Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

ps the Best leaders surround themselves with the best people.   Not so good leaders surround themselves with those that are not going to challenge them.  So maybe the reason why it appears that there is a poor selection of candidates is partly due to Boris Johnson.  Another reason may be that the leadership qualities and the general competence levels of elected mps has declined.

superflyweight wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Racist MP or an economy in turmoil? Hmmm, distractions won't work this time.

There is one hell of a u-turn coming up.

Already had to make a u-turn of my own on buying a new house.  Not doing a thing until it all settles down.  

Issue for the tories at the moment is that in addition to setting fire to their own party, Starmer isn't giving them any easy points of attack.

Probably a good move. I imagine we'll be seeing some house prices slumps, so you could get a relative bargain. You must make sure to thank Quasi .

Best thing I think I've done in a long time is take a plunge, dip out a bit early from previous 5-year fixed mortgage in mid-August, and lock in a new one at just over 3%. A few 100s as an early repayment charge, but the way things are going, will make that back in a few months after new rate kicks in.

This is likely to be carnage. Heard someone suggest that over a year, typically ~1.2 million remortgages in the UK. I really hope as many of them as possible saw this coming and did something.

navyblueshorts wrote:This is what you get when a dogma-driven, economic non-entity (degree in Classics & History FFS) is given the keys to #11 and is supported by a PM as dumb as this one. Judging by Kwarteng's academic career ....

Could be a situation of Dumb and Dumber.

As one investor told me, Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng appeared to present a collection of think tank pamphlets at Friday's mini-Budget, whereas the markets were wondering why, at a time of general financial instability, there were no borrowing numbers presented with it.

Who the Frak runs this country? The Tories or the shady “think tanks” like IEA at Tufton Street? Frak state of it.

Wondering if Duty and Soul Requiem agree with me that these Think Tanks should be forced to reveal the sources of their funding.

Pr4wn wrote:Wondering if Duty and Soul Requiem agree with me that these Think Tanks should be forced to reveal the sources of their funding.

Apart from the obvious, what are you hoping will be revealed by forcing donors to be public, or what benefits will this produce? And do you mean specific think tanks or all of them?

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Wondering if Duty and Soul Requiem agree with me that these Think Tanks should be forced to reveal the sources of their funding.

Apart from the obvious, what are you hoping will be revealed by forcing donors to be public, or what benefits will this produce? And do you mean specific think tanks or all of them?

They have become a key part of Britain's democracy, regularly featuring in mainstream news interviews and now having aide seats within number 10. I thought it rather obvious that where these unelected mouthpieces get their money is absolutely in the public interest given their very prominent role in government.

Do you support that, or not? And if not, why not?

I thought we didnt like unelected bureaucrats round these parts.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Wondering if Duty and Soul Requiem agree with me that these Think Tanks should be forced to reveal the sources of their funding.

Apart from the obvious, what are you hoping will be revealed by forcing donors to be public, or what benefits will this produce? And do you mean specific think tanks or all of them?

They have become a key part of Britain's democracy, regularly featuring in mainstream news interviews and now having aide seats within number 10. I thought it rather obvious that where these unelected mouthpieces get their money is absolutely in the public interest given their very prominent role in government.

Do you support that, or not? And if not, why not?

Why is it in the public interest? Who cares if some businessperson throws £10k to the IEA or the Fabian Society? The motives and ideologies of think tanks are well known and will not be greatly influenced by money. I just don't see what you're hoping to gain from revealing this information.

Is there a threshold you'd like to see for this, or all donations?

I'm not really in favour or opposed, I'm just not bothered. If think tanks were already forced to disclose their source of funding, I don't think I'd be agitating for it to be changed.

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Wondering if Duty and Soul Requiem agree with me that these Think Tanks should be forced to reveal the sources of their funding.

Apart from the obvious, what are you hoping will be revealed by forcing donors to be public, or what benefits will this produce? And do you mean specific think tanks or all of them?

They have become a key part of Britain's democracy, regularly featuring in mainstream news interviews and now having aide seats within number 10. I thought it rather obvious that where these unelected mouthpieces get their money is absolutely in the public interest given their very prominent role in government.

Do you support that, or not? And if not, why not?

Why is it in the public interest? Who cares if some businessperson throws £10k to the IEA or the Fabian Society? The motives and ideologies of think tanks are well known and will not be greatly influenced by money. I just don't see what you're hoping to gain from revealing this information.

Is there a threshold you'd like to see for this, or all donations?

I'm not really in favour or opposed, I'm just not bothered. If think tanks were already forced to disclose their source of funding, I don't think I'd be agitating for it to be changed.

I'd quite like to know who is funding them so we can understand their motives. Or god forbid, its a foreign country funding them.

Their motives are not influenced by money? What planet are you living on?

IMF disdainfully treating UK like an emerging economy, Moody's warning that UK debt levels not moving in a sustainable path, 10 yr gilts at highest levels since the '08 financial crisis, 30 yr at the highest since 1998, 5 yr rising nearly 5% in a day. Pension funds being hammered with margin calls against their liability driven investments.

It would be like a Benny Hill sketch if it wasn't so alarming.

Lets hope there are people left to enjoy the sunlit uplands when they arrive.

£45 billion of tax cuts (that's the cost up to 2027). Up to £98 billion on HS2. £130 billion on energy support. Up to £410 billion spending on measures to deal with Covid.

Ignore the rest. Tax cuts are the problem.

Duty281 wrote:£45 billion of tax cuts (that's the cost up to 2027). Up to £98 billion on HS2. £130 billion on energy support. Up to £410 billion spending on measures to deal with Covid.

Ignore the rest. Tax cuts are the problem.

Is Liz Truss your mum?

The COVID and energy support measures seem more mandatory than top band tax cuts

superflyweight wrote:

Duty281 wrote:£45 billion of tax cuts (that's the cost up to 2027). Up to £98 billion on HS2. £130 billion on energy support. Up to £410 billion spending on measures to deal with Covid.

Ignore the rest. Tax cuts are the problem.

Is Liz Truss your mum?

