her aversion to windfall taxes - nothing wrong in windfall taxes on such extreme unexpected profits. Thatcher did it when required for all you Truss ideologue blues! It simply called economic competence.

 

Congratulations on remembering the Barber Boom! Hardly mentioned these days but had an enormous impact back in the 70s. I just wanted to add that said economic policy from the Chancellor of that time was far more than fiscal measures such as tax cuts. There was also a huge growth in money supply from measures such as reorganising the banking system. Lending rose from £71 million to £1.33 billion in two years and kick started the rise in house price inflation that we still see today. 

The problem was not so much ideology but overindulgence in leaving the taps on for too long. 

I agree with your point that there is nothing wrong with a windfall tax on profits that have been generated not by economic activity but by market movements of an unusual nature - such as we are seeing right now. 

The possible costs of an energy price freeze, while welcome for consumers, is an extremely risky manoeuvre as it is like writing a blank cheque that we don't know how much it will eventually cost us.  It could dwarf the cost of dealing with Covid. So we definitely need competence at this dangerous time. 

[sonyc 5,541]

17 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

No, I made a point of asking pertinent questions and with as much correct grammar and etiquette as possible.

I don't hold any one person responsible. Some fall through the net and we were one of them. As a family we have recovered and those who need to work are doing so. Mrs KG and I are retired and not missing any meals. But we did employ people and we think we were good employers by paying good wages, great conditions and perks. They are all working but not in the job they liked when they worked for us. But even if he had said sorry would have been a recognition.

In fact what is even more galling is that he was staunch Brexit and jobs for locals etc but employed foreign workers whereas we employed locals.

Having read (probably all) your posts of the last 5 years at least, I can vouch for your way of asking questions KG - strident but usually with a good deal of courtesy. 

And given your experience I can completely understand you contacting your local MP. 

I'm in an odd position because (a) I rarely contact my MP but (b) when I have done (Cummings and about Channel 4) my MP whom I strongly dislike, at least had the courtesy of a reply and quickly. Phillip Davies. He does respond which is to his credit. I am aware of a few that never reply (from both sides of political divide). It is poor that an elected person can't find the time even for a simple reply. In your case even recognition is a way to help because actually then at least they see you as a person! Not to reply is truly despicable. 

[A Load of Squit 5,244]

 

 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

28 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

No, I made a point of asking pertinent questions and with as much correct grammar and etiquette as possible.

I don't hold any one person responsible. Some fall through the net and we were one of them. As a family we have recovered and those who need to work are doing so. Mrs KG and I are retired and not missing any meals. But we did employ people and we think we were good employers by paying good wages, great conditions and perks. They are all working but not in the job they liked when they worked for us. But even if he had said sorry would have been a recognition.

In fact what is even more galling is that he was staunch Brexit and jobs for locals etc but employed foreign workers whereas we employed locals.

By way of a balancing anecdote, my wife is also in catering and her business did extremely well during the pandemic and even better since the return to normality. I'm sorry to hear about your situation but we introduced a new business model with new processes in order to adapt to the new situation and those processes are still in place. 

The Eat Out to Help Out campaign was a life saver as it prevented thousands of small business from going under - the sort of business that doesn't come back when it's gone, and prevented the loss of jobs in what is normally a low pay sector. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

23 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

 

 

It's great to live in a society where this type of information is freely available 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, sonyc said:

Having read (probably all) your posts of the last 5 years at least, I can vouch for your way of asking questions KG - strident but usually with a good deal of courtesy. 

And given your experience I can completely understand you contacting your local MP. 

I'm in an odd position because (a) I rarely contact my MP but (b) when I have done (Cummings and about Channel 4) my MP whom I strongly dislike, at least had the courtesy of a reply and quickly. Phillip Davies. He does respond which is to his credit. I am aware of a few that never reply (from both sides of political divide). It is poor that an elected person can't find the time even for a simple reply. In your case even recognition is a way to help because actually then at least they see you as a person! Not to reply is truly despicable. 

Thank you sonyc. I think when I was a Trade Union Secretary, I Iearnt through constant messages, telephone calls etc that there is a way of conducting business properly. We were all too aware that usually, letters, no emails then, were invariably opened by a Secretary, who was invariably a woman. No matter what the problem, decorum was essential.

Of course I can be rude with best and not averse to profanity as I did in one of my posts.

[Creative Midfielder 2,004]

16 hours ago, Well b back said:

Here’s another quick change of plan - 2 weeks ago During her campaign, Ms Truss hit out at the Bank of England, accusing it of being slow to react to rising prices and protect vulnerable households.

Today - 

But on Wednesday, the new Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng reiterated his "full support for the independent Bank of England and their mission to control inflation, which is central to tackling cost of living challenges". 

He also said he and Mr Bailey would meet twice a week from now on to discuss the cost-of-living crisis.

😂 Maybe not going to be all that 'independent' after all then, especially with Bailey as Governor - if only we still had the previous guy but I think he was fed up to back teeth with having to try and clean up the consequences of Tory Government economic illiteracy - illiteracy which sadly seems to have been ratcheted up a couple of further notches today.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Creative Midfielder

[Yellow Fever 3,851]

The world, and politics and economic reality goes on.

