Murphy saying their might be another plan - i guess this is the problem with speculation.
I'm going with the Q/E approach as a guess - they won't announce it as such.
Thanks for the heads up. Doesn’t sound like they’re giving him much time though!
Squeezed in at 12:50 ish.
You can call it "speculation", but the media are responding to....
...the usual drip-drip of a few different versions of the help supposedly coming into the usual media outlets? They’re still doing the whole ‘See what sticks’ thing that plays o the popular mood rather than what actually needs to be done.
We'll end up with the government paying. What's key is to make sure that that money doesn't end up as profits in the pocket of the oil and gas companies... or if it does, that it is taxed back to be used somewhere more useful. That's the test for Truss... and if she's pushed hard enough hopefully she'll bend to accommodate it, to try and not be yet another short term Conservative PM.
They’re not over-reactions, they’re deliberate attempts (by one poster in particular) to cancel the views and opinions of anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
Well yeah - but I'm trying to stand back from it as I just find it facile.
You can call it “speculation”, but the media are responding to….
You mean they're testing the waters with ideas deliberately.
On her way home,I wonder if she's dropping in for a chat with the First Minister?
It would be nice to clear the air and get off to a good start.
Well yeah
Who is "cancelling" which views, and which opinions?
You mean they’re testing the waters with ideas deliberately.
Sure looks like it. Same old. Plenty of opportunity to push them towards something that isn't just subsidising fossil fuel energy producers. We'll see...
You mean they’re testing the waters with ideas deliberately.
Its a standard tory practice with their client journalists. Have a "source close to" say something and then see how the public responds. If positive then the "close to" can announce it but if not there is no come back for the anonymous handler and they can feed their agent something else to try.
I got collared by some NIMBY in Devises while popping into a local shop last week asking me to sign a petition to oppose a Solar Farm near there.
My usual response is "Well you want the lights to come on when you press the switch, don't you? So do your bit."
John Crace absolutely on the money in the Guardian. As ever…
https://twitter.com/johnjcrace/status/1566851843950608384?s=21&t=RIX_K5PUmRN36sMInSWuDQ
There is not a single tory mp who wants to help " the commin person" if they wanted to help they would not be a tory
The tory partys only reason for existence is to keep power and wealth in the hands of the powerful and wealthy. Some might pretend and some might offer a few more crumbs to the poor but not one of them actually wants to improve the lot of the masses.
To do so is incompatible with being a tory.
Name a single thing any tory has ever done that improves the life of the less well off.
Its a standard tory practice with their client journalists. Have a “source close to” say something and then see how the public responds. If positive then the “close to” can announce it but if not there is no come back for the anonymous handler and they can feed their agent something else to try.
Yes that makes sense - but they ought to know a loan based programme of support is not going to go down that well!
You mean they’re testing the waters with ideas deliberately.
Kite-flying is now just standard. Whenever Kuensberg on the BBC quoted ‘a source close to government’ or ‘a Downing Street source’, everyone and his dog knew she meant she’d been fed a line by Dominic Cummings to try out on the public and see if it flies, while all remaining deniable by Downing Street
Nuffing to do with us guv. No idea where you got that from…
Cummings has gone but this is just how everything is now done in number 10
As Malcolm Tucker used to say: “run it up the flagpole and see who gets wood’
Who is “cancelling” which views, and which opinions?
I'm not entirely sure what the difference is here between "cancelling" and "disagreeing," can someone help me out?
Cougar
Full Member
Who is “cancelling” which views, and which opinions?I’m not entirely sure what the difference is here between “cancelling” and “disagreeing,” can someone help me out?
😆 good point.
Some of you lot must be useless at interviewing people, "It says here that you robbed the last place you work at, at gunpoint. Fortunately for you I don't believe in "predicting the future" and I firmly believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. So lets give you a shot and see how you turn out. Oh by the way, can you remove the ski mask so we can get your work ID picture taken?"
Name a single thing any tory has ever done that improves the life of the less well off.
Lost an election.
Yes that makes sense – but they ought to know a loan based programme of support is not going to go down that well!
