Snap General Election called

[Zhivago]

Sunak doesn't believe in putting things on his lapel - he says. Regarding not wearing AIDS ribbon.

Why did he decide on such a pathetic and transparent lie. If he doesn't want to show support to AIDS sufferers then he should be honest about his lack of empathy. At least it wouldn't be compounded by his deceitfulness.

[Banquo]

Sunak doesn't believe in putting things on his lapel - he says. Regarding not wearing AIDS ribbon.

Why did he decide on such a pathetic and transparent lie. If he want to show support to AIDS sufferers then he should be honest about his lack of empathy. At least it wouldn't be compounded by his deceitfulness.

Silly really as World Aids day is today, not yesterday when the question was asked. I'd go for incompent aides, as it were.

[Puja]

Sunak doesn't believe in putting things on his lapel - he says. Regarding not wearing AIDS ribbon.

Why did he decide on such a pathetic and transparent lie. If he want to show support to AIDS sufferers then he should be honest about his lack of empathy. At least it wouldn't be compounded by his deceitfulness.

Silly really as World Aids day is today, not yesterday when the question was asked. I'd go for incompent aides, as it were.

It just shows the instinct in this government - lie first, spin second, move on third. Even on such a small thing, the first thought is to gaslight.

Today, regular leadership candidate and "Big Beast" of the party, Sajid Javid has decided that he's not standing in the next election, a decision which I'm sure is completely unrelated to the fact that his seat is almost certain to be lost given current polling. Rats making sure they're not associated with the sinking ship, should they choose to make a comeback in 5 years' time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63835091

Puja

[Banquo]

Sunak doesn't believe in putting things on his lapel - he says. Regarding not wearing AIDS ribbon.

Why did he decide on such a pathetic and transparent lie. If he want to show support to AIDS sufferers then he should be honest about his lack of empathy. At least it wouldn't be compounded by his deceitfulness.

Silly really as World Aids day is today, not yesterday when the question was asked. I'd go for incompent aides, as it were.

It just shows the instinct in this government - lie first, spin second, move on third. Even on such a small thing, the first thought is to gaslight.

Today, regular leadership candidate and "Big Beast" of the party, Sajid Javid has decided that he's not standing in the next election, a decision which I'm sure is completely unrelated to the fact that his seat is almost certain to be lost given current polling. Rats making sure they're not associated with the sinking ship, should they choose to make a comeback in 5 years' time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63835091

Puja

Could be, more likely junior spokesperson made something up. Downing st machine made from mecchano and string.

I agree about the rats. Bit premature I’d say, can all turn on a sixpence; currently the public seem supportive of a wave of strikes. We shall see if that lasts- how Labour manage that in PR terms will be interesting; I’d say nothing at all if I were them.

[Sandydragon]

Sunak doesn't believe in putting things on his lapel - he says. Regarding not wearing AIDS ribbon.

Why did he decide on such a pathetic and transparent lie. If he want to show support to AIDS sufferers then he should be honest about his lack of empathy. At least it wouldn't be compounded by his deceitfulness.

Silly really as World Aids day is today, not yesterday when the question was asked. I'd go for incompent aides, as it were.

It just shows the instinct in this government - lie first, spin second, move on third. Even on such a small thing, the first thought is to gaslight.

Today, regular leadership candidate and "Big Beast" of the party, Sajid Javid has decided that he's not standing in the next election, a decision which I'm sure is completely unrelated to the fact that his seat is almost certain to be lost given current polling. Rats making sure they're not associated with the sinking ship, should they choose to make a comeback in 5 years' time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63835091

Puja

That’s every government for the past 25 years.

[Sandydragon]

Silly really as World Aids day is today, not yesterday when the question was asked. I'd go for incompent aides, as it were.

It just shows the instinct in this government - lie first, spin second, move on third. Even on such a small thing, the first thought is to gaslight.

Today, regular leadership candidate and "Big Beast" of the party, Sajid Javid has decided that he's not standing in the next election, a decision which I'm sure is completely unrelated to the fact that his seat is almost certain to be lost given current polling. Rats making sure they're not associated with the sinking ship, should they choose to make a comeback in 5 years' time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63835091

Puja

Could be, more likely junior spokesperson made something up. Downing st machine made from mecchano and string.

I agree about the rats. Bit premature I’d say, can all turn on a sixpence; currently the public seem supportive of a wave of strikes. We shall see if that lasts- how Labour manage that in PR terms will be interesting; I’d say nothing at all if I were them.

