GB News
Comments
-
Noting that I didn't watch the interview, I think there are other areas that would be easier to go after e.g. pension triple lock. Sunak's answer to boiler replacement was coherent - the government hasn't legislated for it yet and the price is expected to come down, but ultimately everyone will need to pay whether through taxation or directly. I didn't see much point in asking more about it.kingstongraham said:
I guess he needed to tread a fine line between "not interesting" and "nobody else is going to volunteer for this treatment because they don't have to". We already know Johnson ran away as fast as his legs could carry him from being interviewed by Neil at full throttle.TheBigBean said:
I only saw a few minutes, and I thought Neil was being a bit foolish around boiler replacements and who will pay. I mainly posted it as it is quite a high profile interview to have landed.kingstongraham said:Not a great interview with Sunak, I thought. Started with "How are you going to pay for all this?", then later went on to "why haven't you given out more money?". Didn't actually answer either half.
Any difficult question got the answer "I can't comment about fiscal policy".
0 -
So a Conservative Chancellor was interviewed by a conservative interviewer running a nakedly right wing channel which was then dissected by a former conservative minister and shadow chancellor and a Telegraph Journalist.
And this is "balance"?
I mean, guys, seriously???We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
He did ask about the triple lock. Answer was "that's the government policy, and I can't talk about fiscal policy".TheBigBean said:
Noting that I didn't watch the interview, I think there are other areas that would be easier to go after e.g. pension triple lock. Sunak's answer to boiler replacement was coherent - the government hasn't legislated for it yet and the price is expected to come down, but ultimately everyone will need to pay whether through taxation or directly. I didn't see much point in asking more about it.kingstongraham said:
I guess he needed to tread a fine line between "not interesting" and "nobody else is going to volunteer for this treatment because they don't have to". We already know Johnson ran away as fast as his legs could carry him from being interviewed by Neil at full throttle.TheBigBean said:
I only saw a few minutes, and I thought Neil was being a bit foolish around boiler replacements and who will pay. I mainly posted it as it is quite a high profile interview to have landed.kingstongraham said:Not a great interview with Sunak, I thought. Started with "How are you going to pay for all this?", then later went on to "why haven't you given out more money?". Didn't actually answer either half.
Any difficult question got the answer "I can't comment about fiscal policy".0 -
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Talking of bias you did post a tweet via LBC's James O'Brien earlier. I would never listen to his show for a broad view.ddraver said:So a Conservative Chancellor was interviewed by a conservative interviewer running a nakedly right wing channel which was then dissected by a former conservative minister and shadow chancellor and a Telegraph Journalist.
And this is "balance"?
I mean, guys, seriously???1 -
I thought the job was report the news, not be a troll.Stevo_666 said:
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
0 -
One thing this channel does not do is report the news. It's not a rolling news channel.elbowloh said:
I thought the job was report the news, not be a troll.Stevo_666 said:
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
0 -
He asked a better question to Halligan about what would happen if the government just didn't pay off its debt to the Bank of England. He had absolutely no answer to that and started talking about furlough.
If anyone wants to watch the follow up, it's here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fisZpJYb6A
It has all the feel of a heavyweight discussion, but is it really adding much?0 -
In fairness, it is a fairly technical question about QE, of which there is a lot of confusion.kingstongraham said:He asked a better question to Halligan about what would happen if the government just didn't pay off its debt to the Bank of England. He had absolutely no answer to that and started talking about furlough.
If anyone wants to watch the follow up, it's here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fisZpJYb6A
It has all the feel of a heavyweight discussion, but is it really adding much?0 -
-
Yes, which is why it's a good question - an answer from an expert would have been enlightening.rick_chasey said:
In fairness, it is a fairly technical question about QE, of which there is a lot of confusion.kingstongraham said:He asked a better question to Halligan about what would happen if the government just didn't pay off its debt to the Bank of England. He had absolutely no answer to that and started talking about furlough.
If anyone wants to watch the follow up, it's here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fisZpJYb6A
It has all the feel of a heavyweight discussion, but is it really adding much?0 -
I've posted explainations on QE from experts multiple times on this thread and people dismiss it as they can't see past "printing money".kingstongraham said:
Yes, which is why it's a good question - an answer from an expert would have been enlightening.rick_chasey said:
In fairness, it is a fairly technical question about QE, of which there is a lot of confusion.kingstongraham said:He asked a better question to Halligan about what would happen if the government just didn't pay off its debt to the Bank of England. He had absolutely no answer to that and started talking about furlough.
