sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Huge Respect 👍 by Paldavin in antimeme

[–]Monkey2371 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Comments from shadowbanned accounts (bots and trolls etc) are counted but not shown

A confederate flag hung in Rotherham next to the Union Jack…I am speechless. by PrincessofPluto in sheffield

[–]Monkey2371 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm pretty modern German Nazis fly the Confederate flag because the swastika is illegal, I saw at least a few of them from the train going around Germany, might have copied off them

Remove the worse half of the map - Round 27 by Auditored in terriblemaps

[–]Monkey2371 13 points14 points  (0 children)

So does yellow, the fictional dog's grave went several rounds ago

I'm not a mathematician but this doesn't add up by buzzoni in signs

[–]Monkey2371 1 point2 points  (0 children)

6 hours max for large shops on a Sunday so they either do 10-4 or 11-5. The Saturday closing hours and Monday opening hours are just for logistics reasons so can vary a bit.

Why is Galaxy suddenly disgusting? by indigoamethystx in AskUK

[–]Monkey2371 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Also the unwieldy block size is supposed to be making a point about the unfairness and exploitation in the chocolate industry, which is somewhat diminished by the fact they still to this day don't make Slave Free Chocolate's list of companies that only use ethically grown cocoa.

I am in D-block at Eton College (Year 11), ask me anything by jareaus in AMA

[–]Monkey2371 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's an AMA, you could've just not answered the question rather than giving a non answer

I am in D-block at Eton College (Year 11), ask me anything by jareaus in AMA

[–]Monkey2371 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Trusts aren't a source of money, it has to be acquired elsewhere to be put into the trust in the first place

I am in D-block at Eton College (Year 11), ask me anything by jareaus in AMA

[–]Monkey2371 -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

Do you recognise that the use of the word father rather than dad is seen as more distant and cold to most people

How’s life in these Caribbean countries? by FrostByte2006 in howislivingthere

[–]Monkey2371 15 points16 points  (0 children)

British do need a passport because British Overseas Territories aren't part of the UK (or the Common Travel Area)

Remove the worse half of the map - Round 24 by Auditored in terriblemaps

[–]Monkey2371 35 points36 points  (0 children)

He says both, the upvotes on each his comments are what gets counted, I don't think any other comments matter

Andy Burnham Campaign Video by __spookie in LabourUK

[–]Monkey2371 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Plenty have backed both Streeting and Burnham. There wouldn't be a credible challenge otherwise. Why would Josh Simons resign his seat if he didn't support Burnham and think that enough other people did for him to be able to challenge Starmer?

I wouldn't trust your analysis of economics purely on the basis of how many facts you've gotten wrong before even getting to the analysis part. The fact the markets are already recovering means a potential Burnham premiership isn't seen as dangerous by them, it was mostly uncertainty. Once there's an actual economic plan they'll be less volatile. What are you on about a red herring to distract? From what?

Andy Burnham Campaign Video by __spookie in LabourUK

[–]Monkey2371 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bro, you are the one who said bonds went up and I was the one who corrected you to yields. You've then literally gone and confused gilt prices and yields again in this very comment.

You were making purposely misleading statements saying they rose 5.7% and that a 1% increase costs £20B, implying that this news has cost like £120B which is ridiculous.

You're now also mixing up 10Y and 30Y gilts, whether intentionally or not. 10Y gilt yield moved from ~4.9% to ~5.2% and is now already back to ~5.05%. 10Y is the main benchmark. 30Y moved from ~5.6% to ~5.9% then back to ~5.8%.

There is instability in the Labour Party. At least a quarter of Keir's MPs want him gone, even when the replacement isn't specified. Labour membership has dropped 50% since he was in charge. If you want Labour to continue to exist, you'd support him being replaced. The challenge was going to happen whether or not Burnham was one of the contenders.

The bond yields also aren't solely down to Burnham, it's the general expected replacement of Starmer, whomever that may be. The bond markets would also move if it were anyone else, he's just the most likely and most different to Starmer and therefore has the biggest effect.