Starmer excels in saying nothing

[Puja]

Silly really as World Aids day is today, not yesterday when the question was asked. I'd go for incompent aides, as it were.

It just shows the instinct in this government - lie first, spin second, move on third. Even on such a small thing, the first thought is to gaslight.

Today, regular leadership candidate and "Big Beast" of the party, Sajid Javid has decided that he's not standing in the next election, a decision which I'm sure is completely unrelated to the fact that his seat is almost certain to be lost given current polling. Rats making sure they're not associated with the sinking ship, should they choose to make a comeback in 5 years' time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63835091

Puja

That’s every government for the past 25 years.

Not that I'm claiming Blair and Brown were bastions of honesty at all times (more than a few dead Iraqis can testify to that), but they absolutely didn't have this level of casual relationship with the truth.

Puja

[Stom]

Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

[Donny osmond]

Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

Seriously? You're both posting this crap and telling sandy to take a look at himself?

[Mikey Brown]

Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

Seriously? You're both posting this crap and telling sandy to take a look at himself?

Wait, what thing is it you’re disagreeing with here?

[Donny osmond]

sorry, my usual lack of clarity shining through again.

I'm disagreeing with Stom labelling Sandy a neo-fascist for starters, simply for having different politics.

Then there's the idea that a weary resignation that politicians of all stripes lie and cheat is somehow a justification of the actions of the conservative party.

[Sandydragon]

It just shows the instinct in this government - lie first, spin second, move on third. Even on such a small thing, the first thought is to gaslight.

Today, regular leadership candidate and "Big Beast" of the party, Sajid Javid has decided that he's not standing in the next election, a decision which I'm sure is completely unrelated to the fact that his seat is almost certain to be lost given current polling. Rats making sure they're not associated with the sinking ship, should they choose to make a comeback in 5 years' time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63835091

Puja

That’s every government for the past 25 years.

Not that I'm claiming Blair and Brown were bastions of honesty at all times (more than a few dead Iraqis can testify to that), but they absolutely didn't have this level of casual relationship with the truth.

Puja

Boris wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped him on the arse. Blair was more polished but hardly more honest with his army of spin doctors setting the standard.

[Sandydragon]

Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

You have a short memory if you think I support this government. And the Blair government was famous for its spin. Merely quoting a fact.

Don’t call me a fascist again sonny.

[Sandydragon]

sorry, my usual lack of clarity shining through again.

I'm disagreeing with Stom labelling Sandy a neo-fascist for starters, simply for having different politics.

Then there's the idea that a weary resignation that politicians of all stripes lie and cheat is somehow a justification of the actions of the conservative party.

To be clear, I’m not justifying anything that this government does. But I do recall the Campbell years so find it a bit odd not to recognise that all governments have only a passing relationship with the truth in recent years.

[Stom]

Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

You have a short memory if you think I support this government. And the Blair government was famous for its spin. Merely quoting a fact.

Don’t call me a fascist again sonny.

The fact I think I called you a fascist says a lot...

No, this government and the past few have been on a different level to anything beforehand. We're in the age where right-wing governments routinely use the 'but Labour are just as bad' argument, and their voters lap it up. You parroting that is problematic.

[Stom]

Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

lmao

If I were you, I wouldn't be in a rush to accuse anyone of anything, champ.

Because I'm a different flavour of liberal to you? I don't get why you hate on everyone, no matter their 'flavour'.

[Sandydragon]

Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

You have a short memory if you think I support this government. And the Blair government was famous for its spin. Merely quoting a fact.

Don’t call me a fascist again sonny.

The fact I think I called you a fascist says a lot...

No, this government and the past few have been on a different level to anything beforehand. We're in the age where right-wing governments routinely use the 'but Labour are just as bad' argument, and their voters lap it up. You parroting that is problematic.

Cut the crap. You’ve insulted another poster, I’ve asked you to refrain. Enough.

[Puja]

capture.png

What.

[Sandydragon]

capture.png


What.

That’s pushing the argument beyond breaking point. Maybe if everyone was protesting about high gas prices but otherwise that’s just BS.

[Puja]

The thing that infuriates me most about the current government's attitude is the assumption that controlling inflation is the responsibility of the poor - that giving higher wages or benefits will fuel the spiral and thus must be clamped down upon for the good of us all.

And, in basic economic theory and looking just at the mathematics, it is absolutely correct - allowing wages to rise will likely increase inflation and inflation begets inflation which is not great.

