New Tory Leader

[Well b back 3,221]

8 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Good to see you finally understand that the Bank of England's commitment to spend 65 billion to buy gilts if needed and the government budget deficit are two entirely different  things👍

Lol

Don’t do Trumpism sorry, you tried to mislead people and then tried it again. How you are trying to turn that I had to explain to you how gilts effected things into I don’t understand gilts is pretty comical. You do more U turns than Truss.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Will Sunak invite Michelle O'Neill for talks rather than Donaldson? The DUP have once again found a reason not to share power in NI. Its convenient that they can quote the NI protocol to stop progress rather than just admit the time has come when they are simply outnumbered and for all the years they pretended the ballot box not violence was the answer yet they now turn against the democratic vote.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,189]

On 20/10/2022 at 19:07, Herman said:

 

At least one of the Co-authors seems to have a sense of humour about it 

[ricardo 7,395]

2 hours ago, Well b back said:

Lol

Don’t do Trumpism sorry, you tried to mislead people and then tried it again. How you are trying to turn that I had to explain to you how gilts effected things into I don’t understand gilts is pretty comical. You do more U turns than Truss.

Always happy to oblige with an educational link.👍

[Well b back 3,221]

We ridiculed China and Russia for not sending their leaders to COP 26. Dire climate warnings from the UN and Sunak decides COP 27 is not for him. Even Sharma is not happy. We claim to be world leaders, but are in reality a world f****** joke. Ban our King who is passionate about saving the planet and then don’t even bother. Here are some thoughts.

On Wednesday, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres told the BBC that he would like to see both the PM and King Charles in attendance. Now it looks like neither will be there. 

Given that the UK government was not just the host of COP26 but the main driving force behind its limited successes, it is unusual that it will not have a major political figure in attendance. 

While Alok Sharma will be there as the outgoing COP president, he is not of the same rank as a prime minister or monarch.

The Egyptian organisers will likely be furious at this turn of events - and it will not augur well for the conference if the leaders of one of the world's leading lights in taking action on climate can't prioritise travelling to the gathering.

[benchwarmer 625]

8 hours ago, Well b back said:

We ridiculed China and Russia for not sending their leaders to COP 26. Dire climate warnings from the UN and Sunak decides COP 27 is not for him. Even Sharma is not happy. We claim to be world leaders, but are in reality a world f****** joke. Ban our King who is passionate about saving the planet and then don’t even bother. Here are some thoughts.

On Wednesday, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres told the BBC that he would like to see both the PM and King Charles in attendance. Now it looks like neither will be there. 

Given that the UK government was not just the host of COP26 but the main driving force behind its limited successes, it is unusual that it will not have a major political figure in attendance. 

While Alok Sharma will be there as the outgoing COP president, he is not of the same rank as a prime minister or monarch.

The Egyptian organisers will likely be furious at this turn of events - and it will not augur well for the conference if the leaders of one of the world's leading lights in taking action on climate can't prioritise travelling to the gathering.

It's not a good look is it?  He has also demoted the posts held by Alok Sharma and the climate change minister (whose name I cannot remember) from the cabinet to junior ministerial positions. 

We need someone to represent the UK at COP: the King should go.

Edited October 28, 2022 by benchwarmer

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

I see Shell claim to have paid no 'Windfall tax' by taking advantage of Sunak's reinvestment loopholes as was warned.

I guess there will now be an additional shortfall of a few billion in his budget.

Take it out of pensions - that will focus peoples minds.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Yellow Fever
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63409687

[Creative Midfielder 1,998]

2 hours ago, benchwarmer said:

It's not a good look is it?  He has also demoted the posts held by Alok Sharma and the climate change minister (whose name I cannot remember) from the cabinet to junior ministerial positions. 

We need someone to represent the UK at COP: the King should go.

It certainly isn't and you're absolutely right that the King should go.

Been a very rocky and disappointing start for Sunak - granted he got the fracking decision right but that was pretty much a no brainer as the idiot Truss's reversal of the ban made no economic or political sense whatsoever.

But pretty much all his other decisions so far seem to fall into a range from poor to extremely bad - think the theme of frequent u-turns, first popularised by Johnson and taken to new heights by Truss, is probably going to continue albeit perhaps a little more slowly and a bit less dramatic than we've become used to. 😂

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

We are still President for at least half of the meeting. Yet we have a couple of junior ministers who won't have a clue what to say.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

Brilliant ! 

SporadicWit

16h ago 

 Guardian Pick

670671

People accuse Rishi Sunak of being out of touch. But just on Tuesday, he was visiting poorer households to see how they were managing with the cost of living crisis. I'm sure King Charles was very grateful, and took on board any advice from Sunak, about how to manage his family finances.

