you talk about inflation: the tories announced uncapped energy payments, are now saying they don't want interests rates to rise, and their actions caused the BOE to turn on the printing presses again to buy up bonds.
you could not imagine 3 monetary policies more inclined to be inflationary.
*despite truss running on a ticket of opposing such a scheme, she implemented it, and then the new chancellor shortened it - a whopping three different approaches within a month to its largest budget commitment,
they are not fit for office in their current form and cannot be allowed to impose another series of short term PMs, and the accompanying change of chancellor, home secretary etc that accompanies this.
its madness
it has to be put to the people. either they do it, the people force it, or the king calls for it.
all it boiled down to was being worried about being an ex MP "my collegues are wondering how they are going to pay their mortgages if this carries on"
clear as day.
i may support the tories if we have an election, depends on their manifesto - i have zilch idea what they stand for currently - but its clear the parliamentary party needs trimming down and it needs to be the case that MPs have 5ish years of job security so they can get on with implementing policies / supporting their leader without having to worry about optics and being unpopular.
i agreed with many of her policy ideas. fact remains that an 80 seat majority tory party couldnt get some modest tax cuts through without imploding. we had a lame duck prime minister hiding whilst being the figurehead for policies she neither proposed or agreed with.
the membership of the party is not instep with the MPs and the MPs are split.
i'm not calling for the suspension of democracy, there are checks and balances built into our constitution that allow for us to get some adults in charge.
we need an election, if the tories won't allow that then there should be civil unrest or the king steps in and refuses to call an unelected PM.
i hate both those options, but will back them to the hilt before i'd want this to continue.
odds of johnson being able to command a commons majority are slim and he still has a standards enquiry looming over him.
how many PMs, Home Secretaries, and Chancellors are we going to see over the next few months unless they are checked? Can they just do this endlessly? lol its embarrassingly awful. proper bottom of the barrel scraping levels of shiteness.
because it literally cannot be worse than what we have.
truss announces an economic plan, tries it for a few days and then essentially say 'please don't repeat anything i've said back to me, we've changed our minds on all the big ideas". we lose another chancellor, another home secretary and another PM.
labour could at least govern. the tory party cannot in it's present form.
most parties will have policies that benefit me in some way, harm me in others, some will be better or worse for different aspects of the country. i will never like everything a party does. i just ask that they go about business with some competence and a veneer of being about public service: high tax and investment in public services: fine, just make sure you actually go about improving them. low tax and a focus on growth: fine, just ensures it leads to competition that benefits consumers, and doesnt simply benefit the incumbent big corps
this lot can't get anything done, can't even pretend they are doing anything other than protect their seats, can't decide what direction they want to take us forward. can't keep anyone in place in high office for more than a few weeks.
will boris want his own chancellor and home secretary? what happens when he's forced to fuck off back abroad after a month of in fighting?
i would not have voted labour at any point in the last 20 years, but this is fucking abysmal.
Not a chance I'd have considered voting for labour a month ago.
Now they have to be allowed a go at running the country
Its inconceivable that the Tories àre allowed to dispose of and reimpose Johnson over and over whilst being unable to decide on what path they want to take us down. .
he didnt win the election. what is happening is happening.
there is no unifying candidate. the party won too many seats to be cohesive. the membership and MPs are at odds with each other.
they will foist a PM on us, and the party will dissolve into in-fighting again.
it cannot reasonably go on like this. there is too much stuff that needs to be done.
last night there was a very important vote that affected energy policy, planning, climate change - you name it - fracking is an important issue. yet it was turned into a quasi-vote of confidence. unbelievable. MPs being shoved into lobbies, chieif whips resigning, a PM who missed the vote as she was having a shouting match with colleagues. it doesnt get any more tin-pot than yesterday. until today.
boris would seem to be the closest to being someone that could bring the party together, but already people are threatening to jump ship if the membership return him
"If that ego on sticks becomes leader of the Tory party I will surrender the whip. "I have heard of one Conservative who will cross the floor. Many of us will not stand for that man's leadership."
its untenable. they have to get a mandate from the electorate and fast.
they cannot govern. its not just they are not popular, they cannot get anything done. can't hold down offices of state, can't try an idea for longer than a week before backing down, it's a mess.
i supported them at the last election. but they are currently incapable of running a raffle.
we have a constitutional head of state - i wish we didn't, but we do.
if this shower can't do the decent thing and call an election, then i hope he steps in and puts an end to this nonsense. else i think we might have to pull churchill's statue down or summat egregious. i think civil unrest is called for at this point.
when someone as blue as lilico - he boasts that he is the author of the 2010 austerity progrema - is calling for starmer you know the game is up. he simply wants people in place who can govern. basic-level, boring politics and at least give a pretence that we are not a basket case country
hitchens wrote this in 2010 about the reign of charles:
“This is what you get when you found a political system on the family values of Henry VIII. At a point in the not-too-remote future, the stout heart of Queen Elizabeth II will cease to beat. At that precise moment, her firstborn son will become head of state, head of the armed forces, and head of the Church of England. In strict constitutional terms, this ought not to matter much. The English monarchy, as has been said, reigns but does not rule. From the aesthetic point of view it will matter a bit, because the prospect of a morose bat-eared and chinless man, prematurely aged, and with the most abysmal taste in royal consorts, is a distinctly lowering one.”
its from a piece filled with invective:
"We have known for a long time that Prince Charles’ empty sails are so rigged as to be swelled by any passing waft or breeze of crankiness and cant. He fell for the fake anthropologist Laurens van der Post. He was bowled over by the charms of homeopathic medicine. He has been believably reported as saying that plants do better if you talk to them in a soothing and encouraging way... The heir to the throne seems to possess the ability to surround himself—perhaps by some mysterious ultramagnetic force?—with every moon-faced spoon-bender, shrub-flatterer, and water-diviner within range. "]
and preciently given charles' recent ties to the saudis:
"Together with the Saudi royal family, he supported the mosque in North London that acted as host and incubator to Richard “Shoe Bomber” Reid, the hook-handed Abu Hamza al-Masri, and several other unsavory customers. The prince’s official job description as king will be “defender of the faith,” which currently means the state-financed absurdity of the Anglican Church, but he has more than once said publicly that he wants to be anointed as defender of all faiths—another indication of the amazing conceit he has developed in six decades of performing the only job allowed him by the hereditary principle: that of waiting for his mother to expire.
A hereditary head of state, as Thomas Paine so crisply phrased it, is as absurd a proposition as a hereditary physician or a hereditary astronomer. To this innate absurdity, Prince Charles manages to bring fatuities that are entirely his own."
Warne gone at 52. The goat of test match bowlers for me.
He was there at the height of pace bowling and couldn't have been any more different. Wrist spin is like some arcane dark art, he did it with so much personality and panache.
Has to be one of the most important cricketers to have played the game.
An NFT is often called digital art. My own personal opinion which is probably not shared by many is that art is basically a giant scam. A massive rip off. A waste of time. Useless.
So it follows that digital art would be the same. People get ripped of for paintings and sculptures every day. They also sell for ridiculous prices the same as some NFTs have done (bored apes). So what is the difference? I wonder if David McWilliams has any paintings on the wall of his very nice house. And if he considers himself also exploited?
Art is just a hedge against inflation for many people
Nfts are a digital hedge
Bitcoin is digital property, again a way of avoiding inflation eating away your wealth.
One of bitcoins biggest players was on the David McWilliams podcast arguing that bitcoin is a speculative asset rather than a currency, and that labelling it a currency was a mistake from the start
Show Posts
