New UK Prime Minister. 2022 edition. Liz Truss, conservative.

[Maximumbeans]

His approval is at -36 FYI. And I'm sure if the tories put him back as PM he'd just backstab them all, and would likely lose his seat.

I'm aware, and yet I don't doubt he could scrape up the necessary 100 votes from MPs to get himself in the running. We'll see.

 

[ILuvGames]

Please don't let it be Sunak who takes her place.

 

[FAST6191]

To be fair, she was setup to fail from the get-go. All she did was adhere to her party's playbook, it's simply a totally worthless and detrimental playbook, especially given where the UK's economy is sitting currently. Her other option was to adopt policies more closely representing those of Labour, which would've pleased everybody else but angered her own party. And then there surely would've been calls to oust her from within anyway. A lose-lose scenario in every sense, and I don't see her successor faring any better in the run up to the election.

Are Labour's policies any better? Watching the hilarity that was the conference and their understanding of economics was no better, and has not been over the last few years either (more spending than even the profligate spending of the supposedly tory party being called for at every turn and it would be a hard line for them to walk if they aimed to cut benefits and public works spending given they are nominally all about it). I suppose we then have to ponder what power the prime minister has (I don't know if it is as much of a sock puppet affair as the US president but it is hardly dictator levels either).

Nothing will change, as the ruling party keeps the power, unless I'm misinformed. The newspaper here is telling that there is no obligation of new elections, and the craziest part is that the current leading party chooses when election will take place. So why on earth they will call an election when their popularity is low?

In elections in the UK you technically elect the party rather than the leader of it, though most would not make much distinction (it is the prime minister that is on all the national coverage and most would not be able to name their local MP). Elections these days are on a fixed cycle but it is possible to table a bill that runs something like "not withstanding the fixed term thing then we are having an election" which is what happened last time.
Though yes calling another election outside of the fixed cycle is likely to be a silly plan so they will have to ride out the clock and hope they can get the numbers up in the meantime.

 

[RustInPeace]

Credit: https://imgur.com/gallery/5WP4MOP

 

[smf]

My mate and I were just talking about this and he raised the idea of Boris coming back and saying 'vote for me and I'll call a GE', almost to prove he could win even then. Cocky bastard probably would as well.

That would be ideal, the conservatives could be out by xmas.

To be fair, she was setup to fail from the get-go. All she did was adhere to her party's playbook,

Not really, Trussenomics was entirely new. Previous conservative prime ministers grew the economy before talking about tax cuts.

Nothing will change, as the ruling party keeps the power, unless I'm misinformed. The newspaper here is telling that there is no obligation of new elections, and the craziest part is that the current leading party chooses when election will take place. So why on earth they will call an election when their popularity is low?

That is true, although Boris managed to con Corbyn into an election back in 2019. By calling him a chicken. I'd like to see the same in reverse.

However conservatives aren't entirely in the clear, they have to be able to form a stable government and it's unclear they can. Recent events kinda prove that they can't.

Are Labour's policies any better?

They are better than the "Let's try this, whoops, soz your mortgage is now unaffordable but we had to take the chance to give our rich friends money".

Next Friday we will have a new prime minister, the following Monday the chancellor is going to reveal just how bad Liz Truss fucked the UK economy and how much they are going to have to raise taxes and cut public spending. Which the new prime minister will have to be along for the ride, it's plainly not going to work.

The conservative party is so fractured that you either have a general election now and get labour in. Or we wait 18 months before labour get in, with 18 months where companies are unwilling to invest because they have no confidence in the conservative government.

There is an argument among Labour supporters that actually they should wait for the conservatives to further fuck the economy, rather than getting into power when actually nobody knows what the state of the economy is (because Liz & Kwasi refused to let the OBR do any analysis prior to crashing the economy).

It's actually in conservative interest to call a general election now as they have no hope of winning another election, no matter what they do.

 

[FAST6191]

That would be ideal, the conservatives could be out by xmas.


Not really, Trussenomics was entirely new. Previous conservative prime ministers grew the economy before talking about tax cuts.


That is true, although Boris managed to con Corbyn into an election back in 2019. By calling him a chicken. I'd like to see the same in reverse.

