LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

kingstongraham

How far back are they planning to go on removing traffic management schemes?

Or is it bye bye to any cul de sac and one way system? The car must be able to go anywhere.

pblakeney

… and yet ULEZ will be implemented.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

How far back are they planning to go on removing traffic management schemes?

Or is it bye bye to any cul de sac and one way system? The car must be able to go anywhere.

At a guess, quite a LTNs and blanket 20mph limits will be in the firing line, as they should be.

Stevo_666

pblakeney said:

… and yet ULEZ will be implemented.

Electorally that could be quite useful, as a lot of voters will be really hacked off now.

pangolin

Grasping at straws and damaging the country while they do it.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Grasping at straws and damaging the country while they do it.

I don't see how removing some LTNs and blanket 20mph limits is damaging the country, nor will a lot of motorists who are fed up with this sort of thing.

It's a vote winner in my view so they should go for it.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

How far back are they planning to go on removing traffic management schemes?

Or is it bye bye to any cul de sac and one way system? The car must be able to go anywhere.

At a guess, quite a LTNs and blanket 20mph limits will be in the firing line, as they should be.

But there have been LTNs since the 70s.

Literally every new residential development is a series of LTNs.

kingstongraham

I guess the plan is to announce a ban on "LTNs that you don't like".

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Grasping at straws and damaging the country while they do it.

I don't see how removing some LTNs and blanket 20mph limits is damaging the country, nor will a lot of motorists who are fed up with this sort of thing.

It's a vote winner in my view so they should go for it.

kingstongraham

New policy - announce that every residential area will become a High Traffic Neighbourhood.

kingstongraham

Indoor shopping centres to be banned as there is no car parking directly outside the shops.

skyblueamateur

The only 20mph zones round here are around schools. Are these to be abolished as well?

pangolin

It's pathetic. They're flailing around trying to scrape together a few votes with no regard for whether it's a good idea.

Where was making things easier for drivers in the 2019 manifesto Stevo? Or in Sunak's big 5 pledges for 2023?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Grasping at straws and damaging the country while they do it.

I don't see how removing some LTNs and blanket 20mph limits is damaging the country, nor will a lot of motorists who are fed up with this sort of thing.

It's a vote winner in my view so they should go for it.

Let's see if anything actually happens beyond a few tweets. My guess is a big fat nothing and few more people playing the victim.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Grasping at straws and damaging the country while they do it.

I don't see how removing some LTNs and blanket 20mph limits is damaging the country, nor will a lot of motorists who are fed up with this sort of thing.

It's a vote winner in my view so they should go for it.

I've a feeling they don't have to work too hard for your vote, though.

tailwindhome

'Talking about freedom, sitting in Margaret Thatcher's Rover'

Unsurpassed comms

Stevo_666

Clearly this is getting a few people quite exercised, but it's about time. I will watch with interest to see what happens

kingstongraham

I think the Conservatives becoming the anti-environment party will be bad for the Conservatives in elections, but also bad for everyone.

Pross

This falls right into peak Stevo territory. It combines Tory policy and sticking up for the poor put upon motorist.

Yet another example of something the Tories have helped push forward that is now being treated like it was a Labour policy.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

This is back to front. Money doesn't originate from the general public. It is issued by a central bank - part of the state. If you have no say in how it is spent and it isn't in your possession, describing it as your money is a fairy story. It only used to be yours.

And without people and businesses they would have nothing to issue. We fund the state, it is reliant on us for that.

What?!

A central bank literally creates money from nothing. It doesn't come from taxes. People and businesses create goods and services that they can exchange for money but they don't create money for the central bank to issue.

Unless you are forging pound coins in your spare time.

People and businesses create wealth. The state printing money is not wealth creation, its allowing economic exchanges that create wealth. Then we donate some of that wealth to that state.

I mean, QE is literally creating money out of thin air and then using it to buy government and corporate bonds. A huge chunk of that money ended up in private hands so in a very real sense the state does create wealth. From the BoE website:

One of the consequences of QE is it increases the value of assets such as shares. That increases the wealth of the people who own them

Not exclusively of course. Corporations create things or services which they can exchange for money. Hopefully more money than it cost to create them => wealth. I would agree that the state collects some of that wealth as taxes, although donations are not usually compulsory. Once you have donated to Battersea Dogs Home, that's their money to do with as they see fit. It's no longer yours.

Not exclusively but mainly. My point still stands.

Injecting an additional £895bn into the economy is clearly creating significant wealth. Most of this went into the government budget and thence to furlough => landlords, healthcare, energy payments => energy companies and so on. It's not surprising that the government claws some of that back through taxes.

