I think when you come from the background she does as I do, you know that we all make the effort to leave the unpleasantness associated with our upbringing behind as we make our way in life. Remember it of course along with all the positive parts, but don't repeat it.
I once played badminton with the Dalai Lama, he was pretty darn good, without the sandals he may have beat me.Seeing as you’ve cited those two individuals I’ll give you my perspective on both, and I’d say I’m well disposed to do so more objectively than most.
I’ll hazard I have a wider circle of friends than pretty much anyone else on this board. I’m sure there might be some who outdo me, and I’m certainly not getting territorial, but I have an incredibly wide circle of friends. Working class people who’ve done well for themselves (like my father) being the most prevalent, but plenty of objectively posh people too. I’d say a third of my friends are privately educated. Wide racial mix too. Although the majority are white. Wide age range too. I take people as I find them, and do not therefore suffer from the human curses of snobbery, or inverse snobbery.
It probably stems from my parents who are from wholly different social backgrounds. And the fact I’ve worked in fields where being able to engage with people across all social backgrounds is essential, if you want to progress.
So I don’t like or dislike either of them because of their social class.
You questioned my liking of Rayner, which you are perfectly entitled to.
My reasons for liking her is that she has a warmth and an honesty to her, that I find really attractive. I think she is benign, determined and forthright; qualities I find greatly attractive in a woman. I think she gives off a good energy. I greatly respect what she’s been through to get to where she is now. How can anyone not respect that? I don’t think she’s especially bright (intelligence being another quality I find hugely attractive in a woman) but she’s smart enough.
Rees-Mogg represents the very worst of humanity. Sour, negative, contemptuous and malign. You only have to see footage of him when he was a kid to see how rotten he is to his very core. He is a fuckimg horrible ****, who thinks he’s far smarter than he is.
Lastly, on balance, fwiw, I’d say Rayner is slightly more intelligent than Rees-Mogg, both of them hovering around the ‘slightly above average intelligence’ zone.
Hope that helps.
FixedI think she's talked about her parents as "far left", her mum was in CND apparently. Perhaps it would have been better for everyone if her rebellion against them had stopped at getting a tattoo and shagging a few unsuitable lads
Not Miss Rayner's biggest fan but the way she turned her life around and what she has now achieved is remarkable and a great example to us all.Seeing as you’ve cited those two individuals I’ll give you my perspective on both, and I’d say I’m well disposed to do so more objectively than most.
I’ll hazard I have a wider circle of friends than pretty much anyone else on this board. I’m sure there might be some who outdo me, and I’m certainly not getting territorial, but I have an incredibly wide circle of friends. Working class people who’ve done well for themselves (like my father) being the most prevalent, but plenty of objectively posh people too. I’d say a third of my friends are privately educated. Wide racial mix too. Although the majority are white. Wide age range too. I take people as I find them, and do not therefore suffer from the human curses of snobbery, or inverse snobbery.
It probably stems from my parents who are from wholly different social backgrounds. And the fact I’ve worked in fields where being able to engage with people across all social backgrounds is essential, if you want to progress.
So I don’t like or dislike either of them because of their social class.
You questioned my liking of Rayner, which you are perfectly entitled to.
My reasons for liking her is that she has a warmth and an honesty to her, that I find really attractive. I think she is benign, determined and forthright; qualities I find greatly attractive in a woman. I think she gives off a good energy. I greatly respect what she’s been through to get to where she is now. How can anyone not respect that? I don’t think she’s especially bright (intelligence being another quality I find hugely attractive in a woman) but she’s smart enough.
Rees-Mogg represents the very worst of humanity. Sour, negative, contemptuous and malign. You only have to see footage of him when he was a kid to see how rotten he is to his very core. He is a fuckimg horrible ****, who thinks he’s far smarter than he is.
Lastly, on balance, fwiw, I’d say Rayner is slightly more intelligent than Rees-Mogg, both of them hovering around the ‘slightly above average intelligence’ zone.
Hope that helps.
It’s actually on a par with what David Blunkett achieved imo. Wholly different challenges, but both incredibly challenging. She’s had to fight and graft to get where she has.Not Miss Rayner's biggest fan but the way she turned her life around and what she has now achieved is remarkable and a great example to us all.
Totally agree. You just can’t please some people. And her worst critics are the working class themselves for some reason. Maybe they prefer the Mogg types. You know the man of the people!It’s actually on a par with what David Blunkett achieved imo. Wholly different challenges, but both incredibly challenging. She’s had to fight and graft to get where she has.