However, from a human perspective, what does a family on fixed wages do when basic food prices go up by 25% in a year? It's all very well saying, "You shouldn't ask for higher wages because that fuels inflation," when there are people who cannot afford to live anymore. Why is it the bottom end who needs to be responsible and do their part to save the economy?

This is especially true when you question the causal link between higher wages and inflation. Quite apart from the fact that crushing demand flat into the ground, while a way of controlling inflation, also has something of an impact on growth (which tends to be the best way out of a problem), how many of the price rises have been 100% because of supply restrictions and how many have been because companies have seen that inflation is high and taken the opportunity to pad their prices a little bit on the basis that people are in the mood to take it because "that's just the cost of living crisis." Have we even looked at the other methods of controlling inflation (avoiding further quantitive easing for a start!)? How many of the right-wing predictions of "Oh, it'll just raise prices" have come to pass when the minimum wage has risen in the past? Have we looked at the possibility that a bit of inflation and wage rises might not be a terrible thing considering the massive gap in wealth between rich and poor and the fact that things like houses have already inflated way out of ordinary people's reaches and a bit of narrowing of that gap through inflation might not be a bad thing in the round?

Nope, it's just all, "No wage rises, we need to protect the value of investments and stockpiled wealth, I'm sure the peasantry will find some way to cope, I hear someone's come up with A Modest Proposal that might solve things."

Puja

[Zhivago]

The thing that infuriates me most about the current government's attitude is the assumption that controlling inflation is the responsibility of the poor - that giving higher wages or benefits will fuel the spiral and thus must be clamped down upon for the good of us all.

And, in basic economic theory and looking just at the mathematics, it is absolutely correct - allowing wages to rise will likely increase inflation and inflation begets inflation which is not great.

However, from a human perspective, what does a family on fixed wages do when basic food prices go up by 25% in a year? It's all very well saying, "You shouldn't ask for higher wages because that fuels inflation," when there are people who cannot afford to live anymore. Why is it the bottom end who needs to be responsible and do their part to save the economy?

This is especially true when you question the causal link between higher wages and inflation. Quite apart from the fact that crushing demand flat into the ground, while a way of controlling inflation, also has something of an impact on growth (which tends to be the best way out of a problem), how many of the price rises have been 100% because of supply restrictions and how many have been because companies have seen that inflation is high and taken the opportunity to pad their prices a little bit on the basis that people are in the mood to take it because "that's just the cost of living crisis." Have we even looked at the other methods of controlling inflation (avoiding further quantitive easing for a start!)? How many of the right-wing predictions of "Oh, it'll just raise prices" have come to pass when the minimum wage has risen in the past? Have we looked at the possibility that a bit of inflation and wage rises might not be a terrible thing considering the massive gap in wealth between rich and poor and the fact that things like houses have already inflated way out of ordinary people's reaches and a bit of narrowing of that gap through inflation might not be a bad thing in the round?

Nope, it's just all, "No wage rises, we need to protect the value of investments and stockpiled wealth, I'm sure the peasantry will find some way to cope, I hear someone's come up with A Modest Proposal that might solve things."

Puja

It is a risk that we should be cautious about, but we need to remember that this inflation is caused specifically by energy inflation. The increase in wages is not as relevant as the impact that increase (or decrease in real terms) has on the demand for energy. Because unless we can increase the energy supply to push prices back down, it will be necessary to destroy demand in order to prevent enduring inflation. I think the energy price rises themselves will push down demand to some extent, as well.

But as a matter of fairness, dividends should be restricted also.

Every industry is different, but the company I work for has seen revenues increase by 20% this year, and it is very closely tied to the general inflation in the economy. It also shows that inflation is higher than the headline figures seen in the press.

I am doubtful that they'll increase wages by that much (next agreement will be negotiated next year), although they did at least give us a one-off payment worth about 3-4% of annual salary already to offset our living costs. But they'd better not be hoping that that will be all they'll have to spend out.

[Sandydragon]

The thing that infuriates me most about the current government's attitude is the assumption that controlling inflation is the responsibility of the poor - that giving higher wages or benefits will fuel the spiral and thus must be clamped down upon for the good of us all.

And, in basic economic theory and looking just at the mathematics, it is absolutely correct - allowing wages to rise will likely increase inflation and inflation begets inflation which is not great.

However, from a human perspective, what does a family on fixed wages do when basic food prices go up by 25% in a year? It's all very well saying, "You shouldn't ask for higher wages because that fuels inflation," when there are people who cannot afford to live anymore. Why is it the bottom end who needs to be responsible and do their part to save the economy?