Not sure that creating wealth is quite so simple as doing a bit of QE.

Let's put it another way (and point out if I've got anything wrong).

Government issues bonds.
BoE creates money to buy those bonds.
Government spends proceeds of those bonds on myriad things.
Some of that money ends up back in Government account through taxation.
The rest ends up in private accounts of businesses and individuals who have provided some service or goods to the Government.
Bonds mature so Government takes some of receipts from taxation and pays to BoE.
BoE is currently reversing QE, so 'destroys' some of those receipts.

Your 2nd point is not correct, the Bank never bought newly issued bonds.

Point 7 is a touch rosy as the Bank bought bonds (in the open market see point above) at sky high prices so when the bonds mature the Bank will realise a loss. The bad news is that this forecast to be £150bn over the next decade. The really bad news is that the Bank got the Treasury to indemnify them against these losses. You could see it as the Govt have committed to spending the money in your bank acct on unravelling dodgy financial practices.

What we need TBB to explain is how much they are losing on coupons/interest on that holding. I.e. are they borrowing at 5% to pay themselves a return of 0.5%?

Not sure I said they were newly issued bonds and not sure this makes a difference to the basic point: the BoE creates reserves out of nothing and some of that ends up in private hands. I don't think whether the BoE making a loss makes a difference to that point either.

You will have to explain how the Bank buying bonds in the secondary market creates wealth.

Are there any other categories of buyers who create wealth

briantrumpet

It'll be quite fun if Labour get the messaging right on how the Tories' policies would make residential areas more dangerous and more polluted.

The danger for politicians, especially the PM, tweeting directly in his name, is that it's personal, and Sunak won't be able to claim he's not keen on the idea, if it turns out not to be the vote winner they so desperately want it to be. It really does have all the ring of the gun lobby in the US, and is, I suspect, modelled on that.

secretsqirrel

briantrumpet said:

It'll be quite fun if Labour get the messaging right on how the Tories' policies would make residential areas more dangerous and more polluted.

The danger for politicians, especially the PM, tweeting directly in his name, is that it's personal, and Sunak won't be able to claim he's not keen on the idea, if it turns out not to be the vote winner they so desperately want it to be. It really does have all the ring of the gun lobby in the US, and is, I suspect, modelled on that.

It will just mean a massive 3 point turn, judging by behaviour of the last few years.

focuszing723

...

focuszing723

...

shirley_basso

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

… and yet ULEZ will be implemented.

Electorally that could be quite useful, as a lot of voters will be really hacked off now.

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

How far back are they planning to go on removing traffic management schemes?

Or is it bye bye to any cul de sac and one way system? The car must be able to go anywhere.

At a guess, quite a LTNs and blanket 20mph limits will be in the firing line, as they should be.

I love how easily stevo is activated. A politicians dream. Zero cognitive thought. Easily manipulated to the cause. Robotic in response, on time with reply. Shallower than a chatbot but better - a real person.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

This is back to front. Money doesn't originate from the general public. It is issued by a central bank - part of the state. If you have no say in how it is spent and it isn't in your possession, describing it as your money is a fairy story. It only used to be yours.

And without people and businesses they would have nothing to issue. We fund the state, it is reliant on us for that.

What?!

A central bank literally creates money from nothing. It doesn't come from taxes. People and businesses create goods and services that they can exchange for money but they don't create money for the central bank to issue.

Unless you are forging pound coins in your spare time.

People and businesses create wealth. The state printing money is not wealth creation, its allowing economic exchanges that create wealth. Then we donate some of that wealth to that state.

I mean, QE is literally creating money out of thin air and then using it to buy government and corporate bonds. A huge chunk of that money ended up in private hands so in a very real sense the state does create wealth. From the BoE website:

One of the consequences of QE is it increases the value of assets such as shares. That increases the wealth of the people who own them

Not exclusively of course. Corporations create things or services which they can exchange for money. Hopefully more money than it cost to create them => wealth. I would agree that the state collects some of that wealth as taxes, although donations are not usually compulsory. Once you have donated to Battersea Dogs Home, that's their money to do with as they see fit. It's no longer yours.

Not exclusively but mainly. My point still stands.

Injecting an additional £895bn into the economy is clearly creating significant wealth. Most of this went into the government budget and thence to furlough => landlords, healthcare, energy payments => energy companies and so on. It's not surprising that the government claws some of that back through taxes.

Not sure that creating wealth is quite so simple as doing a bit of QE.