[KiwiScot 1,450]

25 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

We are still President for at least half of the meeting. Yet we have a couple of junior ministers who won't have a clue what to say.

Surely we can push Nicola Sturgeon in as last times semi official host.

[Barbe bleu 827]

4 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I see Shell claim to have paid no 'Windfall tax' by taking advantage of Sunak's reinvestment loopholes as was warned.

I guess there will now be an additional shortfall of a few billion in his budget.

Take it out of pensions - that will focus peoples minds.

My reading is slightly different.  Rather than take advantage of loopholes in the windfall tax tlregime they managed to avoid declaring any UK profit at all.   

No windfall profits  tax will be levied on a company that declares no profit. 

Perhaps the calls for windfall taxes (however devised) were misplaced and perhaps we should have debated some form of 'extraction tax' instead , although taxes the thing you want to encourage is always going to be tricky.

Be interesting what happens in future years.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

46 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

Surely we can push Nicola Sturgeon in as last times semi official host.

Donaldson isn't doing anything although he had to work yesterday.

[Well b back 3,221]

7 hours ago, benchwarmer said:

It's not a good look is it?  He has also demoted the posts held by Alok Sharma and the climate change minister (whose name I cannot remember) from the cabinet to junior ministerial positions. 

We need someone to represent the UK at COP: the King should go.

One of the reasons given for not going was we already led the world. Is this the same country that just voted for fracking ( I appreciate it was reversed but the same people voted it in and then reversed it ). Or the right wing that doesn’t even believe in climate change.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

My reading is slightly different.  Rather than take advantage of loopholes in the windfall tax tlregime they managed to avoid declaring any UK profit at all.   

No windfall profits  tax will be levied on a company that declares no profit. 

Perhaps the calls for windfall taxes (however devised) were misplaced and perhaps we should have debated some form of 'extraction tax' instead , although taxes the thing you want to encourage is always going to be tricky.

Be interesting what happens in future years.

Still managed to pay dividends 😉

The shocking thing is that that outgoing Shell executive thought they should be paying more!

Then again we have the Norwegian exmaple - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/28/uk-should-match-norways-78-north-sea-oil-and-gas-tax-thinktank-says. Higher tax 'take' doesn't seem to have caused them any problems.

Anyway - when Rishi cuts benefits or ups your taxes just remember you're giving some of it straight to Shell. They need it more than you 😉. He's made that decision for you.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[Barbe bleu 827]

26 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Still managed to pay dividends 😉

The shocking thing is that that outgoing Shell executive thought they should be paying more!

Then again we have the Norwegian exmaple - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/28/uk-should-match-norways-78-north-sea-oil-and-gas-tax-thinktank-says. Higher tax 'take' doesn't seem to have caused them any problems.

Anyway - when Rishi cuts benefits or ups your taxes just remember you're giving some of it straight to Shell. They need it more than you 😉. He's made that decision for you.

 

 

The windfall tax rising to 78% of profits would add precisely nothing to the taxpayer if the companies involved don't declare a profit. But a windfall profits tax is what we all called for, so we can't moan too much. Unless you wanted there to be a levy on group profits wherever in the world they were generated? 

And the shell chief executive saying they should pay more is the equivalent of putting a wind turbine on the front of the shareholders prospectus and then putting 99% of funding into fossil fuels.  Looks or sounds great but is it anything other than presentational?

 

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Barbe bleu

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

1 minute ago, Barbe bleu said:

The windfall tax rising to 78% of profits would add precisely nothing to the taxpayer if the companies involved don't declare a profit. But a windfall profits tax is what we all called for, so we can't moan too much.

And the shell chief executive saying they should pay more is the equivalent of putting a wind turbine on the front of the shareholders prospectus and then putting 99% of funding into fossil fuels.  Looks or sounds great but is it anything other than presentational?

 

 

The point is surely that the treasury will have expected or budgeted for Shell to pay some 'windfall tax'  opposed to none as they now state - this year and next if I recall!

So that will leave a larger hole in the public finances than expected that will need to be filled from elsewhere - more cuts and less benefits (possibly borrowing).  

Frankly if the windfall tax take is 'nil' as per Shell then either that's a total failure or incompetence of the then Chancellor or was always a disingenuous policy. Either way embarrassing for Rishi. Nil points.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

The CEO of Shell was on Sky News and said he expected the company to pay a windfall tax as they know they are making excessive profits and need to do their share.

[ricardo 7,395]

9 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

The CEO of Shell was on Sky News and said he expected the company to pay a windfall tax as they know they are making excessive profits and need to do their share.

