UK Conservative Party Leadership Election

[ChopleyIOM]

I don't do forex trading so nope....

The point I was making is that the £ was always going to tank. No corruption to be seen here

Except no, because otherwise the market would have priced it in already, the market responded directly to Kwarteng's statement and the pound dropped by 4% in a day, the markets clearly weren't expecting the UK government to announce it would take on such much extra debt, and to do it in a way that would be both inflationary and not even generate much, if any, economic growth.

Out of interest, is there literally anything this lot could do that you wouldn't immediately jump up to defend and hand-wave away? I'm curious as to where the line might be, if indeed there is one.

 

[interlog]

Except no, because otherwise the market would have priced it in already, the market responded directly to Kwarteng's statement and the pound dropped by 4% in a day, the markets clearly weren't expecting the UK government to announce it would take on such much extra debt, and to do it in a way that would be both inflationary and not even generate much, if any, economic growth.

Out of interest, is there literally anything this lot could do that you wouldn't immediately jump up to defend and hand-wave away? I'm curious as to where the line might be, if indeed there is one.

So there was no tip off then if they only reacted when it was delivered..

"This lot" sums your agenda pretty much up

 

[dunover]

Congratulations, you must have made a fortune then!

It's slightly amusing that the Tories were telling us for a decade of austerity that government spending had to be massively slashed and taking on debt would be hugely irresponsible and the type of thing only those crazy Socialists in the Labour party would do and they'd crash the economy as a result.

Now here we are with massive amounts of fresh government debt, largely uncosted and with no plan to pay it back (except with magical unicorn growth that no serious economist believes is going to happen), and all to give a huge bung to the rich.

So it turns out the Tories do have a magical money tree after all, but only when they're making their mates richer, if it's providing stuff for normal people, then the tree strangely stops bearing fruit.

Still, I'm sure it'll all trickle down.

View attachment 173042

Didn't he even say "Please sir, can I have some more?"

The quote is meaningless without context. Was the child on a diet? If no free meals, parent(s) must be earning so what did they do with the money? Were they scagheads? Alchies? Buying cigs at £11 a box? Or did Liz Truss batter down the door to their dwelling in the night and steal all their bread and cheese, the Police following a trail of ready salted crisp crumbs back to Downing Street?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

So there was no tip off then if they only reacted when it was delivered..

"This lot" sums your agenda pretty much up

So here's the chain of events, this is a simple statement of facts, none of it can be disupted.

Odey employs Kwarteng
Odey bankrolls Brexit
Brexit destabilises UK
Kwarteng becomes Chancellor
Odey bets against GBP
Kwarteng destabilises GBP
Odey reaps enormous rewards

And you're just like, 'It's all fine, no corruption, not even a whiff of it, everything is great'.

As for referring to the current Tory administration as 'this lot', that's simply a reflection of how little regard I have for them, I was of the opinion that things couldn't go downhill from Johnson's useless cabal, but Truss is certainly doing her best to give him and his cronies a run for their money. (Well, a run for everyone else's money except their own, as it turns out.)

But hey, maybe I'm completely wrong and this economic miracle that they've bet the country on will pay off, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[interlog]

So here's the chain of events, this is a simple statement of facts, none of it can be disupted.

Odey employs Kwarteng
Odey bankrolls Brexit
Brexit destabilises UK
Kwarteng becomes Chancellor
Odey bets against GBP
Kwarteng destabilises GBP
Odey reaps enormous rewards

And you're just like, 'It's all fine, no corruption, not even a whiff of it, everything is great'.

As for referring to the current Tory administration as 'this lot', that's simply a reflection of how little regard I have for them, I was of the opinion that things couldn't go downhill from Johnson's useless cabal, but Truss is certainly doing her best to give him and his cronies a run for their money. (Well, a run for everyone else's money except their own, as it turns out.)

But hey, maybe I'm completely wrong and this economic miracle that they've bet the country on will pay off, we'll just have to wait and see.

Well that is what traders do, speculate on what may happen and hope to make dosh on it. It was well predicted borrowing was going to increase.

You're accusing corruption without any shred of evidence.

Your opinion of it has has as much value as mine or the next person putting their 2p in.

 

[dunover]

Well that is what traders do, speculate on what may happen and hope to make dosh on it. It was well predicted borrowing was going to increase.

You're accusing corruption without any shred of evidence.

Your opinion of it has has as much value as mine or the next person putting their 2p in.

Well he is getting desperate now - take the meaningless quote about the alleged Lewisham schoolchild, where the inference is that somehow a capitalist cabal/Johnson/Truss/Brexit/King Charles/ have conspired to empty their lunchbox. So we are to take it without proof, on trust, that this is wholly the govts. doing and nothing to do with parent(s) decision making or the household the child lives in?? Even for desperate @ChopleyIOM that post is disingenuous, like what you'd expect to see in the Graudina or Mirror.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Well he is getting desperate now - take the meaningless quote about the alleged Lewisham schoolchild, where the inference is that somehow a capitalist cabal/Johnson/Truss/Brexit/King Charles/ have conspired to empty their lunchbox. So we are to take it without proof, on trust, that this is wholly the govts. doing and nothing to do with parent(s) decision making or the household the child lives in?? Even for desperate @ChopleyIOM that post is disingenuous, like what you'd expect to see in the Graudina or Mirror.

Tell me again about those Labour Marxist Republicans and the national anthem, because that was an absolute shocker, I'm still reeling from it, in honesty.

 

[goatwack]

Whilst I don't disbelieve the Lewisham school kid's story, it's worth bearing in mind that less 'well-to-do' families have always been around, certainly in the associated South-East boroughs.

Lewisham has a strong ethnic makeup and predominantly black, underprivileged, lower income families, and I don't see anything having changed in the 35 years I've known it. It was a stone's throw from Blackheath, not to mention that I've lived there, had friends there and worked in many of its 'delectable' outlets.

The tale of how one child's been thrust into hunger and abandonment strikes me as odd, were it not for how kids ate badly all throughout my school dinner days, and that saving face amongst one's peers aka 'styling it' is nothing new either.

You'd think then that having been in the opulence of Blackheath that I'd somehow be enjoying my 'privilege' and lording it over my contemporaries.....

Except no, we were poor as sin, "Mama" (single mum of course) cooked and improvised, forewent excess vices and 'got by'. School dinners were never the mainstay of anyone's diet, and those reliant on them ought to cast a glance at their parents' lifestyle choices, if that article's to be fully believed.

I knew kids from Lewisham from single parent backgrounds, where the mother of two/ three / four kids would still ensure their kids ate properly. So whilst not true for everyone, I'd hope people could maybe look past the hyperbolic stories and perhaps acknowledge that the UK's Benefits system is beyond compare and more than generous in keeping people - at the very least - well-fed.

