The whinging bitches politics poo-bin thread
- Thread starter Phil H
- Start date
- Status
- Messages
- 21,143
It is reported where?
philw696
Member
- Messages
- 25,391
- Messages
- 21,143
Clear, ta. So a fund that the Chancellor used to work at did well? Is that the story, or is there something more sinister here? Sorry if I'm being thick again.
RodTungsten
Member
- Messages
- 583
- Messages
- 21,143
I haven't seen many favourable headlines regarding the current situation, either. Maybe I read the wrong newspapers*.
*neither Facebook or Twitter is a newspaper.
mowlas
Member
- Messages
- 1,732
Sobering to stand back a little and see how our ‘emergency budget’ (let’s call it what it really is) is being perceived from outside the country. From Axios, one of the more neutral, independent minded news sites in the US:
www.axios.com
“Essentially, the markets are treating the U.K. the way they do emerging markets, which are viewed as not having the same reliable, disciplined institutions setting economic policy as the richest nations.”
The consequential effects of a crash on the pound and gilts are more likely to increase inflation and effects of a recession.
Pound plunges after new British government releases budget
The markets are treating the U.K. the way they do emerging markets.
www.axios.com
“Essentially, the markets are treating the U.K. the way they do emerging markets, which are viewed as not having the same reliable, disciplined institutions setting economic policy as the richest nations.”
The consequential effects of a crash on the pound and gilts are more likely to increase inflation and effects of a recession.
philw696
Member
- Messages
- 25,391
Plenty in the Guardian but even the Tory papers are smelling the coffee Adam.
- Messages
- 21,143
The Guardian is pro the new budget?? Surely not. Other way around, must be. I haven't seen anything positive.
philw696
Member
- Messages
- 25,391
From the BBC this and what a Cat fight this has created in my old hometown Weston super Mare.
Unboxed festival: Watchdog urged to investigate £120m 'waste of money'
The chair of an influential parliamentary committee asks the UK spending watchdog to probe Unboxed.
www.bbc.com
daverichardson
Member
- Messages
- 6,001
That's £20million more than Teesside received in the levelling up fund
World is crazy
World is crazy
UlstermanAbroad
Member
- Messages
- 1,687
I'm thoroughly confused.
No change there then.
While listening to Broadcasting House onHer His Majesty's BBC this Sunday morning,
and enjoying in parts, it's eclectic mix of packages including the ghost of Labour past,
Ed(stone) Miliband and another package on the start of the traditional apples and pears season
tomorrow. I couldn't recall where exactly the Tories had parked their tanks, on Labour's
red lawn. Naturally, I went to Conservatives.com but when clicking on manifesto, I landed on
this Boris Never Went Away which seems to give substance to the fact that the Tories are very
conflicted. Sure, they voted for Truss. But scratch the surface a little and it's clear who the
blue rinse and sharp elbowed brigade really, really want back.
It seems to me that both main UK parties' commitments involve spend, spend, spend.
For the Tories it's all about the public services and crime. For Labour it's all about a switch
from red to green. Or being green. Whilst still being red. Whatever awful colour that makes.
The trouble is. We spend too little energy on reform.
I'll give you one example. Because its one I know marginally better than the rest.
Military procurement is a complete dog's breakfast.
After the dog has already barfed it up a couple of times.
Military officers typically serve in postings of eighteen months
to two years, before moving on. In some ways, its not a terrible system
because people tend to get stale in post around the two year mark.
However, in procurement its a death sentence to the project at hand.
Because of the technical and political complexity involved in system
manufacture, it takes months before a newly arrived officer is up to
speed and starts to contribute in a meaningful way. Then only several
months later, they're preparing to move to their next posting
which will typically be a field command, which is what they joined up
for in the first place. Having this continual revolving door of military
officers and civil servants leads to minimal accountability, epic
wastage and huge over-runs in time and cost.
Until recently, Whitehall issued cost plus contracts to military
suppliers. Meaning that no matter how much the cost escalated,
the supplier was guaranteed their profit.
If the government would get a grip of procurement across government
we'd have the infamous magic money tree to dole out cash to
wherever its needed. Is this some highly classified secret?
Nope. Is it widely known by everyone who's ever served in government
including the janitors? Yup.
Based on what both main political parties are claiming the country needs.
Each has decided to spend, spend, spend and let future generations carry
the can. Because what are politicians expert at, if nothing else?