Since the UK is only responsible for 2.9% of Shell's oil production, even a windfall tax of 100% is unlikely to pay for more than a tripe supper. Unfortunately most of Shell's production is already taxed in other jurisdictions.

 

[Well b back 3,221]

21 hours ago, ricardo said:

Always happy to oblige with an educational link.👍

Lol, not sure which school you went to, here’s the reality of the mini budget that was supported.

LONDON (Reuters) - The Bank of England looks set to raise borrowing costs by the most since 1989 next week even as it prepares for a recession that could be deepened by spending cuts under new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

 

As well as raising interest rates on Thursday for an eighth meeting in a row to tame inflation above 10% - this time by three-quarters of a percentage point according to most analysts - the BoE is also due to become the world’s first big central bank to start selling bonds from its stimulus stockpile on Tuesday.

After a period of turmoil in Britain, caused by the economic plans of former prime minister Liz Truss which sparked a bond market rout, the BoE’s double-barrelled monetary tightening might look at odds with its current forecasts that the economy will be shrinking until 2024.

But with inflation still set to be way above the BoE’s 2% target in 2023 and some of Truss’s costly help for households and businesses still in place, the only way is up for borrowing costs.

“As things stand today, my best guess is that inflationary pressures will require a stronger response than we perhaps thought in August,” BoE Governor Andrew Bailey said on Oct. 15.

 

On Aug. 4, the BoE raised rates by half a percentage point, its biggest increase in 27 years, and did so again in September.

Some of Bailey’s inflation worries eased two days after he spoke when new finance minister Jeremy Hunt reversed almost all the tax cuts planned by Truss and shortened her income-boosting energy cap programme to six months rather than two years.

 

But the ongoing spread of inflation through Britain’s economy this year means the BoE remains on high alert.

Oxford Economics Chief Economist Andrew Goodwin said the Monetary Policy Committee still faced a difficult balancing act.

“Many economic indicators have weakened since the committee last met in September, but the jobs market has remained tight and pay growth strong,” Goodwin said.

FISCAL UNCERTAINTY

Investors are putting a roughly 90% chance on a 75 basis-point hike in Bank Rate to 3% on Nov. 3. That would be less than the full percentage-point expected before Truss’s plans were scrapped but would still be the biggest hike by BoE in 33 years.

A Reuters poll of economists published on Tuesday showed most expected a 75 basis-point increase although a sizeable minority saw a bigger increase to 3.25%. On Friday, analysts at ING forecast a smaller, 50-basis point rise.

 

The picture further ahead is clouded by the delay to Sunak and Hunt’s plans for repairing the public finances.

They have warned of tough decisions. British media reported they were considering 50 billion pounds of tax increases and spending cuts, more than estimates of the hole in the budget.

 

Hunt had been due to announce the plan on Oct. 31 but it was delayed until Nov. 17 after Sunak became prime minister.

Interest rate futures show investors are much less worried about inflation than they were just a few weeks ago with Bank Rate expected to peak at about 4.75% in 2023, down from more than 6% before the sudden end of “Trussonomics.”

Deputy Governor Ben Broadbent added an extra dose of cold water on Oct. 20, saying the borrowing costs priced by investors in the preceding days would hammer the economy.

The BoE’s plan to start selling some of the bonds it bought since 2009 to support the economy will also ease some of the pressure to raise rates.

Deutsche Bank said the planned 40 billion pounds’ worth of sales over the next year were equivalent to about 25 basis points of rate hikes.

But Goodwin at Oxford Economics warned of potential dangers in the plan. “There is no pressing reason to kick off quantitative tightening and bond sales run the risk of triggering renewed turmoil in the gilts market,” he said.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,189]

4 hours ago, Well b back said:

One of the reasons given for not going was we already led the world. Is this the same country that just voted for fracking ( I appreciate it was reversed but the same people voted it in and then reversed it ). Or the right wing that doesn’t even believe in climate change.

If the UK leads the world, it should be there giving advice to others 

[ricardo 7,395]

51 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Lol, not sure which school you went to, here’s the reality of the mini budget that was supported.

Good to see that you haven't  claimed that I supported it.👍

[Well b back 3,221]

O dear looks like Suella has been telling porkies or should I say a nice bit of Trumpism. Unfortunately for him, Rishi took it all in. Think we could be seeing the calls for a GE growing louder over the next few days. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63433252

[benchwarmer 625]

12 hours ago, Well b back said:

O dear looks like Suella has been telling porkies or should I say a nice bit of Trumpism. Unfortunately for him, Rishi took it all in. Think we could be seeing the calls for a GE growing louder over the next few days. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63433252

"Alternative facts".