However conservatives aren't entirely in the clear, they have to be able to form a stable government and it's unclear they can. Recent events kinda prove that they can't.


They are better than the "Let's try this, whoops, soz your mortgage is now unaffordable but we had to take the chance to give our rich friends money".

Next Friday we will have a new prime minister, the following Monday the chancellor is going to reveal just how bad Liz Truss fucked the UK economy and how much they are going to have to raise taxes and cut public spending. Which the new prime minister will have to be along for the ride, it's plainly not going to work.

The conservative party is so fractured that you either have a general election now and get labour in. Or we wait 18 months before labour get in, with 18 months where companies are unwilling to invest because they have no confidence in the conservative government.

There is an argument among Labour supporters that actually they should wait for the conservatives to further fuck the economy, rather than getting into power when actually nobody knows what the state of the economy is (because Liz & Kwasi refused to let the OBR do any analysis prior to crashing the economy).

It's actually in conservative interest to call a general election now as they have no hope of winning another election, no matter what they do.

Numbers are already known. Don't need officials (which lie all the time anyway as it is in their vested interest -- see also the inflation rate vs real rates) to tell us that one, it gets a bit hazier a few years out when variable rates are set to kick in.

Equally is labour sufficiently rehabilitated or is this trading bad for less bad? They have not quite shed the stink of Corbyn just yet, though plenty in the party still love him so claims of fractured go all ways (take a loss, spend a cycle rooting out the unpleasants and rehabilitating yourself before coming back stronger is the plan suggested by so many all over the shop, instead plaster on a shotgun wound and try to go back out there seems to be the order of the day), neither of which is aided by Starmer barely holding it together (which to be fair is better than I expected) and the red wall shows little signs of being rebuilt, neither does their Scottish wing.
Likewise at no point during everything from austerity Britain to kung flu gimmes did we see labour saying anything that would, and again watching the conference it seems plenty go in for the idea that handouts and make work jobs are particularly useful.

18 months is probably not going to be invested in (give or take fossil fuels suppliers, certain foods, maybe healthcare and those making rockets to fling at a proxy war with the Russians) either way -- the world economy is pretty much fucked wherever you go at this point (regardless of the colour tie he what theoretically is in charge is wearing) and everything is so short term that... yeah.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Don't need officials (which lie all the time anyway as it is in their vested interest

So who exactly who do you trust?

 

[FAST6191]

So who exactly who do you trust?

Trust is earned, and can be lost (harder to earn back if you do that, even more so if maliciously rather than incompetence). You can also have to do your own analysis to tease things out.

Those that are impartial are best but they can be harder to find so you also get to do analysis of motives, incentives (incentives make for outcomes so very often) and interests on top of things. Equally incentives can include those that I would not normally trust, or trust in other scenarios, as it is in their best interest to tell the truth -- the old legal adage of "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table" working in politics as well so getting your facts on point and unimpeachable such that they have to try the other two becomes a tacit admission in at least western societies (communist where everybody lies about everything, albeit with very good incentives to do so, and the idea of face in Asia can make things a bit more fun there).

I like numbers (especially things that can be backtested and thus used as predictive models) but always be wary of who is making them and grouping them for you, I like revealed preferences (people can say a lot but actions louder than words), I like secondary indicators* that most lying are less inclined (or in the case the all too common incompetence then unable) to consider (for inflation, assuming we care about prices rather than money supply for this one, then producer price index and energy costs would be a leading indicator and not one those creating consumer price indexes, which are super selective, care for).
I also find most people have domains of interest and knowledge that are rather specific to them, even more so in combination with other things. Worthiness of a general source can then come from how those that would not necessarily know those fields plays out.

*the various investment firms buying in satellite photos to count cars in the car park as a predictor of shopper count. One example of that sort of thing.

Can be more difficult than simply accepting whatever the news might say or government drones (elected and otherwise) might say.

This all rolls into my general thesis on such things in that everybody is self interested, possibly even sociopathic on occasion**, cunt that works to said own interest with as much foresight as the maths provides (quarterly or annual in business, next election in politics) and as much insight as can be expected (given the complexity of the world then that is not all that much, makes my fondness for numbers occasionally a bit harder to justify, though that is the reason for diversification of your portfolio and cycling things out before they get too tainted). Play to that and assume people are going to fuck it up before too terribly long, usually by overextending themselves with short term goals at the cost of long term, and not much will surprise you and your predictions will not be far wrong.