This is especially true when you question the causal link between higher wages and inflation. Quite apart from the fact that crushing demand flat into the ground, while a way of controlling inflation, also has something of an impact on growth (which tends to be the best way out of a problem), how many of the price rises have been 100% because of supply restrictions and how many have been because companies have seen that inflation is high and taken the opportunity to pad their prices a little bit on the basis that people are in the mood to take it because "that's just the cost of living crisis." Have we even looked at the other methods of controlling inflation (avoiding further quantitive easing for a start!)? How many of the right-wing predictions of "Oh, it'll just raise prices" have come to pass when the minimum wage has risen in the past? Have we looked at the possibility that a bit of inflation and wage rises might not be a terrible thing considering the massive gap in wealth between rich and poor and the fact that things like houses have already inflated way out of ordinary people's reaches and a bit of narrowing of that gap through inflation might not be a bad thing in the round?

Nope, it's just all, "No wage rises, we need to protect the value of investments and stockpiled wealth, I'm sure the peasantry will find some way to cope, I hear someone's come up with A Modest Proposal that might solve things."

Puja

It is a risk that we should be cautious about, but we need to remember that this inflation is caused specifically by energy inflation. The increase in wages is not as relevant as the impact that increase (or decrease in real terms) has on the demand for energy. Because unless we can increase the energy supply to push prices back down, it will be necessary to destroy demand in order to prevent enduring inflation. I think the energy price rises themselves will push down demand to some extent, as well.

But as a matter of fairness, dividends should be restricted also.

Every industry is different, but the company I work for has seen revenues increase by 20% this year, and it is very closely tied to the general inflation in the economy. It also shows that inflation is higher than the headline figures seen in the press.

I am doubtful that they'll increase wages by that much (next agreement will be negotiated next year), although they did at least give us a one-off payment worth about 3-4% of annual salary already to offset our living costs. But they'd better not be hoping that that will be all they'll have to spend out.

Totally agree. They definitely should be taxed the same.

[Puja]

The thing that infuriates me most about the current government's attitude is the assumption that controlling inflation is the responsibility of the poor - that giving higher wages or benefits will fuel the spiral and thus must be clamped down upon for the good of us all.

And, in basic economic theory and looking just at the mathematics, it is absolutely correct - allowing wages to rise will likely increase inflation and inflation begets inflation which is not great.

However, from a human perspective, what does a family on fixed wages do when basic food prices go up by 25% in a year? It's all very well saying, "You shouldn't ask for higher wages because that fuels inflation," when there are people who cannot afford to live anymore. Why is it the bottom end who needs to be responsible and do their part to save the economy?

This is especially true when you question the causal link between higher wages and inflation. Quite apart from the fact that crushing demand flat into the ground, while a way of controlling inflation, also has something of an impact on growth (which tends to be the best way out of a problem), how many of the price rises have been 100% because of supply restrictions and how many have been because companies have seen that inflation is high and taken the opportunity to pad their prices a little bit on the basis that people are in the mood to take it because "that's just the cost of living crisis." Have we even looked at the other methods of controlling inflation (avoiding further quantitive easing for a start!)? How many of the right-wing predictions of "Oh, it'll just raise prices" have come to pass when the minimum wage has risen in the past? Have we looked at the possibility that a bit of inflation and wage rises might not be a terrible thing considering the massive gap in wealth between rich and poor and the fact that things like houses have already inflated way out of ordinary people's reaches and a bit of narrowing of that gap through inflation might not be a bad thing in the round?

Nope, it's just all, "No wage rises, we need to protect the value of investments and stockpiled wealth, I'm sure the peasantry will find some way to cope, I hear someone's come up with A Modest Proposal that might solve things."

Puja

It is a risk that we should be cautious about, but we need to remember that this inflation is caused specifically by energy inflation. The increase in wages is not as relevant as the impact that increase (or decrease in real terms) has on the demand for energy. Because unless we can increase the energy supply to push prices back down, it will be necessary to destroy demand in order to prevent enduring inflation. I think the energy price rises themselves will push down demand to some extent, as well.

There are some fairly obvious solutions to this - grants and schemes for insulation, boiler replacements, solar panels, heat pumps, combined with investment in onshore wind and tidal. However, that's a mixture of "the green crap" and heavy government intervention that are anathema to the Tory party.