Fact is these SE locales have been left to rot for the longest time, abandoned by the elites, so you can count Lewisham, Deptford, Woolwich etc in amongst those. And yes, those elites include Labour politicians, as these areas are Labour-run.

Anyone thinking the Downing St. posse care one jot for anyone but themselves, and wish to attain the betterment of all and sundry as part of an Aspiration Nation, well, you know what to do. Give your head a wobble. C'mon! Wobble wobble!

 

[dunover]

Whilst I don't disbelieve the Lewisham school kid's story, it's worth bearing in mind that less 'well-to-do' families have always been around, certainly in the associated South-East boroughs.

Lewisham has a strong ethnic makeup and predominantly black, underprivileged, lower income families, and I don't see anything having changed in the 35 years I've known it. It was a stone's throw from Blackheath, not to mention that I've lived there, had friends there and worked in many of its 'delectable' outlets.

The tale of how one child's been thrust into hunger and abandonment strikes me as odd, were it not for how kids ate badly all throughout my school dinner days, and that saving face amongst one's peers aka 'styling it' is nothing new either.

You'd think then that having been in the opulence of Blackheath that I'd somehow be enjoying my 'privilege' and lording it over my contemporaries.....

Except no, we were poor as sin, "Mama" (single mum of course) cooked and improvised, forewent excess vices and 'got by'. School dinners were never the mainstay of anyone's diet, and those reliant on them ought to cast a glance at their parents' lifestyle choices, if that article's to be fully believed.

I knew kids from Lewisham from single parent backgrounds, where the mother of two/ three / four kids would still ensure their kids ate properly. So whilst not true for everyone, I'd hope people could maybe look past the hyperbolic stories and perhaps acknowledge that the UK's Benefits system is beyond compare and more than generous in keeping people - at the very least - well-fed.

Fact is these SE locales have been left to rot for the longest time, abandoned by the elites, so you can count Lewisham, Deptford, Woolwich etc in amongst those. And yes, those elites include Labour politicians, as these areas are Labour-run.

Anyone thinking the Downing St. posse care one jot for anyone but themselves, and wish to attain the betterment of all and sundry as part of an Aspiration Nation, well, you know what to do. Give your head a wobble. C'mon! Wobble wobble!

No, you're missing the narrative here - Quasi Quarterback and Liz Trump STOLE that kid's food and gave it as 'seconds' to the more prosperous kids who had already stuffed themselves with smuggled-in takeaways and industrial-sized bags of Haribo.

It probably never contained food anyway, but a selection of clingwrapped 'street merchandise' disguised in a medium-sliced bread bag. On his way home he peeled off a tenner and treated himself to a large kebab with fries.

I think part two there was what our chopley conveniently missed. If he carries on like that, he'll end up as a BBC journalist or Gradinua columnist.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

The point is, surely, that there's a hungry child, and that's the problem that needs to be fixed. I don't much care the why or the how, we can look at that later, for now the problem is the hungry child, so let's make sure the child eats. Maybe the parents are feckless layabouts, but that's not the child's fault, 'Hey there young lad, your parents are a bit crap, so you go hungry today, sorry! Be sure to concentrate on your lessons this afternoon whilst all you can think about is how hungry you are'.

I did my Monty Python Yorkshiremen post here - General Election 2019 thread - Page 48 - Casinomeister Forum

So I know all too well what it's like to be skint as fuck, but when I hear about hungry children here in the year 2022 my response to that is 'Well for fuck's sake, let's feed the hungry children then, and how the fuck do we have hungry children in one of the wealthiest countries on earth'.

In this scenario the victim is the child, so we make things better for the child, we can sort out why the child is in that situation in the first place as a follow-on task.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

What this budget is though, is kick ass bold IMO. Like going all in on a game of poker, betting your house and not entirely confident you are going to win when the cards are turned over.

That's the problem with gambles, sometimes you lose them.

And all that new government debt Kwarteng took on to give to the rich, it's getting a lot more expensive, in real time.

 

[paul7388]

The point is, surely, that there's a hungry child, and that's the problem that needs to be fixed. I don't much care the why or the how, we can look at that later, for now the problem is the hungry child, so let's make sure the child eats. Maybe the parents are feckless layabouts, but that's not the child's fault, 'Hey there young lad, your parents are a bit crap, so you go hungry today, sorry! Be sure to concentrate on your lessons this afternoon whilst all you can think about is how hungry you are'.

I did my Monty Python Yorkshiremen post here - General Election 2019 thread - Page 48 - Casinomeister Forum

So I know all too well what it's like to be skint as fuck, but when I hear about hungry children here in the year 2022 my response to that is 'Well for fuck's sake, let's feed the hungry children then, and how the fuck do we have hungry children in one of the wealthiest countries on earth'.

In this scenario the victim is the child, so we make things better for the child, we can sort out why the child is in that situation in the first place as a follow-on task.

How do you go about feeding hungry children tho. Sounds good to do it in principle .

But sadly the fault with majority of hungry children is the parents.

Parents on benefits may not be rich. But then taking into account what they actually receive they are no worse off than lower income working families. I have never been rich myself and had many a bad day when money was so tight, that's if I even had any but you know what never once did my boys go without food.

But it is the culture today in this country. Everyone pleads poverty and wants more. Fair enough don't we all.

But problem arises in most cases as most on benefits put themselves first. You notice most of the poorer people drink and smoke. I see it all the time. They are skint and cannot feed kids while getting emergency food delivered and going to food banks. Yet they can certainly go down to shops and get 20 fags and a drink.

Take Saturday when I was at a shop. A young boy asked his mum for a drink. He got a mouthful about how skint she was and he could wait till later when home. She then brought 20 fags and a tenner in scratchcards. And that's the normal for many.

Do I feel sorry for hungry kids. Yes as not their fault. But the solution is what. Yes some poor parents put children first. These are the ones that will not go hungry. So many don't tho. So no idea how you can end child poverty with the way many parents are.

You give them another 2 hundred quid a week. You think the children will get the money that is meant for them. No chance it means the parents will be able to buy more drugs. Buy dearer booze instead of cheapest piss while now affording an extra few takeaways. Where the kids will still go to school hungry.

 

[pinnit2014]

How do you go about feeding hungry children tho. Sounds good to do it in principle .

But sadly the fault with majority of hungry children is the parents.

Parents on benefits may not be rich. But then taking into account what they actually receive they are no worse off than lower income working families. I have never been rich myself and had many a bad day when money was so tight, that's if I even had any but you know what never once did my boys go without food.

But it is the culture today in this country. Everyone pleads poverty and wants more. Fair enough don't we all.

But problem arises in most cases as most on benefits put themselves first. You notice most of the poorer people drink and smoke. I see it all the time. They are skint and cannot feed kids while getting emergency food delivered and going to food banks. Yet they can certainly go down to shops and get 20 fags and a drink.