I can see why people don’t like Starmer. And other senior Labour politicians. I can see why Reeves gets on people’s tits. But I cannot see why anyone would not like Rayner. Or at least, I wholly question the judgement of anyone who does not at least respect her.
My working class grandmother was a far bigger snob than my middle class one!Totally agree. You just can’t please some people. And her worst critics are the working class themselves for some reason. Maybe they prefer the Mogg types. You know the man of the people!
Just think of all the freed-up extra houses on the market when the rich leave. It'll be HMO heaven in Fitzrovia.I was reflecting this morning on what an idiotic move it was by Starmer to hold his "you're all fucked" press conference in the No10 garden.
Of course when the budget arrives at the end of October, it will impact upon peoples' spending plans and businesses investment plans. We will all have to deal with the shit they dole out at the time.
But now, on the back of his speech, how many businesses thought great this is a good time to invest? How many individuals thought great let's go ahead and get that new kitchen we've been thinking of. Or let's buy that new car or book that holiday.
All he has done is depress the mood of the country and depress the economy, for an extra 2 months, needlessly. He talks about the overriding focus on growth and then does something that absolutely depresses growth! And there was no need to say anything. It's not as if he's damaged the economy for his own political expediency either - his actions since gaining power, have trashed his personal ratings as well.
I am now certain that as well as being slimy, dishonest and without principles, he's politically and economically incompetent to boot. Thank God we only have 5 years or less until he's gone.
If the upcoming Budget wasn’t materially foreshadowed then the markets would get spooked when it was announced. Please refer to Liz Truss.I was reflecting this morning on what an idiotic move it was by Starmer to hold his "you're all fucked" press conference in the No10 garden.
Of course when the budget arrives at the end of October, it will impact upon peoples' spending plans and businesses investment plans. We will all have to deal with the shit they dole out at the time.
But now, on the back of his speech, how many businesses thought great this is a good time to invest? How many individuals thought great let's go ahead and get that new kitchen we've been thinking of. Or let's buy that new car or book that holiday.
All he has done is depress the mood of the country and depress the economy, for an extra 2 months, needlessly. He talks about the overriding focus on growth and then does something that absolutely depresses growth! And there was no need to say anything. It's not as if he's damaged the economy for his own political expediency either - his actions since gaining power, have trashed his personal ratings as well.
I am now certain that as well as being slimy, dishonest and without principles, he's politically and economically incompetent to boot. Thank God we only have 5 years or less until he's gone.
Only true assuming your personal economic choices.If the upcoming Budget wasn’t materially foreshadowed then the markets would get spooked when it was announced. Please refer to Liz Truss.
I’m not sure why people are taking sides in this. All sides lied to you about this. It was obvious, is obvious, that taxes will need to increase. The sums don’t otherwise add up.
Is this the same Chippy that wrote this after 7 years of Tory austerity?It is plainly obvious to anyone who spends more than a millisecond thinking about it, that you do not fuel growth by taking more money off people and reducing their spending power. You should do the opposite, and if that requires more borrowing in the short term, to get the economy going, then that would be sensible. Cut direct taxes, people spend more, what they buy is taxed, businesses grow and that is taxed and soon, tax receipts are increased."
I'm flattered you hang on my every word. I cannot remember what I posted donkeys years ago, but you can. Marvellous!Is this the same Chippy that wrote this after 7 years of Tory austerity?
"When you are handed from Labour massive debt, high taxes, a huge deficit and slow growth, what the fuck are you supposed to do? Raise taxes even further - the very thing that ruined the economy in the first place? Well obviously you have to be a bit careful about that, don't you. You can't go slapping huge great big tax rises around because it would crash the economy completely. How about borrow EVEN more? Again, very stupid as that would damage our credit rating, push up interest rates, push up the cost of servicing our debt, make everyone worse off and make the deficit even worse. So that's a no then.
So where was all the extra money to come from, to spend on all the things Labour demand the Tories spend it on? The cupboard was bare!
Austerity was an unfortunate necessity ("needless austerity" my ARSE) and it was always going to be hard. People actually understood that, which is why Cameron got in in the first place. They also understood it when he got reelected in 2015. No-one likes foodbanks of course, but contrary to what some people on here seem to think, it's just not possible to spend more money on everything. Doing that is the sure way to return to recession, job losses, unemployment and MORE food banks."