Any Tory's boot will do for Duty, this just happens to be Lizzy's

GSC wrote:The COVID and energy support measures seem more mandatory than top band tax cuts

Perhaps, but the top band of tax cuts only cost 2-3 billion.

GSC wrote:The COVID and energy support measures seem more mandatory than top band tax cuts

It is the standard response from people that buy into this horsesh*t. Just throw around a load of other numbers in a poorly considered diversionary tactic. Sure, lets go back to pre Covid and claim all that cash back. Same with HS2. Or forget the energy support bill, just let the fat eat themselves and the poor freeze.

Many he is right. Maybe the plethora of economic commentators, the IMF, banking sector, senior credit rating agencies, hedge fund managers and pension funds are wrong and Duty is right. He will have the last laugh when he is sat there with Kwasimodo and Liz and we are all basking in those sunlit uplands. He can tell us he told us so.

BoE have just had to step in to buy longer dated UK bonds in an effort to prop up the pound. They are clearly concerned.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

BoE have just had to step in to buy longer dated UK bonds in an effort to prop up the pound. They are clearly concerned.

Ironically, the BoE were planning on selling their bonds to reduce their debt burden. They have now being forced into a BoJo style U turn. The BoE has been trying to deleverage by selling bonds recently, now they are essentially being forced to reverse that plan by Kwasimodo and his goons.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

GSC wrote:The COVID and energy support measures seem more mandatory than top band tax cuts

It is the standard response from people that buy into this horsesh*t. Just throw around a load of other numbers in a poorly considered diversionary tactic. Sure, lets go back to pre Covid and claim all that cash back. Same with HS2. Or forget the energy support bill, just let the fat eat themselves and the poor freeze.

Many he is right. Maybe the plethora of economic commentators, the IMF, banking sector, senior credit rating agencies, hedge fund managers and pension funds are wrong and Duty is right. He will have the last laugh when he is sat there with Kwasimodo and Liz and we are all basking in those sunlit uplands. He can tell us he told us so.

BoE have just had to step in to buy longer dated UK bonds in an effort to prop up the pound. They are clearly concerned.

It's not a diversionary tactic. It's pointing out that hardly anyone cares when the UK borrows £130bn for energy support, or nearly £100bn for vanity projects like HS2, or up to £410bn for Covid measures, or even if we take something in isolation such as track and trace which cost £37 billion, but £45bn in tax cuts over five years and suddenly the sky is falling in. Where's the consistency?

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Maybe the plethora of economic commentators, the IMF, banking sector, senior credit rating agencies, hedge fund managers and pension funds are wrong and Duty is right.

Of course he's right. He's 27 years old. How can he possibly not know everything at such an advanced age?

Duty281 wrote:£45 billion of tax cuts (that's the cost up to 2027). Up to £98 billion on HS2. £130 billion on energy support. Up to £410 billion spending on measures to deal with Covid.

Ignore the rest. Tax cuts are the problem.

I'll agree with you on HS2, although that's still years away from even being a consideration here. Covid and the energy support are necessary whereas tax cuts are not, there's also economic tipping point which the mini budget has gone beyond.

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

GSC wrote:The COVID and energy support measures seem more mandatory than top band tax cuts

It is the standard response from people that buy into this horsesh*t. Just throw around a load of other numbers in a poorly considered diversionary tactic. Sure, lets go back to pre Covid and claim all that cash back. Same with HS2. Or forget the energy support bill, just let the fat eat themselves and the poor freeze.

Many he is right. Maybe the plethora of economic commentators, the IMF, banking sector, senior credit rating agencies, hedge fund managers and pension funds are wrong and Duty is right. He will have the last laugh when he is sat there with Kwasimodo and Liz and we are all basking in those sunlit uplands. He can tell us he told us so.

BoE have just had to step in to buy longer dated UK bonds in an effort to prop up the pound. They are clearly concerned.

It's not a diversionary tactic. It's pointing out that hardly anyone cares when the UK borrows £130bn for energy support, or nearly £100bn for vanity projects like HS2, or up to £410bn for Covid measures, or even if we take something in isolation such as track and trace which cost £37 billion, but £45bn in tax cuts over five years and suddenly the sky is falling in. Where's the consistency?

I support the energy support bill, and we can't do anything about HS2 or Covid measures. That money is gone, done. You're making a point to argue something that can't be rectified as it suits the narrative. It is, by your standards, a pretty vacuous argument. Whilst I don't always agree with you, you can normally argue your case a whole let better than that post. You look like someone barking at the moon.

What the majority of people, and I don't necessary just mean on here, I mean the wider fiscal and financial market, have an issue with is reckless gambling on our economic future. In my view (and clearly the BoE, IMF, Moody's share this view) borrowing more is irresponsible in the current climate and failure to prepare the 'market' adequately (see the gilt story playing out now and subsequent BoE bailout - lets call it what it is) for unfunded tax cuts added additional stress on a currency that was on life support already. It is now close to flatlining. This just brings added pressure across the curve for gilts, pension funds, rates, the housing market. Numerous other economic sectors.

I don't know the exact number (used to when I was a trader and will probably be higher now) but pension funds used to have close to £500bn in liability driven investments. Cash calls from fund managers on those now will be running into the billions per day. The hedge against them with investment banks will be calling in those collateral calls as well. Funds will be forced to sell more gilts, forcing the price of them lower and in turn, risking more collateral calls. It is a vicious cycle that if this BoE bond purchase scheme doesn't cool down, could prompt a huge pension fund crisis. Kwarteng and Truss have got this wrong. The two things you don't f*ck with in this country are peoples houses and their pensions. Both of these are on the cusp of a meltdown. Not 100% but teetering.

As I said, you may be right but lets hope the bloodshed isn't too bad on the journey. Wish I was as confident as you.

I definitely remember a lot of uproar over Test and Trace, HS2 and the method in which the energy support is being funded.

Maybe I imagined all that though.

Samo wrote:I definitely remember a lot of uproar over Test and Trace, HS2 and the method in which the energy support is being funded.

Maybe I imagined all that though.

Yes, but not from the IMF, bankers and credit agencies etc.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:I definitely remember a lot of uproar over Test and Trace, HS2 and the method in which the energy support is being funded.

Maybe I imagined all that though.