Take Saturday when I was at a shop. A young boy asked his mum for a drink. He got a mouthful about how skint she was and he could wait till later when home. She then brought 20 fags and a tenner in scratchcards. And that's the normal for many.

Do I feel sorry for hungry kids. Yes as not their fault. But the solution is what. Yes some poor parents put children first. These are the ones that will not go hungry. So many don't tho. So no idea how you can end child poverty with the way many parents are.

You give them another 2 hundred quid a week. You think the children will get the money that is meant for them. No chance it means the parents will be able to buy more drugs. Buy dearer booze instead of cheapest piss while now affording an extra few takeaways. Where the kids will still go to school hungry.

It's why i bring you Yum Yum's now and then from Greggs- doing my socialist part - gotta feed the hungry Scots

Does Housing Benefit still get paid direct to the person to pay on? IMO that was one of the silliest things in recent years that was agreed - Rent Arrears shooting up as a result. Yet, to some people it was a surprise. Sure, some probably seen getting the money direct as a way of going to the supermarket etc if struggling but a decent chunk would have diverted it away by some 'less responsible' folk.

 

[megadam]

How do you go about feeding hungry children tho. Sounds good to do it in principle .

But sadly the fault with majority of hungry children is the parents.

Parents on benefits may not be rich. But then taking into account what they actually receive they are no worse off than lower income working families. I have never been rich myself and had many a bad day when money was so tight, that's if I even had any but you know what never once did my boys go without food.

But it is the culture today in this country. Everyone pleads poverty and wants more. Fair enough don't we all.

But problem arises in most cases as most on benefits put themselves first. You notice most of the poorer people drink and smoke. I see it all the time. They are skint and cannot feed kids while getting emergency food delivered and going to food banks. Yet they can certainly go down to shops and get 20 fags and a drink.

Take Saturday when I was at a shop. A young boy asked his mum for a drink. He got a mouthful about how skint she was and he could wait till later when home. She then brought 20 fags and a tenner in scratchcards. And that's the normal for many.

Do I feel sorry for hungry kids. Yes as not their fault. But the solution is what. Yes some poor parents put children first. These are the ones that will not go hungry. So many don't tho. So no idea how you can end child poverty with the way many parents are.

You give them another 2 hundred quid a week. You think the children will get the money that is meant for them. No chance it means the parents will be able to buy more drugs. Buy dearer booze instead of cheapest piss while now affording an extra few takeaways. Where the kids will still go to school hungry.

And that's the problem with @ChopleyIOM 's ideological socialist fantasy is that just because everybody gets the same or we give out even more help that all of a sudden people will start behaving or acting the same or being more fair. It won't happen as pointed above, some will use the money wisely, a majority of people won't because we have such deep-rooted fundamental issues with addiction, accessible drugs and other societal problems that fundamentally people will never escape from or get the support for.

Ultimately my belief if we want to start helping people more is to actually invest more in health and support services to help with the problems I noted above. Heck even fiscal responsibility is something that really should be consciously taught as part of an education given the times we're headed into :/

 

[ChopleyIOM]

And that's the problem with @ChopleyIOM 's ideological socialist fantasy is that just because everybody gets the same or we give out even more help that all of a sudden people will start behaving or acting the same or being more fair. It won't happen as pointed above, some will use the money wisely, a majority of people won't because we have such deep-rooted fundamental issues with addiction, accessible drugs and other societal problems that fundamentally people will never escape from or get the support for.

Ultimately my belief if we want to start helping people more is to actually invest more in health and support services to help with the problems I noted above. Heck even fiscal responsibility is something that really should be consciously taught as part of an education given the times we're headed into :/

It's why i bring you Yum Yum's now and then from Greggs- doing my socialist part - gotta feed the hungry Scots

Does Housing Benefit still get paid direct to the person to pay on? IMO that was one of the silliest things in recent years that was agreed - Rent Arrears shooting up as a result. Yet, to some people it was a surprise. Sure, some probably seen getting the money direct as a way of going to the supermarket etc if struggling but a decent chunk would have diverted it away by some 'less responsible' folk.

How do you go about feeding hungry children tho. Sounds good to do it in principle .

But sadly the fault with majority of hungry children is the parents.

Parents on benefits may not be rich. But then taking into account what they actually receive they are no worse off than lower income working families. I have never been rich myself and had many a bad day when money was so tight, that's if I even had any but you know what never once did my boys go without food.

But it is the culture today in this country. Everyone pleads poverty and wants more. Fair enough don't we all.

But problem arises in most cases as most on benefits put themselves first. You notice most of the poorer people drink and smoke. I see it all the time. They are skint and cannot feed kids while getting emergency food delivered and going to food banks. Yet they can certainly go down to shops and get 20 fags and a drink.

Take Saturday when I was at a shop. A young boy asked his mum for a drink. He got a mouthful about how skint she was and he could wait till later when home. She then brought 20 fags and a tenner in scratchcards. And that's the normal for many.

Do I feel sorry for hungry kids. Yes as not their fault. But the solution is what. Yes some poor parents put children first. These are the ones that will not go hungry. So many don't tho. So no idea how you can end child poverty with the way many parents are.

You give them another 2 hundred quid a week. You think the children will get the money that is meant for them. No chance it means the parents will be able to buy more drugs. Buy dearer booze instead of cheapest piss while now affording an extra few takeaways. Where the kids will still go to school hungry.

Yeah that's all cool, but the child is still hungry. We haven't fixed that that.

Free school dinners for those who need them, so every child gets at least one decent hot meal per day, and we carry on doing it in the holidays too.

Yeah OK it's gonna cost a few quid, however, no one ever gets to say 'Oh but who's going to pay for it', or 'Yeah OK Mr Socialist Utopia but we can't afford it' ever again.

If a Conservative chancellor can load up hundreds of billions of pounds of fresh government debt onto the UK taxpayer to give a massive handout to the already wealthy and massive corporations, on the off chance it might lead to some economic growth, don't anyone even dare to suggest that we can't afford to feed hungry children.

We can look at the root causes afterwards, better health care, better mental health services, better support structures, whatever it may be to get the parents into a more stable place, but for now we just feed the hungry children, and we absolutely can afford it.

The Tories had a magic money tree all along, they just weren't prepared to give it a shake if the fruits were going to fall into the hands of the less well off.

 

[paul7388]

Yeah that's all cool, but the child is still hungry. We haven't fixed that that.

Free school dinners for those who need them, so every child gets at least once decent hot meal per day, and we carry on doing it in the holidays too.

Yeah OK it's gonna cost a few quid, however, no one ever gets to say 'Oh but who's going to pay for it', or 'Yeah OK Mr Socialist Utopia but we can't afford it' ever again.

If a Conservative chancellor can load up hundreds of billions of pounds of fresh government debt onto the UK taxpayer to give a massive handout to the already wealthy and massive corporations, on the off chance it might lead to some economic growth, don't anyone even dare to suggest that we can't afford to feed hungry children.