Normal negotiation though. Start low and then work your way up to a better offer. You never know you might get lucky with the dodgy offer and if they dont bite that, of course, is where the "source" approach comes in useful. It wasnt you whose name is against it but an anonymous "source" so you can try again without reprecussions.
So I'm going with the new offer doing the rounds - paid back with pretend taxation. (Meaning not paid back.)
All good by me for the time-being as that will be done with Q/E or whatever.
It validates MMT yet again offering a lens for prescriptive decisions that can be used in government. And that you don't need taxation or borrowing to come first.
The Tories beat Labour in my opinion with their understanding of this. Sure they will scream about tax rises in the future but that will only ever be to control money supply.
All you need to know when the private sector fails the government can plug the gap with new money creation to a point.
It's not all the answers but it's an immediate fix.
Still want more details though.
Normal negotiation though. Start low and then work your way up to a better offer.
Right-o.
I’m not entirely sure what the difference is here between “cancelling” and “disagreeing,” can someone help me out?
I would say that attempts at backseat moderation and relentless personal attacks are a better fit for "cancelling" than "disagreeing".
https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1566703707542126594?s=20&t=A7a2tnt1PuYP52lmm8-G_w
Well really?
I'm not sure I agree with the 'give lizz a chance' ultra far-right crowd on here.
She might be less diabolical or more diabolical than sunak /Johnson /insert other diabolical tory here... But it will still be utterly diabolical and a complete shit show and we all know it.
attempts at backseat moderation and relentless personal attacks
Oh, is this just about some people (including myself) moaning when the same few posters seem to want make every single political thread the same? Report our moaning if you like. All a bit handbags at dawn claiming that anyone is trying to cancel anything though.
rone
Full Member
It validates MMT yet again
It only validates MMT if you ignore the inflation we are also facing. Which is just as big a problem.
The further fall in the pound that’s likely it come doesn’t invalidate MMT, it’s a just a reminder that you can’t create money without negative effects unless you also pull some other strings…
Have you noticed inflation? It doesn’t validate MMT at all.
Don't be ridiculous.
MMT is a description of the way government spending works - and too much government spending can be controlled by taxation.
We havent had too much government spending - hence everyrone is skint and the economoy is shrinking.
We have inflation on the supply side. This can't be fixed by MMT based tools directly but MMT identifies the issue.
Inflation is much much more than too much money chasing too few goods. In fact look at the "too few goods part" of the ditty.
'Cancelling': insults, ridicule, ad homs, name-calling, moans
'Disagreeing': alternative evidence, arguments, analysis, comment
Not that difficult, is it?
The further fall in the pound that’s likely it come doesn’t invalidate MMT, it’s a just a reminder that you can’t create money without negative effects unless you also pull some other strings…
The fall in the pound is directly controlled by the buying and selling within the market place. There are massive issues at play here that you can't really extrapolate - certainly not government spending in isolation so simply.
That £ has been falling way way before government did big spend via Q/E.
America spends plenty of government money too.
If moaning is cancelling… forums are dead.
America spends plenty of government money too.
The dollar is quite different to all other currencies.
Are comments getting deleted? If not, I can't see how anyone could be accused of cancelling anything (other than maybe the usual suspects cancelling my enjoyment of yet another would-be interesting thread)
I would say that attempts at backseat moderation and relentless personal attacks are a better fit for “cancelling” than “disagreeing”.
We don't need backseat moderation as we have frontseat moderation. The moderation team will also deal with any "relentless personal attacks" you care to report.
‘Cancelling’: insults, ridicule, ad homs, name-calling, moans
‘Disagreeing’: alternative evidence, arguments, analysis, comment
It's funny, if it were the other way round they'd probably be screaming "snowflake" or "triggered" right about now.
I’m not sure I agree with the ‘give lizz a chance’ ultra far-right crowd on here.
There's no point taking a loaded position before she enacts anything - you will have the ammo you need when she's actually done something.
I'm pretty far on the left.
…they are clearly hoping that Truss will prove to be worse than Johnson.