Yes, but not from the IMF, bankers and credit agencies etc.

For someone that is pinning an awful lot of hope on forward looking government policy, you don't half spend a lot of time looking backward to support a position.

You'll need a neck brace if you carry on much longer.

Boris Johnson and his pro-Brexit Government after a long struggle breaking away from the clutches of the EU in order to be free to make deals with the rest of the world, immediately started looking for enemies in Russia (anti-Russian stance), in China (anti-China stance) and even with India (anti-Modi government stance).

Rather than diplomacy, neutrality and free trade Boris Johnson pushed Ukraine away from diplomatic solutions with Russia and for war, sanctions and censorship.  When Boris was asked what would force him to resign he said the only thing that would force him to resign would be if Britain stopped supporting Ukraine against Russia.  He never mentioned anything about post-Brexit Britains opportunities to make trade deals for the betterment of Britain.

Boris Johnson - Liz Truss and their Brexit Government since Brexit have narrowed Britain's economic options by creating numerous enemies and has fallen back into allying itself with the EU.  One wonders were they really interested in Brexit or were they just using it for political opportunism to get into power? I see no reason why anyone would ever vote for this group of conservative politicans again.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

GSC wrote:The COVID and energy support measures seem more mandatory than top band tax cuts

It is the standard response from people that buy into this horsesh*t. Just throw around a load of other numbers in a poorly considered diversionary tactic. Sure, lets go back to pre Covid and claim all that cash back. Same with HS2. Or forget the energy support bill, just let the fat eat themselves and the poor freeze.

Many he is right. Maybe the plethora of economic commentators, the IMF, banking sector, senior credit rating agencies, hedge fund managers and pension funds are wrong and Duty is right. He will have the last laugh when he is sat there with Kwasimodo and Liz and we are all basking in those sunlit uplands. He can tell us he told us so.

BoE have just had to step in to buy longer dated UK bonds in an effort to prop up the pound. They are clearly concerned.

It's not a diversionary tactic. It's pointing out that hardly anyone cares when the UK borrows £130bn for energy support, or nearly £100bn for vanity projects like HS2, or up to £410bn for Covid measures, or even if we take something in isolation such as track and trace which cost £37 billion, but £45bn in tax cuts over five years and suddenly the sky is falling in. Where's the consistency?

I support the energy support bill, and we can't do anything about HS2 or Covid measures. That money is gone, done. You're making a point to argue something that can't be rectified as it suits the narrative. It is, by your standards, a pretty vacuous argument. Whilst I don't always agree with you, you can normally argue your case a whole let better than that post. You look like someone barking at the moon.

What the majority of people, and I don't necessary just mean on here, I mean the wider fiscal and financial market, have an issue with is reckless gambling on our economic future. In my view (and clearly the BoE, IMF, Moody's share this view) borrowing more is irresponsible in the current climate and failure to prepare the 'market' adequately (see the gilt story playing out now and subsequent BoE bailout - lets call it what it is) for unfunded tax cuts added additional stress on a currency that was on life support already. It is now close to flatlining. This just brings added pressure across the curve for gilts, pension funds, rates, the housing market. Numerous other economic sectors.

I don't know the exact number (used to when I was a trader and will probably be higher now) but pension funds used to have close to £500bn in liability driven investments. Cash calls from fund managers on those now will be running into the billions per day. The hedge against them with investment banks will be calling in those collateral calls as well. Funds will be forced to sell more gilts, forcing the price of them lower and in turn, risking more collateral calls. It is a vicious cycle that if this BoE bond purchase scheme doesn't cool down, could prompt a huge pension fund crisis. Kwarteng and Truss have got this wrong. The two things you don't f*ck with in this country are peoples houses and their pensions. Both of these are on the cusp of a meltdown. Not 100% but teetering.

As I said, you may be right but lets hope the bloodshed isn't too bad on the journey. Wish I was as confident as you.

My argument isn't that we can get the money back, or whether we oppose or support the measures, it is instead that there was no uproar from the same quarters for the other measures, which makes it seem as though Truss and Kwarteng are being slated for deviating from economic orthodoxy, in much the same way that Thatcher and Howe were. The IMF are, for instance, urging the UK to re-evaluate its tax cuts, but are not asking the same for our energy support measures, which are actually costing more.

It's also worth adding that the cost of literal tax cuts are quite small. About £34bn of this £45bn is actually coming from cancelling planned rises under the last government (the NI rise and Corporation tax rise), and one of those I don't think Labour are going to reverse if they win the next election.

As I've said I believe this is the right policy, but it is still a political risk for Truss as she only has about 18 months to see positive results before the next GE. She doesn't have a full five years. She really needs the Russians to be defeated over the winter.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:I definitely remember a lot of uproar over Test and Trace, HS2 and the method in which the energy support is being funded.

Maybe I imagined all that though.

Yes, but not from the IMF, bankers and credit agencies etc.

For someone that is pinning an awful lot of hope on forward looking government policy, you don't half spend a lot of time looking backward to support a position.

You'll need a neck brace if you carry on much longer.

I can't see into the future, alas, so I need to look to history to support a position.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:£45 billion of tax cuts (that's the cost up to 2027). Up to £98 billion on HS2. £130 billion on energy support. Up to £410 billion spending on measures to deal with Covid.

Ignore the rest. Tax cuts are the problem.

I'll agree with you on HS2, although that's still years away from even being a consideration here. Covid and the energy support are necessary whereas tax cuts are not, there's also economic tipping point which the mini budget has gone beyond.

I think tax cuts are necessary because we need to stimulate economic growth which has anaemic for the last 14 years. The previous course was getting us nowhere.

I think the UK's debt to GDP ratio is around 100%, which still puts us below most of the G7 apart from Germany.

Not posted on here for a while, but current economic events have led me to comment. I really do feel the fallout from the mini budget last week is a big turning point. Up until now, many middle income households had been shielded to an extent from the worst of the cost of living crisis. With the hikes in interest rates though this is going to hit 'Middle England' hard in the pocket through increased mortgage payments.

To me it feels like an event with political consequences on a par with Black Wednesday in 1993 which transformed the political landscape. The Tories' credibility on the economy has been trashed. Overnight they've made millions poorer, all for the sake of some ill-timed tax cuts for the wealthiest at a time when we've just entered recession.