We can look at the root causes afterwards, better health care, better mental health services, better support structures, whatever it may be to get the parents into a more stable place, but for now we just feed the hungry children, and we absolutely can afford it.

The Tories had a magic money tree all along, they just weren't prepared to give it a shake if the fruits were going to fall into the hands of the less well off.

Okay take Scotland. Every primary school child is entitled to free meals.

Even during school holidays the parents were gave vouchers to make sure kids were fed. You know what many sold them at discount prices to spend money on other things.

Sorry it is easy to report what you read online or view on certain media sources.

You yourself admit to like myself coming from a poor background. Difference is I still stay in a deprived city housing scheme. No offence but I see daily all the things you mention. People using food banks. Hungry kids . People having no power etc.

And you know what. Yes some do put kids first. Those are the ones that the kids will get fed no matter what. Like I always made sure my kids came first in bad days.

But sorry it might be hard to understand as you do not see it first hand. But for a simple fact. In my area alone I would guess that only say 1 out of 10 poor families actually use money to put kids first. The rest of them their money can buy fags drink or spend £20 plus a day on green yet they can't afford to eat.

So even if the government gave all these families a hundred pound extra every week on benefits do you really believe most of the hungry kids will get fed. Sorry but in reality they should but they will not.

Many parents would automatically buy dearer booze than the cheap piss they drink at moment. They would also squander the money then complain days later they were skint.

And as for people needing food banks like you have mentioned before. But sorry unless you see it every day first hand then you will never truly understand the reality. Maybe if you could go back to your roots for a year you would see. Some families desperately need money for kids through no fault of own. I would say more the working families that can not cope with bills and get no help.

The ones on benefits that use them. Well this is not a minority I am talking the majority. They are families that smoke. Drink and squander money. Many get their benefits and first thing they have to do is pay there tick bill for all the green they have ticked. They then get their drink and smoke every day. Then complain they have no money for essentials. Sorry that is so wrong.

So handing more money to people like that is a waste of time and funds.

You know only way you can make sure kids are fed and have power etc. Well only way is a way that would never be allowed . Instead of giving people hundreds a week in benefits. Do it in a way that helps them. Make sure so much can only be used on power. So much can only be used on food In their name. You get the drift. Make sure everything people needs is paid for the. And anything left they can squander. Yes it will never happen and never be allowed. Nor should it but in reality it is only way to guarantee benefits are used for the reason they are given.

 

[TheAddict]

So you expect to fix every single case of a child going hungry with the click of a few buttons and exchanges of numbers in bank accounts? jeez.

The mother of my neice is a degenerate whore who pops prescription pills, steals, lies, various illegsl drugs, strong cheap ass lager forthe afternoon is normal, and not only does she get alot of money in support due to having a child, she also has had her weekly shopping paid for and delivered, by my brother (her ex, who is now fighting for custody, which should have been an quickly open and shut case. But no, not in this clown world) so as to keep his child healthy when that degenerate c*** ran out of money, time and time again. It became fairly obvious that even by doing the fkng shopping and loading it in the useless c***s fridge, it mewnt she knew she could keep back more of her other benefits for herself.

You make it sound like they could have fixed everyones problems so quickly, Chop. My brother does more than throw money at her, he takes the food and puts it in the fridge. Other ths tie her up and feed them both, please tell me how much money and food is enough before she is satisfied with her take of it and there would also still be enough left for my neice to not go without. I'd appreciate it.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

But I'm not suggesting giving these people more money, I'm saying have the schools provide a decent hot meal to any child who needs one, and to also do that during the holidays.

No extra money changes hands so no opportunity for anything to get spent in the 'wrong way', child goes to school, child gets a decent hot meal. The service is also run during the holidays, so as a simple baseline, every child gets a proper meal at least once per day.

All the other (many) problems in society are far bigger fish to fry, and they absolutely should be addressed, and they need to be addressed, I'm talking specifically about getting a proper meal into the mouths of hungry children at least once per day, which is all the more important if their parents are pissed and stoned at home, spunking their money away on a load of shit.

The children didn't do anything wrong, they should still get their chance at a decent life, whatever the sins of their parents, a decent meal once per day won't fix everything, but it's a start, it's something.

 

[dunover]

So you expect to fix every single case of a child going hungry with the click of a few buttons and exchanges of numbers in bank accounts? jeez.

The mother of my neice is a degenerate whore who pops prescription pills, steals, lies, various illegsl drugs, strong cheap ass lager forthe afternoon is normal, and not only does she get alot of money in support due to having a child, she also has had her weekly shopping paid for and delivered, by my brother (her ex, who is now fighting for custody, which should have been an quickly open and shut case. But no, not in this clown world) so as to keep his child healthy when that degenerate c*** ran out of money, time and time again. It became fairly obvious that even by doing the fkng shopping and loading it in the useless c***s fridge, it mewnt she knew she could keep back more of her other benefits for herself.

You make it sound like they could have fixed everyones problems so quickly, Chop. My brother does more than throw money at her, he takes the food and puts it in the fridge. Other ths tie her up and feed them both, please tell me how much money and food is enough before she is satisfied with her take of it and there would also still be enough left for my neice to not go without. I'd appreciate it.

Well, that's socialism for you. In chopley's idealistic world everyone is equal and of equal ability so if wealth was shared equally 100% of the population would be happy. (Yes, we know the concept has starved and killed 100,000,000 people in just over a century, but they of flat-earth politics like him and Corbyn deny the history of failure and misery, Venezuela being the lastest example of a rich country descending into death, famine and deprivation under Corbyn's old pal Chavez.)

Socialism needs to take responsibility from people to function, and that goes against basic human nature. Of course, the unambitious, ignorant and lazy will love it as the state takes their decision-making and responsibility away from them, gives them their utopia. Alas it's doomed to failure as once this insiduous form of state control and power (always the objective of socialist politicians, making a majority of the citizens dependent) gets embedded, the irony becomes apparent immediately - those whom are able, have ideas, create and invent are dulled when the wealth they could have created never comes to fruition and the inevitable decline and impoverishment of socialism occurs.

There is of course one exception - when a country has natural resources to plunder and plug the wealth loss mentioned above - until they haven't.

The depressing thing about people like chopley is that there is no ethos in the modern history of mankind that has such numerous examples of failure - what is the saying again? Ah, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Yet still they blather on, always failing to win control as fortunately the majority of people are aware of this litany of failure.

He only has to go back 50 years when we had inefficient nationalised industries producing mainly crap nobody wanted, a 90% super-tax on the wealthy so they became tax exiles instead of bringing their money into the UK and spending it, inventors and businessmen didn't create wealth here, they fled abroad in the so-called 'brain drain'. People wouldn't invest here from abroad. The worker had to pay a 33% basic rate of tax. The list could go on...