Saw this topical comment

There’s a ‘strong chance’ that the pound could fall through parity against the dollar or euro, or both, during King Charles’ reign, fears Kit Juckes, currency expert at Société Générale.

Juckes says:

 Neither is likely this year, but sterling’s post-GFC downtrend won’t end until there’s a seismic change in the direction of economic policy and the economy.

After Blair/Brown’s ‘Cool Britannia’ decade of 3% growth was allowed to get out of control on the back of inadequate financial regulation, GDP growth has averaged a measly 1 ½%, and the current account deficit has averaged almost 4% GDP.

The sad truth is that while Queen Elizabeth was great, her recent governments haven’t been.

. 

[sonyc 5,541]

4 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

The world, and politics and economic reality goes on.

Saw this topical comment

There’s a ‘strong chance’ that the pound could fall through parity against the dollar or euro, or both, during King Charles’ reign, fears Kit Juckes, currency expert at Société Générale.

Juckes says:

 Neither is likely this year, but sterling’s post-GFC downtrend won’t end until there’s a seismic change in the direction of economic policy and the economy.

After Blair/Brown’s ‘Cool Britannia’ decade of 3% growth was allowed to get out of control on the back of inadequate financial regulation, GDP growth has averaged a measly 1 ½%, and the current account deficit has averaged almost 4% GDP.

The sad truth is that while Queen Elizabeth was great, her recent governments haven’t been.

. 

I'm wondering YF (bringing the political world and monarchy together) whether King Charles will be a positive influence in Europe? Rescuing in part some reputation we have lost through Johnson and Frost and their idiotic stances on Brexit? Listening to Macron's nice words today about the Queen made me think that Charles may indeed do a kind of tour of Europe in the next 12 months (and wider) - he is far more the diplomat. We've heard what Truss thinks of Macron of course. Interesting to read Barnier's view of Truss (" the jury's out😅) but just a thought that we've needed some kind of movement back towards better EU relations. And Charles may be an opportunity (because I'm doubtful Truss will be, even though until recently she was actually our Foreign Secretary).

Just a thought.

 

Edited September 9, 2022 by sonyc

[Nuff Said 5,246]

On 08/09/2022 at 12:50, Rock The Boat said:

The Eat Out to Help Out campaign was a life saver as it prevented thousands of small business from going under - the sort of business that doesn't come back when it's gone, and prevented the loss of jobs in what is normally a low pay sector. 

Did you miss the massive irony in that phrase? Encouraging people to mix in restaurants while the virus was still rife was a ridiculous policy.

[Creative Midfielder 2,004]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

Did you miss the massive irony in that phrase? Encouraging people to mix in restaurants while the virus was still rife was a ridiculous policy.

Certainly was, and generally believed to be the main reason that the second wave of virus and accompanying set of lockdowns happened at least a month and probably two before the scientists were expecting them.

[Herman 9,859]

 

[A Load of Squit 5,244]

 

 

[Herman 9,859]

13 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

 

 

 

[1902 1,167]

On 08/09/2022 at 12:11, littleyellowbirdie said:

A lot of truth in this. What I would say is that the volte face from remain supporter to actively and energetically trying to build relationships outside the EU post-Brexit speaks more of a pragrmatist than an idealist. 

A large part of what sunk Johnson was his very unconservative fiscal approach of being very comfortable with spending money. This is why a large part of the party, including Sunak, was set on undermining him in my opinion. 

With that in mind, it makes sense for Truss to be making the right noises to placate that part of the party as the new incumbent. Whether that translates into what she actually does, we'll just have to wait and see. 

Regarding windfall taxes on oil and gas, it's an easy populist sell to the public in the current climate, but given the government is trying to encourage more production in the North Sea in the face of  increasing difficulty of exploiting offshore resources in the North Sea, that sort of move risks reducing our security of supply at a time when risks to supply of fossil fuels are greatly increased. 

North Sea investments take years to come to fruition. Why would a windfall tax make a sizeable difference to current supply? Additionally, why would fossil fuel companies invest when they know that the energy mix is moving away from them in most countries? 

Additionally why would we try to encourage more investment in the North Sea given that these elevated prices will be temporary and once they lower again those investments could be unproductive?

For as long as gas is very profitable, most companies are going to be producing as much as they can sell. A windfall tax doesn't necessarily mean eliminating substantial profit, just lowering them.

[Daz Sparks 1,204]

34 minutes ago, 1902 said:

North Sea investments take years to come to fruition. Why would a windfall tax make a sizeable difference to current supply? Additionally, why would fossil fuel companies invest when they know that the energy mix is moving away from them in most countries? 

Additionally why would we try to encourage more investment in the North Sea given that these elevated prices will be temporary and once they lower again those investments could be unproductive?

For as long as gas is very profitable, most companies are going to be producing as much as they can sell. A windfall tax doesn't necessarily mean eliminating substantial profit, just lowering them.

I agree.

90% Windfall tax on them will still see them better off than last year.