The British, sorry I mean English electorate are notoriously gullible but finally I think the actions of this government are hitting people in the pocket and causing them to wake up. As I think Bill Clinton once said 'Its the economy, stupid'...

Duty281 wrote: .... [Liz] Truss as she only has about 18 months to see positive results before the next GE. She doesn't have a full five years. She really needs the Russians to be defeated over the winter.

What a fantastic policy and begun by Boris Johnson and his thirst to be an actor of importance on the global stage. The dangers of this policy compared to diplomacy, neutrality, realism and free trade is absolutely mind-boggling.

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

GSC wrote:The COVID and energy support measures seem more mandatory than top band tax cuts

It is the standard response from people that buy into this horsesh*t. Just throw around a load of other numbers in a poorly considered diversionary tactic. Sure, lets go back to pre Covid and claim all that cash back. Same with HS2. Or forget the energy support bill, just let the fat eat themselves and the poor freeze.

Many he is right. Maybe the plethora of economic commentators, the IMF, banking sector, senior credit rating agencies, hedge fund managers and pension funds are wrong and Duty is right. He will have the last laugh when he is sat there with Kwasimodo and Liz and we are all basking in those sunlit uplands. He can tell us he told us so.

BoE have just had to step in to buy longer dated UK bonds in an effort to prop up the pound. They are clearly concerned.

It's not a diversionary tactic. It's pointing out that hardly anyone cares when the UK borrows £130bn for energy support, or nearly £100bn for vanity projects like HS2, or up to £410bn for Covid measures, or even if we take something in isolation such as track and trace which cost £37 billion, but £45bn in tax cuts over five years and suddenly the sky is falling in. Where's the consistency?

I support the energy support bill, and we can't do anything about HS2 or Covid measures. That money is gone, done. You're making a point to argue something that can't be rectified as it suits the narrative. It is, by your standards, a pretty vacuous argument. Whilst I don't always agree with you, you can normally argue your case a whole let better than that post. You look like someone barking at the moon.

What the majority of people, and I don't necessary just mean on here, I mean the wider fiscal and financial market, have an issue with is reckless gambling on our economic future. In my view (and clearly the BoE, IMF, Moody's share this view) borrowing more is irresponsible in the current climate and failure to prepare the 'market' adequately (see the gilt story playing out now and subsequent BoE bailout - lets call it what it is) for unfunded tax cuts added additional stress on a currency that was on life support already. It is now close to flatlining. This just brings added pressure across the curve for gilts, pension funds, rates, the housing market. Numerous other economic sectors.

I don't know the exact number (used to when I was a trader and will probably be higher now) but pension funds used to have close to £500bn in liability driven investments. Cash calls from fund managers on those now will be running into the billions per day. The hedge against them with investment banks will be calling in those collateral calls as well. Funds will be forced to sell more gilts, forcing the price of them lower and in turn, risking more collateral calls. It is a vicious cycle that if this BoE bond purchase scheme doesn't cool down, could prompt a huge pension fund crisis. Kwarteng and Truss have got this wrong. The two things you don't f*ck with in this country are peoples houses and their pensions. Both of these are on the cusp of a meltdown. Not 100% but teetering.

As I said, you may be right but lets hope the bloodshed isn't too bad on the journey. Wish I was as confident as you.

My argument isn't that we can get the money back, or whether we oppose or support the measures, it is instead that there was no uproar from the same quarters for the other measures, which makes it seem as though Truss and Kwarteng are being slated for deviating from economic orthodoxy, in much the same way that Thatcher and Howe were. The IMF are, for instance, urging the UK to re-evaluate its tax cuts, but are not asking the same for our energy support measures, which are actually costing more.

It's also worth adding that the cost of literal tax cuts are quite small. About £34bn of this £45bn is actually coming from cancelling planned rises under the last government (the NI rise and Corporation tax rise), and one of those I don't think Labour are going to reverse if they win the next election.

As I've said I believe this is the right policy, but it is still a political risk for Truss as she only has about 18 months to see positive results before the next GE. She doesn't have a full five years. She really needs the Russians to be defeated over the winter.

You've also said that you don't care about the rich/poor divide increasing. One of the criticisms of these measures is that the poor will be worse off, and the rich will be better off, and the historical evidence indicates this is likely to happen. A lot of people find that morally indefensible, while others celebrate it. Perhaps one reason why there was no outcry on some of the previous measures is that they helped everyone in a fairer way.

MrInvisible wrote:.... middle income households had been shielded to an extent from the worst of the cost of living crisis. With the hikes in interest rates though this is going to hit 'Middle England' hard in the pocket through increased mortgage payments.

To me it feels like an event with political consequences ...

It seems only when middle income households are affected are there moves and criticism against government policy.  Non-property owning people living on the breadline on low incomes with small savings never seem to count.

Found Duty's Twitter alias

https://twitter.com/conhome/status/1575020701890715648?s=12

Duty281 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:£45 billion of tax cuts (that's the cost up to 2027). Up to £98 billion on HS2. £130 billion on energy support. Up to £410 billion spending on measures to deal with Covid.

Ignore the rest. Tax cuts are the problem.

I'll agree with you on HS2, although that's still years away from even being a consideration here. Covid and the energy support are necessary whereas tax cuts are not, there's also economic tipping point which the mini budget has gone beyond.

I think tax cuts are necessary because we need to stimulate economic growth which has anaemic for the last 14 years. The previous course was getting us nowhere.

I think the UK's debt to GDP ratio is around 100%, which still puts us below most of the G7 apart from Germany.

Those given the tax cuts don't need them in order to spend money so it achieves nothing.

I don't know whether it's a supreme desire to do "something" but certainly not waiting for a report from the OBR looks extremely amateur at best.

Aware our democracy doesn't quite work that way but not entirely sure what mandate Truss and co felt they had to suddenly change course and implement this seemingly on the fly. Wasn't quite the platform the Tories campaigned on at the last GE considering theyre overturning their own tax rises.