Labour left no money. Tories had to do austerity and raise taxes and increase debt.I'm flattered you hang on my every word. I cannot remember what I posted donkeys years ago, but you can. Marvellous!
Anyway thank-you for pointing out that I have been consistent.
You can (a) spend less, (b) tax more or (c) borrow more. I advocated reduced spending at the time because IMO that was the right thing to do. We could not put taxes up, because it would damage growth - as i said in both my posts. And back whenever you got my quote from, we could not borrow more because the markets at the time would not tolerate it, so our hands were forced.
How much you can borrow is very much governed by market expectation about what is appropriate. If the markets understand that borrowing is in line with other countries, and is an essential response to a particular economic situation then they do not panic when borrowing is increased. That is why we were perfectly OK to borrow enormously after the second world war as we went on a massive rebuilding program. Markets understood that it was necessary. There is also an international angle to this. Is what the country doing, in line with other countries.
This is the situation post-covid. Everyone understands that we had to massively overspend to provide furlow support whilst at the same time tax receipts declined hugely. We spent £400bn on this and the markets were perfectly OK with that. They were not perfectly OK with Jeremy Corbyn threatening to spend only £200bn before COVID came along. It's all about the context.
In my opinion - though it is only an opinion - the markets would understand if we temporarily increased borrowing to get the economy moving. I may be wrong. Maybe they would not. If they won't then we'd have to cut public spending and damage services even more, although they are on their knees altogether. Any which way we should not have been doling out £10k pay rises to train drivers, should we. You cannot bleat about the cupboard being so completely empty and endlessly banging on about a black hole and then throw £9bn at public sector workers and £11bn at overseas climate change projects. FFS!!!
Well you've got it wrong, I can say that. I said the Tories should NOT be introducing big tax rises.Labour left no money. Tories had to do austerity and raise taxes and increase debt.
Tories didn't leave a financial black hole (known and unknown). Labour shouldn't do austerity which is bad for growth and should continue below-inflation rises for the public sector (which would be spent in the economy) and shouldn't raise taxes, but should borrow more.
Have I missed anything in Chippynomics?
I hate people being categorised by a stupid class system. Most people work therefore they're working class.? But some elitist snobs think differently.My working class grandmother was a far bigger snob than my middle class one!
I hate people being categorised by a stupid class system. Most people work therefore they're working class.? But some elitist snobs think differently.
Upperclass? No, up yer arse.
Ah, I see the discrepancy. You said the Tories should not raise taxes or increase debt. But they did both, so your present mistrust of Labour is based on the fear that they might do what the Tories have done. Whereas you think Truss had all the right policies, but not necessarily in the right order.Well you've got it wrong, I can say that. I said the Tories should NOT be introducing big tax rises.
I am entirely consistent that raising taxes is not good for the economy.
You did get it right about the £22bn black hole being a lie, because it is.
I agree with you about the borrowing but little else.Only true assuming your personal economic choices.
Other choices cut have been more spending cuts (not that I would expect that from a Labour government of course), or relaxing fiscal rules to allow further borrowing, to fuel growth.
Personally I would prefer the latter. It is plainly obvious to anyone who spends more than a millisecond thinking about it, that you do not fuel growth by taking more money off people and reducing their spending power. You should do the opposite, and if that requires more borrowing in the short term, to get the economy going, then that would be sensible. Cut direct taxes, people spend more, what they buy is taxed, businesses grow and that is taxed and soon, tax receipts are increased.
Truss was on the right lines but made 2 bad mistakes. First, she neglected to sell her plan to the BoE or the markets, who as you say, got spooked. Second, she got the optics badly wrong as there was no need to cut the top rate of tax and that did look bad.
PS your comment about Starmer having to pre-announce else the markets would get spooked is obviously nonsense. Because as you said in the same post, everyone knows tax rises are coming. Not the same as the Truss situation at all where she sprung the changes on a completely unsuspecting market.
I also find it particulary nauseating that Starmer spent the last 5 years moaning about our terribly high rates of tax, only to get in and announce that he's putting them up. And all this "won't increase taxes on working people" is also diabolical lie, as you will see in a few weeks when "working people" will be paying more for their petrol, booze and cigarettes. And also I expect, getting less tax relief on their pension contributions. Plus other utter bollocks about which I can only speculate.