If anyone wants to watch the follow up, it's here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fisZpJYb6A
It has all the feel of a heavyweight discussion, but is it really adding much?0 -
I thought Neil was a bit soft on him tbh. e.g. he mentioned that a study showed poorest families were the ones impacted most by net zero changes. Sunank said no, richer families paid more. They agreed that as a % of income poor families paid more, but rich families paid a larger absolute figure.
Then Neil just moved on. Why not dig into that a bit more after going to the trouble of agreeing a common set of numbers. % of income is what matters most anyway, surely.
18 mins in fyi.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Didn't you also rubbish interest rate rises and inflation concerns?rick_chasey said:
I've posted explainations on QE from experts multiple times on this thread and people dismiss it as they can't see past "printing money".kingstongraham said:
Yes, which is why it's a good question - an answer from an expert would have been enlightening.rick_chasey said:
In fairness, it is a fairly technical question about QE, of which there is a lot of confusion.kingstongraham said:He asked a better question to Halligan about what would happen if the government just didn't pay off its debt to the Bank of England. He had absolutely no answer to that and started talking about furlough.
If anyone wants to watch the follow up, it's here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fisZpJYb6A
It has all the feel of a heavyweight discussion, but is it really adding much?1 -
What do my own views on that have to do with the above?focuszing723 said:
Didn't you also rubbish interest rate rises and inflation concerns?rick_chasey said:
I've posted explainations on QE from experts multiple times on this thread and people dismiss it as they can't see past "printing money".kingstongraham said:
Yes, which is why it's a good question - an answer from an expert would have been enlightening.rick_chasey said:
In fairness, it is a fairly technical question about QE, of which there is a lot of confusion.kingstongraham said:He asked a better question to Halligan about what would happen if the government just didn't pay off its debt to the Bank of England. He had absolutely no answer to that and started talking about furlough.
If anyone wants to watch the follow up, it's here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fisZpJYb6A
It has all the feel of a heavyweight discussion, but is it really adding much?
FWIW, why do not trust the BoE over their inflation expectations (and thus inflation rate rises) and who do you trust instead?0 -
This point being that's what was highlighted during this interview.0
-
It was an interesting moment, agreed. It was hinting at the meaningless "higher earners pay more tax" type talk, which could have led to an interesting discussion about progressive taxation.pangolin said:I thought Neil was a bit soft on him tbh. e.g. he mentioned that a study showed poorest families were the ones impacted most by net zero changes. Sunank said no, richer families paid more. They agreed that as a % of income poor families paid more, but rich families paid a larger absolute figure.
Then Neil just moved on. Why not dig into that a bit more after going to the trouble of agreeing a common set of numbers. % of income is what matters most anyway, surely.
18 mins in fyi.0 -
The mechanics of QE and the plumbing of the financial system and expectations of inflation and rates rises are not really related.focuszing723 said:This point being that's what was highlighted during this interview.
One is how it works, the other is conjecture, you do understand that, right? Sure, QE can have an impact on inflation, but the mechanics of QE and a "what if the gov't doesn't pay back the BoE" type questions are just questions about the mechanics of QE.0 -
I asked a leading economist that question, but it was misinterpreted as whether it would ever be repaid. His response was that "ever" is a long time, but that he would expect the asset purchases to remain on the BoE's balance sheet for a long time unchanged.kingstongraham said:
Yes, which is why it's a good question - an answer from an expert would have been enlightening.rick_chasey said:
In fairness, it is a fairly technical question about QE, of which there is a lot of confusion.kingstongraham said:He asked a better question to Halligan about what would happen if the government just didn't pay off its debt to the Bank of England. He had absolutely no answer to that and started talking about furlough.
If anyone wants to watch the follow up, it's here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fisZpJYb6A
It has all the feel of a heavyweight discussion, but is it really adding much?
Note that the interest payments are effectively written off.
Anyway, my conclusion remains that it would be possible to write it off, but that it would be considered highly unusual by the markets and it would remove a potential tool for the BoE in the future. I also think that the current government likes to state a massive debt balance to encourage lower spending which is a political matter.
Liam Halligan's answer wasn't very good.
Overall though, I think there is a place for these sort of discussions.
2 -
Liam Halligan's answer was "I don't know, so I'll talk about something else and hope you take the hint".0
-
Have a word with GB News if you think they're trolling?elbowloh said:
I thought the job was report the news, not be a troll.Stevo_666 said:
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Still not seen any of it but from the talk on here it doesn't sound like it's earth shattering or filling much of a void that other channels weren't.0
-
And we have a question now from Mr Wayne Kerr...