No excuses for Labour now. If Boris was scraping the barrel for talent, doesn't say much for who's there now

No name Bertie wrote:

Duty281 wrote: .... [Liz] Truss as she only has about 18 months to see positive results before the next GE. She doesn't have a full five years. She really needs the Russians to be defeated over the winter.

What a fantastic policy and begun by Boris Johnson and his thirst to be an actor of importance on the global stage.  The dangers of this policy compared to diplomacy, neutrality, realism and free trade is absolutely mind-boggling.

Pathetic.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

GSC wrote:The COVID and energy support measures seem more mandatory than top band tax cuts

It is the standard response from people that buy into this horsesh*t. Just throw around a load of other numbers in a poorly considered diversionary tactic. Sure, lets go back to pre Covid and claim all that cash back. Same with HS2. Or forget the energy support bill, just let the fat eat themselves and the poor freeze.

Many he is right. Maybe the plethora of economic commentators, the IMF, banking sector, senior credit rating agencies, hedge fund managers and pension funds are wrong and Duty is right. He will have the last laugh when he is sat there with Kwasimodo and Liz and we are all basking in those sunlit uplands. He can tell us he told us so.

BoE have just had to step in to buy longer dated UK bonds in an effort to prop up the pound. They are clearly concerned.

It's not a diversionary tactic. It's pointing out that hardly anyone cares when the UK borrows £130bn for energy support, or nearly £100bn for vanity projects like HS2, or up to £410bn for Covid measures, or even if we take something in isolation such as track and trace which cost £37 billion, but £45bn in tax cuts over five years and suddenly the sky is falling in. Where's the consistency?

I support the energy support bill, and we can't do anything about HS2 or Covid measures. That money is gone, done. You're making a point to argue something that can't be rectified as it suits the narrative. It is, by your standards, a pretty vacuous argument. Whilst I don't always agree with you, you can normally argue your case a whole let better than that post. You look like someone barking at the moon.

What the majority of people, and I don't necessary just mean on here, I mean the wider fiscal and financial market, have an issue with is reckless gambling on our economic future. In my view (and clearly the BoE, IMF, Moody's share this view) borrowing more is irresponsible in the current climate and failure to prepare the 'market' adequately (see the gilt story playing out now and subsequent BoE bailout - lets call it what it is) for unfunded tax cuts added additional stress on a currency that was on life support already. It is now close to flatlining. This just brings added pressure across the curve for gilts, pension funds, rates, the housing market. Numerous other economic sectors.

I don't know the exact number (used to when I was a trader and will probably be higher now) but pension funds used to have close to £500bn in liability driven investments. Cash calls from fund managers on those now will be running into the billions per day. The hedge against them with investment banks will be calling in those collateral calls as well. Funds will be forced to sell more gilts, forcing the price of them lower and in turn, risking more collateral calls. It is a vicious cycle that if this BoE bond purchase scheme doesn't cool down, could prompt a huge pension fund crisis. Kwarteng and Truss have got this wrong. The two things you don't f*ck with in this country are peoples houses and their pensions. Both of these are on the cusp of a meltdown. Not 100% but teetering.

As I said, you may be right but lets hope the bloodshed isn't too bad on the journey. Wish I was as confident as you.

My argument isn't that we can get the money back, or whether we oppose or support the measures, it is instead that there was no uproar from the same quarters for the other measures, which makes it seem as though Truss and Kwarteng are being slated for deviating from economic orthodoxy, in much the same way that Thatcher and Howe were. The IMF are, for instance, urging the UK to re-evaluate its tax cuts, but are not asking the same for our energy support measures, which are actually costing more.

It's also worth adding that the cost of literal tax cuts are quite small. About £34bn of this £45bn is actually coming from cancelling planned rises under the last government (the NI rise and Corporation tax rise), and one of those I don't think Labour are going to reverse if they win the next election.

As I've said I believe this is the right policy, but it is still a political risk for Truss as she only has about 18 months to see positive results before the next GE. She doesn't have a full five years. She really needs the Russians to be defeated over the winter.

You've also said that you don't care about the rich/poor divide increasing. One of the criticisms of these measures is that the poor will be worse off, and the rich will be better off, and the historical evidence indicates this is likely to happen. A lot of people find that morally indefensible, while others celebrate it. Perhaps one reason why there was no outcry on some of the previous measures is that they helped everyone in a fairer way.

I disagree that the poorest will be worse off. There is a cut in the basic rate of income tax plus the rise in national insurance will be scrapped. The economic growth that results from these changes will also bring greater prosperity in the medium-long term.

I do not believe the IMF is acting because it considers itself to be a moral arbiter, either.

Cutting NI does very little for the poorest tho?

GSC wrote:Cutting NI does very little for the poorest tho?

Does little, doesn't make them worse off though.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

GSC wrote:The COVID and energy support measures seem more mandatory than top band tax cuts

It is the standard response from people that buy into this horsesh*t. Just throw around a load of other numbers in a poorly considered diversionary tactic. Sure, lets go back to pre Covid and claim all that cash back. Same with HS2. Or forget the energy support bill, just let the fat eat themselves and the poor freeze.

Many he is right. Maybe the plethora of economic commentators, the IMF, banking sector, senior credit rating agencies, hedge fund managers and pension funds are wrong and Duty is right. He will have the last laugh when he is sat there with Kwasimodo and Liz and we are all basking in those sunlit uplands. He can tell us he told us so.

BoE have just had to step in to buy longer dated UK bonds in an effort to prop up the pound. They are clearly concerned.

It's not a diversionary tactic. It's pointing out that hardly anyone cares when the UK borrows £130bn for energy support, or nearly £100bn for vanity projects like HS2, or up to £410bn for Covid measures, or even if we take something in isolation such as track and trace which cost £37 billion, but £45bn in tax cuts over five years and suddenly the sky is falling in. Where's the consistency?

I support the energy support bill, and we can't do anything about HS2 or Covid measures. That money is gone, done. You're making a point to argue something that can't be rectified as it suits the narrative. It is, by your standards, a pretty vacuous argument. Whilst I don't always agree with you, you can normally argue your case a whole let better than that post. You look like someone barking at the moon.