I suppose you liken it to the comprehensive education ideals - the fantasy was it would improve lower-ability kids to compete with the more able, when all it did mostly was bring the more able ones down a level. Same as socialism does. When these ideas are mooted and enacted, 'gravity' always wins and standards fall for everyone.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Well, that's socialism for you. In chopley's idealistic world everyone is equal and of equal ability so if wealth was shared equally 100% of the population would be happy. (Yes, we know the concept has starved and killed 100,000,000 people in just over a century, but they of flat-earth politics like him and Corbyn deny the history of failure and misery, Venezuela being the lastest example of a rich country descending into death, famine and deprivation under Corbyn's old pal Chavez.)

Socialism needs to take responsibility from people to function, and that goes against basic human nature. Of course, the unambitious, ignorant and lazy will love it as the state takes their decision-making and responsibility away from them, gives them their utopia. Alas it's doomed to failure as once this insiduous form of state control and power (always the objective of socialist politicians, making a majority of the citizens dependent) gets embedded, the irony becomes apparent immediately - those whom are able, have ideas, create and invent are dulled when the wealth they could have created never comes to fruition and the inevitable decline and impoverishment of socialism occurs.

There is of course one exception - when a country has natural resources to plunder and plug the wealth loss mentioned above - until they haven't.

The depressing thing about people like chopley is that there is no ethos in the modern history of mankind that has such numerous examples of failure - what is the saying again? Ah, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Yet still they blather on, always failing to win control as fortunately the majority of people are aware of this litany of failure.

He only has to go back 50 years when we had inefficient nationalised industries producing mainly crap nobody wanted, a 90% super-tax on the wealthy so they became tax exiles instead of bringing their money into the UK and spending it, inventors and businessmen didn't create wealth here, they fled abroad in the so-called 'brain drain'. People wouldn't invest here from abroad. The worker had to pay a 33% basic rate of tax. The list could go on...

I suppose you liken it to the comprehensive education ideals - the fantasy was it would improve lower-ability kids to compete with the more able, when all it did mostly was bring the more able ones down a level. Same as socialism does. When these ideas are mooted and enacted, 'gravity' always wins and standards fall for everyone.

Literally all I'm advocating for here is feeding hungry children.

Meanwhile, in other news.

All that fresh government debt is getting very, very expensive.

 

[pinnit2014]

FSM during holidays? I seen that last year - a cash payment here in Scotland. The State's now a Corporate Parent - joyous days, indeed.

Think we'll leave it there - certainly this site, amongst people advocate for responsibility for gambling addictions or otherwise and the same can be said for Parenthood.

 

[Siohmy]

Have to say (as a lifetime Tory voter) the horseshit emanating from the current Government - no more windfall taxes, ridiculous borrowing, shoving more money and tax cuts at already rich folk - is somewhat dispiriting. All very reckless, and against the national interest. Putting future unborn generations into crippling debt.

They won't get the "growth" they are looking for because the structure of the economy is moribund and the people tired, mostly broke and unmotivated. They'll just add fuel to inflation and pad some peoples' bank accounts.

But the answer isn't useless Labour. I'll die before I ever vote for a woke red rosette.

Officially politically homeless now.

Pretty much sums up my position as well. The economic line being taken is appalling but have also never felt more powerless to do anything about it.

 

[goatwack]

Pardon my insolence but I'm still stuck on the Lewisham schoolkid story, like Frogger going side-to-side on the first log.

Going by that article's meagre context, families have to qualify to be in receipt of free school meals (seen it, done it) after which they're handed a glorified 'stub' to redeem at the till. This entitles one to a pretty reasonably sized main, with even a dessert of sorts (usually whatever they've cobbled up, aka sponge cake plonked amidst a sea of cold lumpy custard).

So if not eligible for the free school meal, then it would stand to reason that the parents are of a suitably adequate income to provide their kids with meals for the day? And yet, going by the Lewisham tale, the kid went 'hungry' regardless, which, let it be said, is not of his own making, but his parents'.

Seemingly the narrative appears to be 'screw personal accountability, the state owes me <something>' and the general feeling that schools and governments not only 'parent' children, but provide their daily sustenance too!

I'd wager in a case as 'severe' as the kid simulating eating out of an empty lunchbox the school would more than likely provide food, and dinner ladies have been known to give out the day's remains at the end, as opposed to chucking them anyway.

The whole notion that children in this country are impoverished and starved by the state is complete tripe, and the construct of some Guardian blogger's mind after having read about it on Wikipedia

 

[pinnit2014]

GIRFEC, a scheme proposed by the Scottish Government was scrapped several years ago - basically the kid would have, essentially, a corporate parent in a public sector body (yes, even as i write this, is sounds insane) - but that's what IMO FSM in summer time (here's me thinking, as i sat here, i have a responsibility to feed my kid, not the taxpayers of the country)

On another note - millions was poured into this by a Socialist Government who didn't even think to double check it with the ECHR ?

An interesting quote by one of the groups that brought the legal challenge was that 'the responsibility for monitoring the childs wellbeing is a role for the parent, not the state' - something that is lost within the blinkered in this thread.

 

[dunover]

Pardon my insolence but I'm still stuck on the Lewisham schoolkid story, like Frogger going side-to-side on the first log.

Going by that article's meagre context, families have to qualify to be in receipt of free school meals (seen it, done it) after which they're handed a glorified 'stub' to redeem at the till. This entitles one to a pretty reasonably sized main, with even a dessert of sorts (usually whatever they've cobbled up, aka sponge cake plonked amidst a sea of cold lumpy custard).

So if not eligible for the free school meal, then it would stand to reason that the parents are of a suitably adequate income to provide their kids with meals for the day? And yet, going by the Lewisham tale, the kid went 'hungry' regardless, which, let it be said, is not of his own making, but his parents'.

Seemingly the narrative appears to be 'screw personal accountability, the state owes me <something>' and the general feeling that schools and governments not only 'parent' children, but provide their daily sustenance too!

I'd wager in a case as 'severe' as the kid simulating eating out of an empty lunchbox the school would more than likely provide food, and dinner ladies have been known to give out the day's remains at the end, as opposed to chucking them anyway.

The whole notion that children in this country are impoverished and starved by the state is complete tripe, and the construct of some Guardian blogger's mind after having read about it on Wikipedia

You lucky sod! Beats my pigeon gruel with lumpy mash and afters cold blancmange drowning in a pool of subliming powder-jelly. On Fridays a bowl of semolina which resembled anaemic vomit but you would eat the miniscule dollop of strawberry jam splodged into the centre.

Probably helped explain why fat kids when I went to both primary and secondary school were as rare as Bonanza 1000x's

 

[pinnit2014]

I actually used to look forward for the 'frog spawn' days of desert

Fridays was chips and sausage roll day - now they churn out green stuff apparently - no sane human wants that

 

[ChopleyIOM]

You lucky sod! Beats my pigeon gruel with lumpy mash and afters cold blancmange drowning in a pool of subliming powder-jelly. On Fridays a bowl of semolina which resembled anaemic vomit but you would eat the miniscule dollop of strawberry jam splodged into the centre.