**sociopaths can work in politics and business (cold risk assessment and no personal loyalty is good stuff to have, though can come with a downside when predicting psychology of the masses), as can "normal" people/followers, the so called saints that make up the other percentage of that aspect of psychology can not thrive in the slightest in such scenarios and get ground down and out. Leave them to play medic, certain charities (though even those mostly go from above), your nice maintenance men that keep your expenses down a bit by going above and beyond, possibly teachers (though lots of questions there too, not to mention most of that falls from on high anyway) and such like.

 

[subcon959]

Wild conspiracy time: This was all planned to try to get Boris in through the back door.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Trust is earned, and can be lost (harder to earn back if you do that, even more so if maliciously rather than incompetence). You can also have to do your own analysis to tease things out.

Those that are impartial are best but they can be harder to find so you also get to do analysis of motives, incentives (incentives make for outcomes so very often) and interests on top of things. Equally incentives can include those that I would not normally trust, or trust in other scenarios, as it is in their best interest to tell the truth -- the old legal adage of "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table" working in politics as well so getting your facts on point and unimpeachable such that they have to try the other two becomes a tacit admission in at least western societies (communist where everybody lies about everything, albeit with very good incentives to do so, and the idea of face in Asia can make things a bit more fun there).

I like numbers (especially things that can be backtested and thus used as predictive models) but always be wary of who is making them and grouping them for you, I like revealed preferences (people can say a lot but actions louder than words), I like secondary indicators* that most lying are less inclined (or in the case the all too common incompetence then unable) to consider (for inflation, assuming we care about prices rather than money supply for this one, then producer price index and energy costs would be a leading indicator and not one those creating consumer price indexes, which are super selective, care for).
I also find most people have domains of interest and knowledge that are rather specific to them, even more so in combination with other things. Worthiness of a general source can then come from how those that would not necessarily know those fields plays out.

*the various investment firms buying in satellite photos to count cars in the car park as a predictor of shopper count. One example of that sort of thing.

Can be more difficult than simply accepting whatever the news might say or government drones (elected and otherwise) might say.

This all rolls into my general thesis on such things in that everybody is self interested, possibly even sociopathic on occasion**, cunt that works to said own interest with as much foresight as the maths provides (quarterly or annual in business, next election in politics) and as much insight as can be expected (given the complexity of the world then that is not all that much, makes my fondness for numbers occasionally a bit harder to justify, though that is the reason for diversification of your portfolio and cycling things out before they get too tainted). Play to that and assume people are going to fuck it up before too terribly long, usually by overextending themselves with short term goals at the cost of long term, and not much will surprise you and your predictions will not be far wrong.

**sociopaths can work in politics and business (cold risk assessment and no personal loyalty is good stuff to have, though can come with a downside when predicting psychology of the masses), as can "normal" people/followers, the so called saints that make up the other percentage of that aspect of psychology can not thrive in the slightest in such scenarios and get ground down and out. Leave them to play medic, certain charities (though even those mostly go from above), your nice maintenance men that keep your expenses down a bit by going above and beyond, possibly teachers (though lots of questions there too, not to mention most of that falls from on high anyway) and such like.

That's a lot of words and interesting points, but you haven't really answered.

 

[FAST6191]

That's a lot of words and interesting points, but you haven't really answered.

You were aiming more for "here is a list of youtube/bitchute/odysee/rumble/whatever channels, reporters, newspapers, twitter accounts, company reports (consumer credit levels, default rates, adobe price index...)" type deal?