Things are going from bad to worse for Sunak.  It is reported that the King is 'champing at the bit' and may 'attend' COP via videolink if the government won't let him go and Sunak won't go either.  How would that look to the rest of the world?  As though the head of state is a prisoner.  He could steal the show.

Edited October 29, 2022 by benchwarmer

[Well b back 3,221]

53 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

"Alternative facts".

Things are going from bad to worse for Sunak.  It is reported that the King is 'champing at the bit' and may 'attend' COP via videolink if the government won't let him go and Sunak won't go either.  How would that look to the rest of the world?  He's the head of state after all.  He could steal the show.

At least he clearly understands climate change and how the ‘ majority of U.K. citizens ‘ now feel about the need for action, unlike Sunak. As usual this band of the government seem to not believe in climate change just like that woman on Question Time on Thursday, telling us all there was no evidence.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

18 hours ago, ricardo said:

Since the UK is only responsible for 2.9% of Shell's oil production, even a windfall tax of 100% is unlikely to pay for more than a tripe supper. Unfortunately most of Shell's production is already taxed in other jurisdictions.

 

I believe the Sunak's 'windfall tax' last Spring on the UK energy producers was expected to raise about £5Bn - of which Shell, BP etc were a significant part.

Now, let us assume that as per Shell, and others, take advantage of the 'loop holes' Sunk left and as warned off at the time and that the 'windfall' tax take largely reduces to zero.

How do we find/save another £5Bn? 

Some crude numbers - 10 million state pensioners 'giving' £10/week out of the charity of their hearts to the likes of Shell, BP and their share-holders etc. would save £10 x 10,000,000 x 52 = £5.2Bn. Easy-peasy, job done. I'm sure you don't mind or will miss it 😉

 

 

[Van wink 2,994]

On 27/10/2022 at 22:12, Well b back said:

We ridiculed China and Russia for not sending their leaders to COP 26. Dire climate warnings from the UN and Sunak decides COP 27 is not for him. Even Sharma is not happy. We claim to be world leaders, but are in reality a world f****** joke. Ban our King who is passionate about saving the planet and then don’t even bother. Here are some thoughts.

On Wednesday, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres told the BBC that he would like to see both the PM and King Charles in attendance. Now it looks like neither will be there. 

Given that the UK government was not just the host of COP26 but the main driving force behind its limited successes, it is unusual that it will not have a major political figure in attendance. 

While Alok Sharma will be there as the outgoing COP president, he is not of the same rank as a prime minister or monarch.

The Egyptian organisers will likely be furious at this turn of events - and it will not augur well for the conference if the leaders of one of the world's leading lights in taking action on climate can't prioritise travelling to the gathering.

Sunak should attend, poor judgement, now the prospect is raising its head of BJ attending according to a report in the Guardian. I did have a little bit of hope that Sunak was going to make the right choices, but the jury is out as far as I’m concerned, things are unraveling rather quickly.

[Well b back 3,221]

2 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Sunak should attend, poor judgement, now the prospect is raising its head of BJ attending according to a report in the Guardian. I did have a little bit of hope that Sunak was going to make the right choices, but the jury is out as far as I’m concerned, things are unraveling rather quickly.

Indeed

I don’t think they really have a grasp of us the citizens. They are listening to the wrong people, yes there are a few that still love Johnson, the majority dislike him, there are those that do not believe in climate change, but again they are the minority.  
I didn’t think I would hear myself saying this but a GE grows closer each day. With this and the Home Secretary debacle, I think all the good things Sunak is doing in stabilising the economy are being outweighed by few trusting  this government. 
I am now of the firm believe that the people will bring them down over the coming months.

[Well b back 3,221]

Another step towards winning the most laughed at Country in the world. At least it would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. I always laugh at those with conspiracy theories but a bit weird this comes out on the same day as Russia accuse us of being part of the Ukraines attack on the Russian fleet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63442813

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

9 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I believe the Sunak's 'windfall tax' last Spring on the UK energy producers was expected to raise about £5Bn - of which Shell, BP etc were a significant part.

Now, let us assume that as per Shell, and others, take advantage of the 'loop holes' Sunk left and as warned off at the time and that the 'windfall' tax take largely reduces to zero.

How do we find/save another £5Bn? 

Some crude numbers - 10 million state pensioners 'giving' £10/week out of the charity of their hearts to the likes of Shell, BP and their share-holders etc. would save £10 x 10,000,000 x 52 = £5.2Bn. Easy-peasy, job done. I'm sure you don't mind or will miss it 😉

 

 

How about a levy on all those who benefitted from the furlough scheme? They probably can thank having a job and a home today as a result of furlough payments so why not pay some of it back now that their jobs are secure?