Probably helped explain why fat kids when I went to both primary and secondary school were as rare as Bonanza 1000x's

Meanwhile, back in the real world, several large UK lenders have stopped offering mortgages.

The Tories are trashing the UK's economy in real time.

They don't get to play the 'party of economic competence' card ever again.

Also, the UK government and the Bank of England are now, effectively, working against each other.

 

[interlog]

Shock horror, an independent bank is doing what it is supposed to do.

If it didn't, it would have been accused that Kwarteng had influenced them, the corrupt so and so that he is.

 

[pinnit2014]

Poster in Bonanza thread - no evidence, nothing to see here, you cretins

Poster in this thread - no evidence, nudge nudge wink wink, something to see here

Odd to say the least

 

[interlog]

In the meantime, in the USA the interest rate sits at 4% in order to curb inflation.

That partially resulted in the $ become so much stronger as it is more attractive to invest in it.

Currencies such as the £ and euro and others have suffered as a result of it

 

[goatwack]

I've yet to see the Bank of England strongarm my bank into raising its savings rates. I'm starting to think Truss and Kwarteng are actively pocketing at least 35p p/m off me, the w*nkers

 

[interlog]

Block of text (anybody can lift stuff):

The Fed raised the federal funds rate by 75 bps to the 3%-3.25% range during its September meeting, the third straight three-quarter point increase and pushing borrowing costs to the highest since 2008. Policymakers also anticipate that ongoing increases in the target range will be appropriate which was reinforced by Chair Powell during the press conference. “We have got to get inflation behind us. I wish there were a painless way to do that. There isn’t”. The so-called dot plot showed interest rates will likely reach 4.4% by December, above 3.4% projected in June, and rise to 4.6% next year. Meanwhile, GDP growth forecasts were revised lower to show a 0.2% expansion this year, compared to 1.7% seen in June and 1.2% in 2023, below 1.7% seen in June. Inflation as measured by PCE is seen to reach 5.4% in 2022 (5.2% projected in June) and 2.8% in 2023 (vs 2.6%). The unemployment rate was also revised slightly higher to 3.8% (vs 3.7%) this year and 4.4% (vs 3.9%) next year​

Source:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[interlog]

Queue the next post:

"But but, look at those bees"....... or words to that effect

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Block of text (anybody can lift stuff):

The Fed raised the federal funds rate by 75 bps to the 3%-3.25% range during its September meeting, the third straight three-quarter point increase and pushing borrowing costs to the highest since 2008. Policymakers also anticipate that ongoing increases in the target range will be appropriate which was reinforced by Chair Powell during the press conference. “We have got to get inflation behind us. I wish there were a painless way to do that. There isn’t”. The so-called dot plot showed interest rates will likely reach 4.4% by December, above 3.4% projected in June, and rise to 4.6% next year. Meanwhile, GDP growth forecasts were revised lower to show a 0.2% expansion this year, compared to 1.7% seen in June and 1.2% in 2023, below 1.7% seen in June. Inflation as measured by PCE is seen to reach 5.4% in 2022 (5.2% projected in June) and 2.8% in 2023 (vs 2.6%). The unemployment rate was also revised slightly higher to 3.8% (vs 3.7%) this year and 4.4% (vs 3.9%) next year​

Source:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

So the UK government announcing that it was taking on hundreds of billions of pounds of fresh government debt, with no plan of how to pay it back apart from 'growth', has had nothing do with it whatsoever? Gotcha!

It's a bit like your 'Nothing To Do With Brexit' line, now we can add 'Nothing To Do With What The Government Is Doing' into the mix as well.

The markets are being absolutely clear about this, this is a direct reaction to the insane announcement Kwarteng made last Friday. Cause and effect.

 

[interlog]

So the UK government announcing that it was taking on hundreds of billions of pounds of fresh government debt, with no plan of how to pay it back apart from 'growth', has had nothing do with it whatsoever? Gotcha!

It's a bit like your 'Nothing To Do With Brexit' line, now we can add 'Nothing To Do With What The Government Is Doing' into the mix as well.

The markets are being absolutely clear about this, this is a direct reaction to the insane announcement Kwarteng made last Friday. Cause and effect.

So how do you explain all those other currencies plummeting against the dollar then since the USA sharply raised its interest rates.

You do what you always do. When you have a bee in the bonnet about something you dig up whatever you can find and then put that as the blame, when if you were to look at the bigger picture there are more things that had an effect.

It was you blaming Brexit for the long queues in Dover. If that was the case, then where are those queues now?

 

[pinnit2014]

No point in engaging with him tbh - he has a view, he sticks to it (well, i say his view - more Twitters) - so if some people, in a particular area with first hand experience (rather than a Guardian Journalist, fresh out of Uni), it's dismissed. Rather than questions/ask 'what you think' all you get is crtl-c, crtl-v posts.

 

[dunover]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, several large UK lenders have stopped offering mortgages.

The Tories are trashing the UK's economy in real time.

They don't get to play the 'party of economic competence' card ever again.

View attachment 173091

Also, the UK government and the Bank of England are now, effectively, working against each other.

View attachment 173092

Oh dear god in heaven chopley! WTF do you expect any competent bank to do??? Lend irresponsibly (like before the free-for-all collapse under Gordon Brown which triggered 10 years of austerity) or do the right thing and suspend fixed-rate lending products just for a few DAYS while the B of E decides how much interest rates will go up by??? Remember it's FIXED mortgages that need adjusting (those that get the fees paid!!) not variable rate ones which automatically track the base rate daily. So it's not ALL mortgages suspended!

You know, not offering fixed-priced deals for the product they are supplying (money) for the same reason as energy companies (wisely) have stopped doing it for electric and gas since the price fluctuations and rises.

Common sense mate. You'd be the first to piss, moan and point the finger if the banks lent billions at 3% when the next day the interest rates rose 2% and bust them, leading to another Brown-like crisis. "THE CAPITALIST INCOMPETENT WANKERS! THEY KNEW THE RATES WERE GOING UP IMMINENTLY AND YET THEY PROCEEDED TO LEND BILLIONS JUST BEFORE....NEVER WOULD'VE HAPPENED UNDER LABOUR"

 

[ChopleyIOM]

So how do you explain all those other currencies plummeting against the dollar then since the USA sharply raised its interest rates.

You do what you always do. When you have a bee in the bonnet about something you dig up whatever you can find and then put that as the blame, when if you were to look at the bigger picture there are more things that had an effect.

It was you blaming Brexit for the long queues in Dover. If that was the case, then where are those queues now?

But it doesn't have to be entirely one thing or the other, like with the queues at Dover, the extra Brexit checks made an already difficult situation worse and tipped it over the edge, we literally had this conversation in the Brexit thread. There have been further delays, on and off, since then, but they haven't tended to get much coverage in the news.