Apparently it will be good for Labour.
But isn’t “least worst option” the whole basis of how political parties, policy, legislation etc. currently gets voted upon? Certainly since around the time, or just before the whole Brexit campaign started, rather than appealing to voters based on policy and merit, politicians from all sides seem to have fallen into a “at least we’re not as bad as those lot” style of campaigning.
There’s no point taking a loaded position before she enacts anything
I’m pretty far on the left.
I assumed the "far-right" tag was a tongue in cheek joke.
Our new PM is not a clean slate... she has been in government longer than anyone... she was part of the cabinet delivering all "this" going on around us now. The MPs that will vote with her from here on are already known, we've seen what they are like. By all means "wait and see", but, personally, I've seen enough already and want her, and as many of her MPs as possible, out asap. She'll get no benefit of the doubt from me. May her time as PM be cut as short as possible.
I haven’t compared her voting record to anyone else’s and I’ve no idea whether this information is being presented in any kind of a biased fashion but I found this to be interesting:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24941/elizabeth_truss/south_west_norfolk/votes
And ultimately I would say in my opinion her voting record is toxic to the larger part of society. Possibly says as much about me, but hey ho…
you will have the ammo you need when she’s actually done something.
Yeah it seems like childish tribalism to attack someone for no other reason than the fact that they are a Tory. It's not particularly smart and is unlikely to impress anyone.
In contrast having a focused analytical attack on specific policies whilst offering credible carefully thought out counterproposals is likely to be more productive.
Furthermore as the saying goes that even a broken clock is correct twice a day there is no guarantee that everything a Tory politician does is always wrong on every occasion. EG not everything Johnson did during the pandemic was wrong, thankfully.
No lack of demand for Gilts in £££
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1567096762845876224?s=20&t=A7a2tnt1PuYP52lmm8-G_w
It's not borrowing as such - but hey can't have everything correct.
Yeah it seems like childish tribalism to attack someone for no other reason than the fact that they are a Tory. It’s not particularly smart and is unlikely to impress anyone.
Impress? You think people are insulting Liz to try and impress you? 🙂
Being critical of a new PM on day one isn't childish tribalism, it's a reflection of her shit record as a minister.
But isn’t “least worst option” the whole basis of how political parties, policy, legislation etc. currently gets voted upon?
Is it time for DNA's 'lizard' theory again?
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/162557-it-comes-from-a-very-ancient-democracy-you-see-you
On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in.
there is no guarantee that everything a Tory politician does is always wrong on every occasion.
A ringing endorsement, indeed.
You think people are insulting Liz to try and impress you?
Not at all. I assume that people who are consumed by hatred of Tories and their supporters would like to win over people to their way of thinking, so presumably the intention is to impress someone. Otherwise what is the point - group self-help support?
Not at all.
Who, then, do you think they're trying to impress?
Yeah it seems like childish tribalism to attack someone for no other reason than the fact that they are a Tory.
She does not hide what she is and what she believes in. Her and her far right mates wrote it down in a book.
She wants to take away peoples rights, reduce taxes(services), and give more money to the rich people.
Besides, I am quite entitled to attack any Tory, they are constantly attacking me and this Country, with this shit show they have created.
Who, then, do you think they’re trying to impress?
I used the word "anyone".
Yeah it seems like childish tribalism to attack someone for no other reason than the fact that they are a Tory.
You make it sound as if she’s just burst out of an egg, pure, unsullied, and ready to start a new dawn. We’ve seen her in government for, what, 12 10 years?
Lots of work for her to do if she wants to change our already formed view of her, and her government’s record… and by “our”, I don’t mean mine, I mean the public…
https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1567107622163079170?s=21
https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1566753904842477569?s=21
We’ve seen her in government for, what, 12 years?
Which is why I have repeatedly said that for me her replacing Johnson represents a serious setback.
I don't however see the point of attack her for what she has done in the last 12 years. She is now PM, she should be criticised for she does now as PM.
Or do you think Labour should be attacking and criticising her for what she did say 6 years ago?
Do you think that is what voters want to hear?