I'd disagree that energy inflation is the sole cause - global food prices have been affected by Ukraine and domestic interest rates, mortgages, and rent were all pumped higher by Truss's little adventure, combined with Sunak's failure to refinance debt on a fixed rate when he was Chancellor.

Pujq

[Zhivago]

The thing that infuriates me most about the current government's attitude is the assumption that controlling inflation is the responsibility of the poor - that giving higher wages or benefits will fuel the spiral and thus must be clamped down upon for the good of us all.

And, in basic economic theory and looking just at the mathematics, it is absolutely correct - allowing wages to rise will likely increase inflation and inflation begets inflation which is not great.

However, from a human perspective, what does a family on fixed wages do when basic food prices go up by 25% in a year? It's all very well saying, "You shouldn't ask for higher wages because that fuels inflation," when there are people who cannot afford to live anymore. Why is it the bottom end who needs to be responsible and do their part to save the economy?

This is especially true when you question the causal link between higher wages and inflation. Quite apart from the fact that crushing demand flat into the ground, while a way of controlling inflation, also has something of an impact on growth (which tends to be the best way out of a problem), how many of the price rises have been 100% because of supply restrictions and how many have been because companies have seen that inflation is high and taken the opportunity to pad their prices a little bit on the basis that people are in the mood to take it because "that's just the cost of living crisis." Have we even looked at the other methods of controlling inflation (avoiding further quantitive easing for a start!)? How many of the right-wing predictions of "Oh, it'll just raise prices" have come to pass when the minimum wage has risen in the past? Have we looked at the possibility that a bit of inflation and wage rises might not be a terrible thing considering the massive gap in wealth between rich and poor and the fact that things like houses have already inflated way out of ordinary people's reaches and a bit of narrowing of that gap through inflation might not be a bad thing in the round?

Nope, it's just all, "No wage rises, we need to protect the value of investments and stockpiled wealth, I'm sure the peasantry will find some way to cope, I hear someone's come up with A Modest Proposal that might solve things."

Puja

It is a risk that we should be cautious about, but we need to remember that this inflation is caused specifically by energy inflation. The increase in wages is not as relevant as the impact that increase (or decrease in real terms) has on the demand for energy. Because unless we can increase the energy supply to push prices back down, it will be necessary to destroy demand in order to prevent enduring inflation. I think the energy price rises themselves will push down demand to some extent, as well.

There are some fairly obvious solutions to this - grants and schemes for insulation, boiler replacements, solar panels, heat pumps, combined with investment in onshore wind and tidal. However, that's a mixture of "the green crap" and heavy government intervention that are anathema to the Tory party.

I'd disagree that energy inflation is the sole cause - global food prices have been affected by Ukraine and domestic interest rates, mortgages, and rent were all pumped higher by Truss's little adventure, combined with Sunak's failure to refinance debt on a fixed rate when he was Chancellor.

Pujq

You're thinking mostly from a personal perspective, but energy cost is something that affects pretty much all of the economy. Not to mention just how many of our products rely on petroleum - all plastics for example, and that is a broader category of products than you'd first think. The increase in wheat prices doesn't come close in terms of impact.

I'm abroad so totally forgot about the nightmare that was Truss. It is still a very local... let's say... phenomenon.

[Son of Mathonwy]

It is a risk that we should be cautious about, but we need to remember that this inflation is caused specifically by energy inflation. The increase in wages is not as relevant as the impact that increase (or decrease in real terms) has on the demand for energy. Because unless we can increase the energy supply to push prices back down, it will be necessary to destroy demand in order to prevent enduring inflation. I think the energy price rises themselves will push down demand to some extent, as well.

There are some fairly obvious solutions to this - grants and schemes for insulation, boiler replacements, solar panels, heat pumps, combined with investment in onshore wind and tidal. However, that's a mixture of "the green crap" and heavy government intervention that are anathema to the Tory party.

I'd disagree that energy inflation is the sole cause - global food prices have been affected by Ukraine and domestic interest rates, mortgages, and rent were all pumped higher by Truss's little adventure, combined with Sunak's failure to refinance debt on a fixed rate when he was Chancellor.

Pujq

You're thinking mostly from a personal perspective, but energy cost is something that affects pretty much all of the economy. Not to mention just how many of our products rely on petroleum - all plastics for example, and that is a broader category of products than you'd first think. The increase in wheat prices doesn't come close in terms of impact.

I'm abroad so totally forgot about the nightmare that was Truss. It is still a very local... let's say... phenomenon.

Lest we forget the impact of Brexit on UK prices...