Ignoring the situational stuff (most times I don't trust politicos as far as I can throw them but occasionally those present but not in majority for their colour of tie have every incentive to showcase the reasonable range for numbers rather than the cooked ones of whoever is in power) and contextual stuff (don't much care what a favourite film reviewer thinks about Indonesian politics, do care if the latest action film I was thinking about seeing down the line some time is shot well, similar exist for everything else) then I have things I like to follow for finance (for as long as the top down myth persists then inextricably tied to politics), events, legal analysis of various things (bonus of an adversarial legal system is you kind of have to think how your competent opponent will try to play it, dodge it or otherwise so even if you have a preferred outcome then no great deal.
I do generally prefer things that look for the rub/con, for unusual activities related to things, what is not being said, what is not being covered, try to predict other second and third order effects, try to see where the lies* and/or stupidity might be in play. Even then comparisons between things, between what I know and what my analysis would tell me is still in play.

*sometimes outright, sometimes to avoid a self fulfilling narrative; some talking head says sky is falling and the sky might well fall thanks to mass panic where pretending all is tolerable might dodge something, or at least have the plebs ground to dust in 6 months when it actually would rather than said plebs maybe being able to cover their arses than have to vote for whoever promises the best handouts.

 

[LainaGabranth]

So who exactly who do you trust?

Did you expect an answer from someone so performative?

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I do generally prefer things that look for the rub/con,

pardon?

 

[FAST6191]

Thought it was a fairly common phrase (perhaps more commonly seen in the phrase "and there's the rub") but might be an older one nowadays.

It means I like those that look for hidden motives (who and whose friends get paid, power, enemies get stymied...), those that look for cons (as in confidence tricks, though downsides is also good), those that look for odd riders if there are any (that is more of a US thing but not unknown outside it) and so forth, in addition to the second and third order effects, "physics say no" and all the other stuff mentioned.

Did you expect an answer from someone so performative?

While you seem to be terminally unhappy with everything and generally have it as a stated goal to be disruptive (me probably knowing better than to feed the troll) I would maintain I did answer. Don't see a particular value in grabbing my list of bookmarks in this instance, not least of all because I would then have to also detail the place they have in the analysis which is mostly all in my head (we are probably a decade or more of some kind of sensible automated analysis) and tedious to type out.

 

[sombrerosonic]

While you seem to be terminally unhappy with everything and generally have it as a stated goal to be disruptive (me probably knowing better than to feed the troll) I would maintain I did answer. Don't see a particular value in grabbing my list of bookmarks in this instance, not least of all because I would then have to also detail the place they have in the analysis which is mostly all in my head (we are probably a decade or more of some kind of sensible automated analysis) and tedious to type out.

So, your not gonna try to feed her, the troll?

 

[LainaGabranth]

While you seem to be terminally unhappy with everything and generally have it as a stated goal to be disruptive (me probably knowing better than to feed the troll) I would maintain I did answer. Don't see a particular value in grabbing my list of bookmarks in this instance, not least of all because I would then have to also detail the place they have in the analysis which is mostly all in my head (we are probably a decade or more of some kind of sensible automated analysis) and tedious to type out.

The guy literally just asked for who you trusted as sources and like clockwork you just shit out a low effort word salad reply that has no relevance to anything he said. I know your appearances of intellectualism are way more important to you than actually believing something but the only people impressed by this performance are fellow goldwater republicans.

 

[SG854]

The guy literally just asked for who you trusted as sources and like clockwork you just shit out a low effort word salad reply that has no relevance to anything he said. I know your appearances of intellectualism are way more important to you than actually believing something but the only people impressed by this performance are fellow goldwater republicans.

That's Fast6191 the man of many words. He has the gift of making things that can be answered in 1 sentence into many. He is your best friend when you need to write a book report and have a certain number number of pages you need to fulfill.

 

[Xzi]

Are Labour's policies any better?

Obviously, yes. It's the UK's working class that needs a boost right now, not the already-rich who profited massively from both the pandemic and the disastrous Brexit. Any spending done in the name of the former can only be beneficial to the economy at this point in time, whereas any spending done for the latter is going to disappear into a black hole of offshore tax havens.

 

[LainaGabranth]

That's Fast6191 the man of many words. He has the gift of making things that can be answered in 1 sentence into many. He is your best friend when you need to write a book report and have a certain number number of pages you need to fulfill.

Yep. Glad i'm not the only one seeing it.

 

[SG854]

Yep. Glad i'm not the only one seeing it.

It's pretty much known around here about fast's really long posts. I use to joke about it a few years ago. He is a modern Shakespeare