So in this case, yes the strength of the dollar has put pressures on many currencies, but to suggest that Kwarteng's batshit mini-budget has had zero effect (particularly on UK gilts and borrowing costs) on the situation, especially when the markets are explicitly stating that it has, is kind of just denying reality.

Just last Friday folks in this very thread were expressing their delight at what a massive shot in the arm the mini-budget would be for UK Plc, but now it's had the opposite effect all of a sudden it's, 'Bugger all to do with the mini-budget mate, it's the dollar's fault'.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Oh dear god in heaven chopley! WTF do you expect any competent bank to do??? Lend irresponsibly (like before the free-for-all collapse under Gordon Brown which triggered 10 years of austerity) or do the right thing and suspend fixed-rate lending products just for a few DAYS while the B of E decides how much interest rates will go up by??? Remember it's FIXED mortgages that need adjusting (those that get the fees paid!!) not variable rate ones which automatically track the base rate daily. So it's not ALL mortgages suspended!

You know, not offering fixed-priced deals for the product they are supplying (money) for the same reason as energy companies (wisely) have stopped doing it for electric and gas since the price fluctuations and rises.

Common sense mate. You'd be the first to piss, moan and point the finger if the banks lent billions at 3% when the next day the interest rates rose 2% and bust them, leading to another Brown-like crisis. "THE CAPITALIST INCOMPETENT WANKERS! THEY KNEW THE RATES WERE GOING UP IMMINENTLY AND YET THEY PROCEEDED TO LEND BILLIONS JUST BEFORE....NEVER WOULD'VE HAPPENED UNDER LABOUR"

Yes and why is the BoE having to look at an emergency rise in interest rates within a couple of weeks of its last raise? Because Kwarteng's psycho mini-budget has put the UK, its currency and its debts into the loony bin and the international markets are responding appropriately.

Because guess what, committing to hundreds of billions of pounds of fresh government debt, with no plan of how to pay it back, and using the money to enrich the already super-rich and corporations (who'll just squirrel it away) doesn't look like a great plan for economic growth.

 

[dunover]

Pardon my insolence but I'm still stuck on the Lewisham schoolkid story, like Frogger going side-to-side on the first log.

Going by that article's meagre context, families have to qualify to be in receipt of free school meals (seen it, done it) after which they're handed a glorified 'stub' to redeem at the till. This entitles one to a pretty reasonably sized main, with even a dessert of sorts (usually whatever they've cobbled up, aka sponge cake plonked amidst a sea of cold lumpy custard).

So if not eligible for the free school meal, then it would stand to reason that the parents are of a suitably adequate income to provide their kids with meals for the day? And yet, going by the Lewisham tale, the kid went 'hungry' regardless, which, let it be said, is not of his own making, but his parents'.

Seemingly the narrative appears to be 'screw personal accountability, the state owes me <something>' and the general feeling that schools and governments not only 'parent' children, but provide their daily sustenance too!

I'd wager in a case as 'severe' as the kid simulating eating out of an empty lunchbox the school would more than likely provide food, and dinner ladies have been known to give out the day's remains at the end, as opposed to chucking them anyway.

The whole notion that children in this country are impoverished and starved by the state is complete tripe, and the construct of some Guardian blogger's mind after having read about it on Wikipedia

Yes, @ChopleyIOM has still not provided any authenticity to this anecdote, no context. Because he cannot. Because he's yet again copied and pasted someone else's 'facts' who also cannot authenticate the allegation.

I'm sure the BBC will investigate it though if one of their tacit cronies uses it to set a false agenda story they can thus latch onto under the guise of 'news' justified by the fact it has exceeded the qualifying amount of retwats.

Cue the TV cameras entering a council flat in Lewisham:

Obese single parent probably of migrant origin, sitting on the sofa, two misbehaving Staffies running about, piled-up ash tray balanced on the arm practising her best teary-eyed look for the cameras while relating her tragic story of deprivation to the sympathetic reporter. Flat screen TV paused in the background with Trisha in view, her smartphone vibrating away clasped in her inked fingers. Claims can't get a job because the benefits will penalise her, and the tax cuts won't help because she doesn't pay any, plus she wants to watch her kids grow up. A quickly prepared show of compassion as her kids join her on the sofa, already 3 stone overweight each, and then as she lights another Mayfair up she mentions Christmas and the things she would love to buy them, at which point they look to the floor and her crocodile tears start falling. Now the BBC have their 'money shot' and pack up and leave, not recording the now-muffled shouts of parental discipline following them down the corridor "Right yer pair of FUCKERS I just fuckin' told ya I ain't doin' no cooking today, leave me in fucking peace for once ya little shits, can't you fuck-off out or summat!?"

 

[pinnit2014]

I'll be more amazed when a BBC article doesn't have a spelling mistake - are the left being to to forsake it? That's the real crime here.

 

[goatwack]

I still shudder at news snippets compiled by another blogger yearnalist wannabe, citing the country of Hungary in its text. Except they'd spelt it as 'Hungry', several times throughout.

Seems apt given the (now defunct) topic we had been discussing. I'd love to say it was a BBC article, but it was more likely the Daily Mail. They do try though, bless 'em

 

[pinnit2014]

'The Hungry Child' i've heard so much about is now an entire country?

I feel foolish now - lets get 'em the Egg McMuffin's, pronto!

 

[interlog]

Oh dear god in heaven chopley! WTF do you expect any competent bank to do??? Lend irresponsibly (like before the free-for-all collapse under Gordon Brown which triggered 10 years of austerity) or do the right thing and suspend fixed-rate lending products just for a few DAYS while the B of E decides how much interest rates will go up by??? Remember it's FIXED mortgages that need adjusting (those that get the fees paid!!) not variable rate ones which automatically track the base rate daily. So it's not ALL mortgages suspended!

You know, not offering fixed-priced deals for the product they are supplying (money) for the same reason as energy companies (wisely) have stopped doing it for electric and gas since the price fluctuations and rises.

Common sense mate. You'd be the first to piss, moan and point the finger if the banks lent billions at 3% when the next day the interest rates rose 2% and bust them, leading to another Brown-like crisis. "THE CAPITALIST INCOMPETENT WANKERS! THEY KNEW THE RATES WERE GOING UP IMMINENTLY AND YET THEY PROCEEDED TO LEND BILLIONS JUST BEFORE....NEVER WOULD'VE HAPPENED UNDER LABOUR"

What a load of bollocks.

Did you not know that those banks didn't receive the memo from Kwarteng asking them to continue offering the low rate mortages so that they could scew the underclass so that each employee could get their £1m (up from £500k) bonus this year.