Let's put it another way (and point out if I've got anything wrong).

Government issues bonds.
BoE creates money to buy those bonds.
Government spends proceeds of those bonds on myriad things.
Some of that money ends up back in Government account through taxation.
The rest ends up in private accounts of businesses and individuals who have provided some service or goods to the Government.
Bonds mature so Government takes some of receipts from taxation and pays to BoE.
BoE is currently reversing QE, so 'destroys' some of those receipts.

Your 2nd point is not correct, the Bank never bought newly issued bonds.

Point 7 is a touch rosy as the Bank bought bonds (in the open market see point above) at sky high prices so when the bonds mature the Bank will realise a loss. The bad news is that this forecast to be £150bn over the next decade. The really bad news is that the Bank got the Treasury to indemnify them against these losses. You could see it as the Govt have committed to spending the money in your bank acct on unravelling dodgy financial practices.

What we need TBB to explain is how much they are losing on coupons/interest on that holding. I.e. are they borrowing at 5% to pay themselves a return of 0.5%?

Not sure I said they were newly issued bonds and not sure this makes a difference to the basic point: the BoE creates reserves out of nothing and some of that ends up in private hands. I don't think whether the BoE making a loss makes a difference to that point either.

You will have to explain how the Bank buying bonds in the secondary market creates wealth.

Are there any other categories of buyers who create wealth

A buyer who can print their own money is obviously a special case. You can read it on the BoE's own website if you don't believe me.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

This is back to front. Money doesn't originate from the general public. It is issued by a central bank - part of the state. If you have no say in how it is spent and it isn't in your possession, describing it as your money is a fairy story. It only used to be yours.

And without people and businesses they would have nothing to issue. We fund the state, it is reliant on us for that.

What?!

A central bank literally creates money from nothing. It doesn't come from taxes. People and businesses create goods and services that they can exchange for money but they don't create money for the central bank to issue.

Unless you are forging pound coins in your spare time.

People and businesses create wealth. The state printing money is not wealth creation, its allowing economic exchanges that create wealth. Then we donate some of that wealth to that state.

I mean, QE is literally creating money out of thin air and then using it to buy government and corporate bonds. A huge chunk of that money ended up in private hands so in a very real sense the state does create wealth. From the BoE website:

One of the consequences of QE is it increases the value of assets such as shares. That increases the wealth of the people who own them

Not exclusively of course. Corporations create things or services which they can exchange for money. Hopefully more money than it cost to create them => wealth. I would agree that the state collects some of that wealth as taxes, although donations are not usually compulsory. Once you have donated to Battersea Dogs Home, that's their money to do with as they see fit. It's no longer yours.

Not exclusively but mainly. My point still stands.

Injecting an additional £895bn into the economy is clearly creating significant wealth. Most of this went into the government budget and thence to furlough => landlords, healthcare, energy payments => energy companies and so on. It's not surprising that the government claws some of that back through taxes.

Not sure that creating wealth is quite so simple as doing a bit of QE.

Let's put it another way (and point out if I've got anything wrong).

Government issues bonds.
BoE creates money to buy those bonds.
Government spends proceeds of those bonds on myriad things.
Some of that money ends up back in Government account through taxation.
The rest ends up in private accounts of businesses and individuals who have provided some service or goods to the Government.
Bonds mature so Government takes some of receipts from taxation and pays to BoE.
BoE is currently reversing QE, so 'destroys' some of those receipts.

Your 2nd point is not correct, the Bank never bought newly issued bonds.

Point 7 is a touch rosy as the Bank bought bonds (in the open market see point above) at sky high prices so when the bonds mature the Bank will realise a loss. The bad news is that this forecast to be £150bn over the next decade. The really bad news is that the Bank got the Treasury to indemnify them against these losses. You could see it as the Govt have committed to spending the money in your bank acct on unravelling dodgy financial practices.

What we need TBB to explain is how much they are losing on coupons/interest on that holding. I.e. are they borrowing at 5% to pay themselves a return of 0.5%?

Not sure I said they were newly issued bonds and not sure this makes a difference to the basic point: the BoE creates reserves out of nothing and some of that ends up in private hands. I don't think whether the BoE making a loss makes a difference to that point either.

You will have to explain how the Bank buying bonds in the secondary market creates wealth.

Are there any other categories of buyers who create wealth

A buyer who can print their own money is obviously a special case. You can read it on the BoE's own website if you don't believe me.

You two need a room together... or at least to head over into the boring finance thread... this is the 'Desperate Tories will grasp at anything now' thread.