What the majority of people, and I don't necessary just mean on here, I mean the wider fiscal and financial market, have an issue with is reckless gambling on our economic future. In my view (and clearly the BoE, IMF, Moody's share this view) borrowing more is irresponsible in the current climate and failure to prepare the 'market' adequately (see the gilt story playing out now and subsequent BoE bailout - lets call it what it is) for unfunded tax cuts added additional stress on a currency that was on life support already. It is now close to flatlining. This just brings added pressure across the curve for gilts, pension funds, rates, the housing market. Numerous other economic sectors.

I don't know the exact number (used to when I was a trader and will probably be higher now) but pension funds used to have close to £500bn in liability driven investments. Cash calls from fund managers on those now will be running into the billions per day. The hedge against them with investment banks will be calling in those collateral calls as well. Funds will be forced to sell more gilts, forcing the price of them lower and in turn, risking more collateral calls. It is a vicious cycle that if this BoE bond purchase scheme doesn't cool down, could prompt a huge pension fund crisis. Kwarteng and Truss have got this wrong. The two things you don't f*ck with in this country are peoples houses and their pensions. Both of these are on the cusp of a meltdown. Not 100% but teetering.

As I said, you may be right but lets hope the bloodshed isn't too bad on the journey. Wish I was as confident as you.

My argument isn't that we can get the money back, or whether we oppose or support the measures, it is instead that there was no uproar from the same quarters for the other measures, which makes it seem as though Truss and Kwarteng are being slated for deviating from economic orthodoxy, in much the same way that Thatcher and Howe were. The IMF are, for instance, urging the UK to re-evaluate its tax cuts, but are not asking the same for our energy support measures, which are actually costing more.

It's also worth adding that the cost of literal tax cuts are quite small. About £34bn of this £45bn is actually coming from cancelling planned rises under the last government (the NI rise and Corporation tax rise), and one of those I don't think Labour are going to reverse if they win the next election.

As I've said I believe this is the right policy, but it is still a political risk for Truss as she only has about 18 months to see positive results before the next GE. She doesn't have a full five years. She really needs the Russians to be defeated over the winter.

You've also said that you don't care about the rich/poor divide increasing. One of the criticisms of these measures is that the poor will be worse off, and the rich will be better off, and the historical evidence indicates this is likely to happen. A lot of people find that morally indefensible, while others celebrate it. Perhaps one reason why there was no outcry on some of the previous measures is that they helped everyone in a fairer way.

I disagree that the poorest will be worse off. There is a cut in the basic rate of income tax plus the rise in national insurance will be scrapped. The economic growth that results from these changes will also bring greater prosperity in the medium-long term.

I do not believe the IMF is acting because it considers itself to be a moral arbiter, either.

Most analyses indicate it is likely the poor will be worse off, but I actually don't think you care either way about whether they will be or not.
And you also seem to think the rich/poor divide getting bigger is morally acceptable.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

GSC wrote:The COVID and energy support measures seem more mandatory than top band tax cuts

It is the standard response from people that buy into this horsesh*t. Just throw around a load of other numbers in a poorly considered diversionary tactic. Sure, lets go back to pre Covid and claim all that cash back. Same with HS2. Or forget the energy support bill, just let the fat eat themselves and the poor freeze.

Many he is right. Maybe the plethora of economic commentators, the IMF, banking sector, senior credit rating agencies, hedge fund managers and pension funds are wrong and Duty is right. He will have the last laugh when he is sat there with Kwasimodo and Liz and we are all basking in those sunlit uplands. He can tell us he told us so.

BoE have just had to step in to buy longer dated UK bonds in an effort to prop up the pound. They are clearly concerned.

It's not a diversionary tactic. It's pointing out that hardly anyone cares when the UK borrows £130bn for energy support, or nearly £100bn for vanity projects like HS2, or up to £410bn for Covid measures, or even if we take something in isolation such as track and trace which cost £37 billion, but £45bn in tax cuts over five years and suddenly the sky is falling in. Where's the consistency?

I support the energy support bill, and we can't do anything about HS2 or Covid measures. That money is gone, done. You're making a point to argue something that can't be rectified as it suits the narrative. It is, by your standards, a pretty vacuous argument. Whilst I don't always agree with you, you can normally argue your case a whole let better than that post. You look like someone barking at the moon.

What the majority of people, and I don't necessary just mean on here, I mean the wider fiscal and financial market, have an issue with is reckless gambling on our economic future. In my view (and clearly the BoE, IMF, Moody's share this view) borrowing more is irresponsible in the current climate and failure to prepare the 'market' adequately (see the gilt story playing out now and subsequent BoE bailout - lets call it what it is) for unfunded tax cuts added additional stress on a currency that was on life support already. It is now close to flatlining. This just brings added pressure across the curve for gilts, pension funds, rates, the housing market. Numerous other economic sectors.

I don't know the exact number (used to when I was a trader and will probably be higher now) but pension funds used to have close to £500bn in liability driven investments. Cash calls from fund managers on those now will be running into the billions per day. The hedge against them with investment banks will be calling in those collateral calls as well. Funds will be forced to sell more gilts, forcing the price of them lower and in turn, risking more collateral calls. It is a vicious cycle that if this BoE bond purchase scheme doesn't cool down, could prompt a huge pension fund crisis. Kwarteng and Truss have got this wrong. The two things you don't f*ck with in this country are peoples houses and their pensions. Both of these are on the cusp of a meltdown. Not 100% but teetering.

As I said, you may be right but lets hope the bloodshed isn't too bad on the journey. Wish I was as confident as you.

My argument isn't that we can get the money back, or whether we oppose or support the measures, it is instead that there was no uproar from the same quarters for the other measures, which makes it seem as though Truss and Kwarteng are being slated for deviating from economic orthodoxy, in much the same way that Thatcher and Howe were. The IMF are, for instance, urging the UK to re-evaluate its tax cuts, but are not asking the same for our energy support measures, which are actually costing more.

It's also worth adding that the cost of literal tax cuts are quite small. About £34bn of this £45bn is actually coming from cancelling planned rises under the last government (the NI rise and Corporation tax rise), and one of those I don't think Labour are going to reverse if they win the next election.