I don't watch any tv news channels, as I do have a life, but just for interest is this one quoting pork futures? Gammons gotta be interested shirley.0 -
Don't be silly, you don't feed the troll!Stevo_666 said:
Have a word with GB News if you think they're trolling?elbowloh said:
I thought the job was report the news, not be a troll.Stevo_666 said:
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
0 -
I'm pretty sure they don't know Rick personally so hard to see how it's trolling...elbowloh said:
Don't be silly, you don't feed the troll!Stevo_666 said:
Have a word with GB News if you think they're trolling?elbowloh said:
I thought the job was report the news, not be a troll.Stevo_666 said:
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm sure when I watched the analysis after Neils interview with Sunak, this was mentioned.TheBigBean said:
I asked a leading economist that question, but it was misinterpreted as whether it would ever be repaid. His response was that "ever" is a long time, but that he would expect the asset purchases to remain on the BoE's balance sheet for a long time unchanged.kingstongraham said:
Yes, which is why it's a good question - an answer from an expert would have been enlightening.rick_chasey said:
In fairness, it is a fairly technical question about QE, of which there is a lot of confusion.kingstongraham said:He asked a better question to Halligan about what would happen if the government just didn't pay off its debt to the Bank of England. He had absolutely no answer to that and started talking about furlough.
If anyone wants to watch the follow up, it's here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fisZpJYb6A
It has all the feel of a heavyweight discussion, but is it really adding much?
Note that the interest payments are effectively written off.
Anyway, my conclusion remains that it would be possible to write it off, but that it would be considered highly unusual by the markets and it would remove a potential tool for the BoE in the future. I also think that the current government likes to state a massive debt balance to encourage lower spending which is a political matter.
Liam Halligan's answer wasn't very good.
Overall though, I think there is a place for these sort of discussions.0 -
James O Brien does not pretend to be a bias free news channel...focuszing723 said:
Talking of bias you did post a tweet via LBC's James O'Brien earlier. I would never listen to his show for a broad view.ddraver said:So a Conservative Chancellor was interviewed by a conservative interviewer running a nakedly right wing channel which was then dissected by a former conservative minister and shadow chancellor and a Telegraph Journalist.
And this is "balance"?
I mean, guys, seriously???We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
That's not what trolling is. Are you thinking of bullying?Stevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure they don't know Rick personally so hard to see how it's trolling...elbowloh said:
Don't be silly, you don't feed the troll!Stevo_666 said:
Have a word with GB News if you think they're trolling?elbowloh said:
I thought the job was report the news, not be a troll.Stevo_666 said:
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Steve, it's you who said that if they're getting people into a lather, they're doing a good job. Sounds like that's trolling to meStevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure they don't know Rick personally so hard to see how it's trolling...elbowloh said:
Don't be silly, you don't feed the troll!Stevo_666 said:
Have a word with GB News if you think they're trolling?elbowloh said:
I thought the job was report the news, not be a troll.Stevo_666 said:
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
0 -
Don't think so. Just that it takes a long time to build credibility and can be lost in an instant. No mention of what would cause that loss of credibility or who would lose out. He just didn't know the answer, but gave an answer that sounded grown up.focuszing723 said:
I'm sure when I watched the analysis after Neils interview with Sunak, this was mentioned.TheBigBean said:
I asked a leading economist that question, but it was misinterpreted as whether it would ever be repaid. His response was that "ever" is a long time, but that he would expect the asset purchases to remain on the BoE's balance sheet for a long time unchanged.kingstongraham said:
Yes, which is why it's a good question - an answer from an expert would have been enlightening.rick_chasey said:
In fairness, it is a fairly technical question about QE, of which there is a lot of confusion.kingstongraham said:He asked a better question to Halligan about what would happen if the government just didn't pay off its debt to the Bank of England. He had absolutely no answer to that and started talking about furlough.
If anyone wants to watch the follow up, it's here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fisZpJYb6A
It has all the feel of a heavyweight discussion, but is it really adding much?
Note that the interest payments are effectively written off.
Anyway, my conclusion remains that it would be possible to write it off, but that it would be considered highly unusual by the markets and it would remove a potential tool for the BoE in the future. I also think that the current government likes to state a massive debt balance to encourage lower spending which is a political matter.
Liam Halligan's answer wasn't very good.
Overall though, I think there is a place for these sort of discussions.1