 

[dunover]

 

[ChopleyIOM]

The polling hasn't looked good for the Tories for a while now, but they've plumbed new depths in the last few days, turns out folks aren't impressed with a mini-budget that nakedly aims to make the rich even richer, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, whilst loading fresh government debt onto everyone else, causing interest rates to spike and the pound to crash.

I said a few days ago I'd put Truss's chances of making it to the next general election as 50/50, but I suspect those odds have shortened already, the Tories are nothing if not ruthless when it comes to ejecting a loser - and Truss is very much looking like a loser right now.

Labour are starting to put together meaningful policies now, some good stuff coming out of their conference this week so far, and the Tories have given them an attack line on the economy beyond their wildest dreams. (Is Truss on the Labour party payroll? Questions need to be asked.)

Let's see what happens, we need to have a general election in the next two years, my personal feeling is that the Tories have shagged it already, but maybe this supposed economic miracle will actually happen and they can turn it around, but it's not something I'd be having a bet on.

Bloody hell though, I knew Truss would be bad (and said as much), but I couldn't have possibly imagined she would screw the pooch as biblically as this inside of three weeks, and most of that was taken up by the Queen's death and period of mourning.

I do sometimes wonder who the 28% are when it comes to polls like this, like, who looks at the absolute embarrassment of an administration we have at the moment and thinks, 'Yeah sure, I'd vote for more of that' - still, that's democracy!

 

[goatwack]

I can see Labour making inroads at the next General Election, perhaps swagging a seat or two in smatterings across the land. Still can't see them wrestle the Tories from power in its entirety, however. Certainly not with Starmer at the helm, nor his gobby sidekick.

And say what you will about empty promises and fairytale manifestos, the electorate will always be swayed by somewhat likeable or seemingly relatable personas, of which Labour currently have none. Failing that, a politician's outlined vision could be boring as hell, yet most would rather see things play out in its entirety before condemning them to the land of political has- beens.

This is why people are watching things unfold before casting aspersions, a la Truss & co. Chances are they may well get ousted before long, or it may be that they end up doing a fairly decent patch job, given all the UK - and the world - has just been through with the deadly Brexit.

I'd imagine the Tories' constant personnel shift must look like a demented game of musical chairs to those not of a conservative persuasion, and seemingly one disconnected, insular elite being swapped for another on a whim. Yet for all their cronyism and indistinguishable traits, they're STILL favoured by the electorate when all is said and done, mainly because Labour's gang are about as likeable as dysentery ?‍

Time will tell, of course, but I shan't be holding my breath at a Labour power-swoop, given that they, I dunno, seemingly struggle with defining what a woman is, as an example. Or trash-talk by calling their political opponents 'scum' and so forth. A sure-fire election-winner if ever I saw it!

 

[Matti]

But it doesn't have to be entirely one thing or the other, like with the queues at Dover, the extra Brexit checks made an already difficult situation worse and tipped it over the edge, we literally had this conversation in the Brexit thread. There have been further delays, on and off, since then, but they haven't tended to get much coverage in the news.

So in this case, yes the strength of the dollar has put pressures on many currencies, but to suggest that Kwarteng's batshit mini-budget has had zero effect (particularly on UK gilts and borrowing costs) on the situation, especially when the markets are explicitly stating that it has, is kind of just denying reality.

Just last Friday folks in this very thread were expressing their delight at what a massive shot in the arm the mini-budget would be for UK Plc, but now it's had the opposite effect all of a sudden it's, 'Bugger all to do with the mini-budget mate, it's the dollar's fault'.

Obviously the Brexiteers had a cunning plan to make true Britons so relatively poor that they would never be able to afford to leave for other countries...

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Obviously the Brexiteers had a cunning plan to make true Britons so relatively poor that they would never be able to afford to leave for other countries...

Ahhh no you see, there's a special technique that I have learned from the Leaver Community, if anything bad happens that seems to have a credible connection to Brexit in some capacity, the answer is 'Nothing To Do With Brexit Mate' and this fixes everything, it's like magic.

We also have a new one to use, and that is 'Nothing To Do With What The Government Is Doing Mate'.

If you combine these two statements, you have created a force of denial so strong it can actually alter the flow of time.

Brexit and the UK Government are both paradoxes, in that they were/are lauded as incredibly powerful forces of change that simultaneously seem to be incapable of making any change to anything.

Now this might change if either of them ever does anything good, however, this is not a scenario that has occurred up to now and in honesty I very much suspect it never will. It's like watching a massive great dog shit sat in the middle of your lounge and remaining optimistic that eventually it will get up and do the dishes for you.

The smart thing to do, of course, is clear the shit up. We're not at that point yet though.

 

[dunover]

I can see Labour making inroads at the next General Election, perhaps swagging a seat or two in smatterings across the land. Still can't see them wrestle the Tories from power in its entirety, however. Certainly not with Starmer at the helm, nor his gobby sidekick.

And say what you will about empty promises and fairytale manifestos, the electorate will always be swayed by somewhat likeable or seemingly relatable personas, of which Labour currently have none. Failing that, a politician's outlined vision could be boring as hell, yet most would rather see things play out in its entirety before condemning them to the land of political has- beens.

This is why people are watching things unfold before casting aspersions, a la Truss & co. Chances are they may well get ousted before long, or it may be that they end up doing a fairly decent patch job, given all the UK - and the world - has just been through with the deadly Brexit.

I'd imagine the Tories' constant personnel shift must look like a demented game of musical chairs to those not of a conservative persuasion, and seemingly one disconnected, insular elite being swapped for another on a whim. Yet for all their cronyism and indistinguishable traits, they're STILL favoured by the electorate when all is said and done, mainly because Labour's gang are about as likeable as dysentery ?‍

Time will tell, of course, but I shan't be holding my breath at a Labour power-swoop, given that they, I dunno, seemingly struggle with defining what a woman is, as an example. Or trash-talk by calling their political opponents 'scum' and so forth. A sure-fire election-winner if ever I saw it!

I think Labour will win easily, barring a miracle. The 80-seat majority won by Johnson includes about 30-odd traditional Labour seats 'borrowed' to get Brexit completed. In reality the 'normal' majority they have is about 20-25 seats. The high point was winning the Hartlepool by-election a few months after the 2019 GE (traditonal Lab seat they took with a 6500 majority) when the locals were celebrating around the giant Johnson inflatable. That was their high point, must've been a crushing image for Labour. Regardless of policies, losing Johnson's charisma and persona and ability to outdo Starmer across the floor in the commons will be costly. The Tories simply don't have the personalities now, very robotic and anonymous front bench. Labour will not even need to be very good to win, which is worrying. There is the chance they could end up not quite winning and we get the nightmare scenario of a Starmer-Krankie govt.

Notwithstanding the above, there is administration fatigue anyway, with what will have been 14 years of Tory-led govt. by the time 2024 comes around, comparable to 18 years from 1979-1997 which when finally ended resulted in Labour wins, ending in the Brown disaster after 11 years.