As I've said I believe this is the right policy, but it is still a political risk for Truss as she only has about 18 months to see positive results before the next GE. She doesn't have a full five years. She really needs the Russians to be defeated over the winter.

You've also said that you don't care about the rich/poor divide increasing. One of the criticisms of these measures is that the poor will be worse off, and the rich will be better off, and the historical evidence indicates this is likely to happen. A lot of people find that morally indefensible, while others celebrate it. Perhaps one reason why there was no outcry on some of the previous measures is that they helped everyone in a fairer way.

I disagree that the poorest will be worse off. There is a cut in the basic rate of income tax plus the rise in national insurance will be scrapped. The economic growth that results from these changes will also bring greater prosperity in the medium-long term.

I do not believe the IMF is acting because it considers itself to be a moral arbiter, either.

but I actually don't think you care either way about whether they will be or not.
And you also seem to think the rich/poor divide getting bigger is morally acceptable.

1) This is false. Just because I have a different approach to you, it does not mean that I don't care.
2) Yes, this is correct. I believe I've already stated this.

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:Cutting NI does very little for the poorest tho?

Does little, doesn't make them worse off though.

So doesn't stimulate growth.

Duty281 wrote:

I think the UK's debt to GDP ratio is around 100%, which still puts us below most of the G7 apart from Germany.

Forecast to rise to 104% by 2026.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

I think the UK's debt to GDP ratio is around 100%, which still puts us below most of the G7 apart from Germany.

Forecast to rise to 104% by 2026.

That's better than I thought. France is about 115, Canada 118, USA 134, Italy 155 and Japan 259.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:Cutting NI does very little for the poorest tho?

Does little, doesn't make them worse off though.

So doesn't stimulate growth.

What stimulates growth is stopping the rise in corporation tax, ending the cap on bankers' bonuses, cutting the top rate of tax, simplifying planning reform, and increasing investment in the private sector.

Duty281 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:Cutting NI does very little for the poorest tho?

Does little, doesn't make them worse off though.

So doesn't stimulate growth.

What stimulates growth is stopping the rise in corporation tax, ending the cap on bankers' bonuses, cutting the top rate of tax, simplifying planning reform, and increasing investment in the private sector.

That simulates the divide between the poor and mega rich, drives up inflation, obliterates the housing market and is in general a cluster**** of epic proportions.

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

GSC wrote:The COVID and energy support measures seem more mandatory than top band tax cuts

It is the standard response from people that buy into this horsesh*t. Just throw around a load of other numbers in a poorly considered diversionary tactic. Sure, lets go back to pre Covid and claim all that cash back. Same with HS2. Or forget the energy support bill, just let the fat eat themselves and the poor freeze.

Many he is right. Maybe the plethora of economic commentators, the IMF, banking sector, senior credit rating agencies, hedge fund managers and pension funds are wrong and Duty is right. He will have the last laugh when he is sat there with Kwasimodo and Liz and we are all basking in those sunlit uplands. He can tell us he told us so.

BoE have just had to step in to buy longer dated UK bonds in an effort to prop up the pound. They are clearly concerned.

It's not a diversionary tactic. It's pointing out that hardly anyone cares when the UK borrows £130bn for energy support, or nearly £100bn for vanity projects like HS2, or up to £410bn for Covid measures, or even if we take something in isolation such as track and trace which cost £37 billion, but £45bn in tax cuts over five years and suddenly the sky is falling in. Where's the consistency?

I support the energy support bill, and we can't do anything about HS2 or Covid measures. That money is gone, done. You're making a point to argue something that can't be rectified as it suits the narrative. It is, by your standards, a pretty vacuous argument. Whilst I don't always agree with you, you can normally argue your case a whole let better than that post. You look like someone barking at the moon.

What the majority of people, and I don't necessary just mean on here, I mean the wider fiscal and financial market, have an issue with is reckless gambling on our economic future. In my view (and clearly the BoE, IMF, Moody's share this view) borrowing more is irresponsible in the current climate and failure to prepare the 'market' adequately (see the gilt story playing out now and subsequent BoE bailout - lets call it what it is) for unfunded tax cuts added additional stress on a currency that was on life support already. It is now close to flatlining. This just brings added pressure across the curve for gilts, pension funds, rates, the housing market. Numerous other economic sectors.

I don't know the exact number (used to when I was a trader and will probably be higher now) but pension funds used to have close to £500bn in liability driven investments. Cash calls from fund managers on those now will be running into the billions per day. The hedge against them with investment banks will be calling in those collateral calls as well. Funds will be forced to sell more gilts, forcing the price of them lower and in turn, risking more collateral calls. It is a vicious cycle that if this BoE bond purchase scheme doesn't cool down, could prompt a huge pension fund crisis. Kwarteng and Truss have got this wrong. The two things you don't f*ck with in this country are peoples houses and their pensions. Both of these are on the cusp of a meltdown. Not 100% but teetering.

As I said, you may be right but lets hope the bloodshed isn't too bad on the journey. Wish I was as confident as you.

My argument isn't that we can get the money back, or whether we oppose or support the measures, it is instead that there was no uproar from the same quarters for the other measures, which makes it seem as though Truss and Kwarteng are being slated for deviating from economic orthodoxy, in much the same way that Thatcher and Howe were. The IMF are, for instance, urging the UK to re-evaluate its tax cuts, but are not asking the same for our energy support measures, which are actually costing more.

It's also worth adding that the cost of literal tax cuts are quite small. About £34bn of this £45bn is actually coming from cancelling planned rises under the last government (the NI rise and Corporation tax rise), and one of those I don't think Labour are going to reverse if they win the next election.

As I've said I believe this is the right policy, but it is still a political risk for Truss as she only has about 18 months to see positive results before the next GE. She doesn't have a full five years. She really needs the Russians to be defeated over the winter.

Yes, I think we understand the point. You're frustrated with the IMF as they are not having a pop over the energy support bill which costs more but will almost certainly save lives. It just seems like the thin end of the wedge to complain about a lack of consistency from the IMF when they, amongst other economic powerhouses lest we forget, are massively concerned about fiscal responsibility in the UK. The IMF are the lender of last resort. They normally only see fit to intervene publicly on government policy when it is an emerging market, not the worlds 5th largest economy. That is concerning in itself. I don't think they are doing it for fun, they clearly have huge concerns (as do the BoE re bond repurchases. A total reversal of their recent policy) over the policy decisions of this mini budget.