Kicking the can down the road. Why do they do this?
Because polling tells politicians that we can't handle the truth.
The sheeple would rather be lied to.
And so on and on it goes.
No change there then.
While listening to Broadcasting House on
and enjoying in parts, it's eclectic mix of packages including the ghost of Labour past,
Ed(stone) Miliband and another package on the start of the traditional apples and pears season
tomorrow. I couldn't recall where exactly the Tories had parked their tanks, on Labour's
red lawn. Naturally, I went to Conservatives.com but when clicking on manifesto, I landed on
this Boris Never Went Away which seems to give substance to the fact that the Tories are very
conflicted. Sure, they voted for Truss. But scratch the surface a little and it's clear who the
blue rinse and sharp elbowed brigade really, really want back.
It seems to me that both main UK parties' commitments involve spend, spend, spend.
For the Tories it's all about the public services and crime. For Labour it's all about a switch
from red to green. Or being green. Whilst still being red. Whatever awful colour that makes.
The trouble is. We spend too little energy on reform.
I'll give you one example. Because its one I know marginally better than the rest.
Military procurement is a complete dog's breakfast.
After the dog has already barfed it up a couple of times.
Military officers typically serve in postings of eighteen months
to two years, before moving on. In some ways, its not a terrible system
because people tend to get stale in post around the two year mark.
However, in procurement its a death sentence to the project at hand.
Because of the technical and political complexity involved in system
manufacture, it takes months before a newly arrived officer is up to
speed and starts to contribute in a meaningful way. Then only several
months later, they're preparing to move to their next posting
which will typically be a field command, which is what they joined up
for in the first place. Having this continual revolving door of military
officers and civil servants leads to minimal accountability, epic
wastage and huge over-runs in time and cost.
Until recently, Whitehall issued cost plus contracts to military
suppliers. Meaning that no matter how much the cost escalated,
the supplier was guaranteed their profit.
If the government would get a grip of procurement across government
we'd have the infamous magic money tree to dole out cash to
wherever its needed. Is this some highly classified secret?
Nope. Is it widely known by everyone who's ever served in government
including the janitors? Yup.
Based on what both main political parties are claiming the country needs.
Each has decided to spend, spend, spend and let future generations carry
the can. Because what are politicians expert at, if nothing else?
Kicking the can down the road. Why do they do this?
Because polling tells politicians that we can't handle the truth.
The sheeple would rather be lied to.
And so on and on it goes.
DLax69
Member
- Messages
- 4,270
Tend to be in full agreement, with one additional comment: it always comes down to who actually benefits.
UlstermanAbroad
Member
- Messages
- 1,687
Qui Bono, eh
DLax69
Member
- Messages
- 4,270
Precisely, my friend!Qui Bono, eh
UlstermanAbroad
Member
- Messages
- 1,687
I saw on CNN or similar last night, that 'the markets' now regard the economic outlook for the UK with similar caution to Italy and Greece and apparently are only prepared to buy UK government debt at less favourable rates.
[apologies if my phrasing is a bit off. only had one mug of coffee so far this morning and far from awake]
To be judged as economically competent as Italy and Greece. That's a new low. That I never thought I'd live to see.
Our newly appointed Chancellor came with impressive economic academic credentials. Perhaps he ought to return to academia, lobby companies or hedge funds and leave government to the adults.
[apologies if my phrasing is a bit off. only had one mug of coffee so far this morning and far from awake]
To be judged as economically competent as Italy and Greece. That's a new low. That I never thought I'd live to see.
Our newly appointed Chancellor came with impressive economic academic credentials. Perhaps he ought to return to academia, lobby companies or hedge funds and leave government to the adults.
Last edited:
P5Nij
Member
- Messages
- 2,449
Labour MP Rupa Huq suspended from the party for disgusting remarks towards Kwasi Kwarteng, and rightly so...
Sadly in my experience, this kind of nastiness lurks just below the surface with far too may on the so called 'tolerant' left. It's just bizarre and completely backwards thinking.
Rupa Huq MP apologises for 'superficially' black remark
Rupa Huq has been suspended as a Labour MP, with leader Sir Keir Starmer calling the remarks racist.
www.bbc.co.uk
Sadly in my experience, this kind of nastiness lurks just below the surface with far too may on the so called 'tolerant' left. It's just bizarre and completely backwards thinking.
- Status