Stevo_666

shirley_basso said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

… and yet ULEZ will be implemented.

Electorally that could be quite useful, as a lot of voters will be really hacked off now.

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

How far back are they planning to go on removing traffic management schemes?

Or is it bye bye to any cul de sac and one way system? The car must be able to go anywhere.

At a guess, quite a LTNs and blanket 20mph limits will be in the firing line, as they should be.

I love how easily stevo is activated. A politicians dream. Zero cognitive thought. Easily manipulated to the cause. Robotic in response, on time with reply. Shallower than a chatbot but better - a real person.

Nice bit of condescension there Shirley. You do seem to fit the left of centre profile of thinking that you know better while not being massively successful.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

This is back to front. Money doesn't originate from the general public. It is issued by a central bank - part of the state. If you have no say in how it is spent and it isn't in your possession, describing it as your money is a fairy story. It only used to be yours.

And without people and businesses they would have nothing to issue. We fund the state, it is reliant on us for that.

What?!

A central bank literally creates money from nothing. It doesn't come from taxes. People and businesses create goods and services that they can exchange for money but they don't create money for the central bank to issue.

Unless you are forging pound coins in your spare time.

People and businesses create wealth. The state printing money is not wealth creation, its allowing economic exchanges that create wealth. Then we donate some of that wealth to that state.

I mean, QE is literally creating money out of thin air and then using it to buy government and corporate bonds. A huge chunk of that money ended up in private hands so in a very real sense the state does create wealth. From the BoE website:

One of the consequences of QE is it increases the value of assets such as shares. That increases the wealth of the people who own them

Not exclusively of course. Corporations create things or services which they can exchange for money. Hopefully more money than it cost to create them => wealth. I would agree that the state collects some of that wealth as taxes, although donations are not usually compulsory. Once you have donated to Battersea Dogs Home, that's their money to do with as they see fit. It's no longer yours.

Not exclusively but mainly. My point still stands.

Injecting an additional £895bn into the economy is clearly creating significant wealth. Most of this went into the government budget and thence to furlough => landlords, healthcare, energy payments => energy companies and so on. It's not surprising that the government claws some of that back through taxes.

Not sure that creating wealth is quite so simple as doing a bit of QE.

Let's put it another way (and point out if I've got anything wrong).

Government issues bonds.
BoE creates money to buy those bonds.
Government spends proceeds of those bonds on myriad things.
Some of that money ends up back in Government account through taxation.
The rest ends up in private accounts of businesses and individuals who have provided some service or goods to the Government.
Bonds mature so Government takes some of receipts from taxation and pays to BoE.
BoE is currently reversing QE, so 'destroys' some of those receipts.

Your 2nd point is not correct, the Bank never bought newly issued bonds.

Point 7 is a touch rosy as the Bank bought bonds (in the open market see point above) at sky high prices so when the bonds mature the Bank will realise a loss. The bad news is that this forecast to be £150bn over the next decade. The really bad news is that the Bank got the Treasury to indemnify them against these losses. You could see it as the Govt have committed to spending the money in your bank acct on unravelling dodgy financial practices.

What we need TBB to explain is how much they are losing on coupons/interest on that holding. I.e. are they borrowing at 5% to pay themselves a return of 0.5%?

Not sure I said they were newly issued bonds and not sure this makes a difference to the basic point: the BoE creates reserves out of nothing and some of that ends up in private hands. I don't think whether the BoE making a loss makes a difference to that point either.

You will have to explain how the Bank buying bonds in the secondary market creates wealth.

Are there any other categories of buyers who create wealth

A buyer who can print their own money is obviously a special case. You can read it on the BoE's own website if you don't believe me.

You two need a room together... or at least to head over into the boring finance thread... this is the 'Desperate Tories will grasp at anything now' thread.

Apologies. 😁

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

shirley_basso said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

… and yet ULEZ will be implemented.

Electorally that could be quite useful, as a lot of voters will be really hacked off now.

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

How far back are they planning to go on removing traffic management schemes?

Or is it bye bye to any cul de sac and one way system? The car must be able to go anywhere.

At a guess, quite a LTNs and blanket 20mph limits will be in the firing line, as they should be.

I love how easily stevo is activated. A politicians dream. Zero cognitive thought. Easily manipulated to the cause. Robotic in response, on time with reply. Shallower than a chatbot but better - a real person.

Nice bit of condescension there Shirley. You do seem to fit the left of centre profile of thinking that you know better while not being massively successful.

He probably can let a mention slide without responding though 🙂.