It is a bit disingenuous (and I think you probably know this) to talk about 'literal tax cuts'. It is just ignoring context. I've given you context on pension funds, gilt markets, a reinstatement of quantitative easing against BoE policy. Kwarteng's fiscal gamble in lowering income tax in the context of an inflationary and cost of living environment (for the earners best placed to absorb that cost of living crisis at that!) has put monetary policy (BoE) in a terrible position. He has basically front run the BoE (don't believe for one moment he is bright enough to have done it deliberately) by forcing them to use one of the two tools they have (rate hikes or bond repurchase) to prop up the pound. The BoE are in a no win position and forced there by a chancellor. It is incredible really. They are not faultless, they should have been far quicker to raise rates but now they have been bent over by Kwasimodo and forced to take what he has to give.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

GSC wrote:The COVID and energy support measures seem more mandatory than top band tax cuts

It is the standard response from people that buy into this horsesh*t. Just throw around a load of other numbers in a poorly considered diversionary tactic. Sure, lets go back to pre Covid and claim all that cash back. Same with HS2. Or forget the energy support bill, just let the fat eat themselves and the poor freeze.

Many he is right. Maybe the plethora of economic commentators, the IMF, banking sector, senior credit rating agencies, hedge fund managers and pension funds are wrong and Duty is right. He will have the last laugh when he is sat there with Kwasimodo and Liz and we are all basking in those sunlit uplands. He can tell us he told us so.

BoE have just had to step in to buy longer dated UK bonds in an effort to prop up the pound. They are clearly concerned.

It's not a diversionary tactic. It's pointing out that hardly anyone cares when the UK borrows £130bn for energy support, or nearly £100bn for vanity projects like HS2, or up to £410bn for Covid measures, or even if we take something in isolation such as track and trace which cost £37 billion, but £45bn in tax cuts over five years and suddenly the sky is falling in. Where's the consistency?

I support the energy support bill, and we can't do anything about HS2 or Covid measures. That money is gone, done. You're making a point to argue something that can't be rectified as it suits the narrative. It is, by your standards, a pretty vacuous argument. Whilst I don't always agree with you, you can normally argue your case a whole let better than that post. You look like someone barking at the moon.

What the majority of people, and I don't necessary just mean on here, I mean the wider fiscal and financial market, have an issue with is reckless gambling on our economic future. In my view (and clearly the BoE, IMF, Moody's share this view) borrowing more is irresponsible in the current climate and failure to prepare the 'market' adequately (see the gilt story playing out now and subsequent BoE bailout - lets call it what it is) for unfunded tax cuts added additional stress on a currency that was on life support already. It is now close to flatlining. This just brings added pressure across the curve for gilts, pension funds, rates, the housing market. Numerous other economic sectors.

I don't know the exact number (used to when I was a trader and will probably be higher now) but pension funds used to have close to £500bn in liability driven investments. Cash calls from fund managers on those now will be running into the billions per day. The hedge against them with investment banks will be calling in those collateral calls as well. Funds will be forced to sell more gilts, forcing the price of them lower and in turn, risking more collateral calls. It is a vicious cycle that if this BoE bond purchase scheme doesn't cool down, could prompt a huge pension fund crisis. Kwarteng and Truss have got this wrong. The two things you don't f*ck with in this country are peoples houses and their pensions. Both of these are on the cusp of a meltdown. Not 100% but teetering.

As I said, you may be right but lets hope the bloodshed isn't too bad on the journey. Wish I was as confident as you.

My argument isn't that we can get the money back, or whether we oppose or support the measures, it is instead that there was no uproar from the same quarters for the other measures, which makes it seem as though Truss and Kwarteng are being slated for deviating from economic orthodoxy, in much the same way that Thatcher and Howe were. The IMF are, for instance, urging the UK to re-evaluate its tax cuts, but are not asking the same for our energy support measures, which are actually costing more.

It's also worth adding that the cost of literal tax cuts are quite small. About £34bn of this £45bn is actually coming from cancelling planned rises under the last government (the NI rise and Corporation tax rise), and one of those I don't think Labour are going to reverse if they win the next election.

As I've said I believe this is the right policy, but it is still a political risk for Truss as she only has about 18 months to see positive results before the next GE. She doesn't have a full five years. She really needs the Russians to be defeated over the winter.

Yes, I think we understand the point. You're frustrated with the IMF as they are not having a pop over the energy support bill which costs more but will almost certainly save lives. It just seems like the thin end of the wedge to complain about a lack of consistency from the IMF when they, amongst other economic powerhouses lest we forget, are massively concerned about fiscal responsibility in the UK. The IMF are the lender of last resort. They normally only see fit to intervene publicly on government policy when it is an emerging market, not the worlds 5th largest economy. That is concerning in itself. I don't think they are doing it for fun, they clearly have huge concerns (as do the BoE re bond repurchases. A total reversal of their recent policy) over the policy decisions of this mini budget.

It is a bit disingenuous (and I think you probably know this) to talk about 'literal tax cuts'. It is just ignoring context. I've given you context on pension funds, gilt markets, a reinstatement of quantitative easing against BoE policy. Kwarteng's fiscal gamble in lowering income tax in the context of an inflationary and cost of living environment (for the earners best placed to absorb that cost of living crisis at that!) has put monetary policy (BoE) in a terrible position. He has basically front run the BoE (don't believe for one moment he is bright enough to have done it deliberately) by forcing them to use one of the two tools they have (rate hikes or bond repurchase) to prop up the pound. The BoE are in a no win position and forced there by a chancellor. It is incredible really. They are not faultless, they should have been far quicker to raise rates but now they have been bent over by Kwasimodo and forced to take what he has to give.

Duty's also trotting out the exact same argument as John Redwood who has never knowingly been right about anything.

superflyweight wrote:

Duty's also trotting out the exact same argument as John Redwood who has never knowingly been right about anything.  

Aye, although he made a good fist of singing the Welsh national anthem.....