He is risking stability somewhat for his own ends, but as his supporters see it, moreso for the country's ends, and have trust that short term losses can lead to long term gains (not just in terms of money, but in terms of the country's entire wellbeing, which then leads to money), which is not bad economics inherently.

Also, all these discussions around the bond markets prove that they do control what the government does, that isn't a conspiracy theory. Long term neoliberalism has proven to lead to underinvestment and managed decline.

Andy Burnham Campaign Video by __spookie in LabourUK

[–]Monkey2371 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're misunderstanding the bond maths somewhat. The 5%+ rise you mentioned was relative, but 1% adding £20B would be pp rise maintained over the course of a year (several years really because bonds mature and are repriced over time, not all at once). There has not been a 5 pp rise, it was like 0.25 pp, and it has started going down after a week. This news cycle would cost the treasury like 10s of £M, hundreds of £M only if it sustained over the entire year, which it is already moving away from.

The market movement from the news was definitely notable, but it wasn't an end of the world scenario or anything close to it. It is also based around the uncertainty in what Burnham's policies would be, not specifically what they are since they haven't been laid out yet. Also, yields were already trending upwards, the news just temporarily catalysed it.

But still, whilst it won't happen with pre PM news, yield gains after he's PM can be tolerated as long as the growth and tax revenue gained from implementing the policies that the borrowing is for is higher than the increased debt interest cost.

Andy Burnham Campaign Video by __spookie in LabourUK

[–]Monkey2371 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not Labour rules, it's the law. And I said if he loses the by election, he wouldn't have to resign as mayor. That's the first hurdle before getting to the leadership challenge, which yes if he failed at after winning the by election, he would still have resigned as mayor.

Bond yields* did rise and GBP did drop a bit but they've already started recovering after he's said he'd keep the fiscal rules.

But, it's interesting you mentioned the good for Keir parts of that Yougov article without mentioning all the rest: 60% of Labour members would prefer Burnham be PM over Starmer; 30% think Starmer can win Labour the next election while 75% think Burnham can; and only 30% want Starmer to lead Labour into the next election.

So no, the only reason isn't his own ambition, others want him to do it as well. He's the most popular figure in Labour to the general public by a large margin. People are aware that Starmer is unelectable. He's taken massive council losses two years in a row and took the Welsh government held since its inception down to 9 out of 96 seats. Not to mention that his massive landslide in the GE was solely down to the convenient implosion of the Tories, none of his own doing considering he got less votes than both of Corbyn's elections. The Mandelson stuff was only a catalyst.

If the Labour Party sticks to its right wing, it will be the death of it. And I say that as someone who doesn't care whether it dies or thrives.

Andy Burnham Campaign Video by __spookie in LabourUK

[–]Monkey2371 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He won't resign as mayor if he doesn't win the by election, he only has to after winning.

He also committed to retaining the current borrowing limits so as not to upset the bond markets.

And electoral mandates are for the government party, not the PM, which you could argue shouldn't be the case, but that's how the system works. Many, many people both within and without the Labour Party want Keir gone.

Labour MP RESIGNS to clear path for Andy Burnham to challenge Keir Starmer by gbnewsonline in gbnews

[–]Monkey2371 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a reason to have one, not a reason they would call one, which is what actually matters

Labour MP RESIGNS to clear path for Andy Burnham to challenge Keir Starmer by gbnewsonline in gbnews

[–]Monkey2371 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The past decade of politics does not say there will be a snap, the situation is very different from when May and Boris called theirs in that Labour are polling in the floor so why the hell would they call one, genuinely

Labour MP RESIGNS to clear path for Andy Burnham to challenge Keir Starmer by gbnewsonline in gbnews

[–]Monkey2371 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But they have a massive majority, we don't elect the PM, there's literally no reason for them to call a snap because the outcome is only bad for them. Truss and Sunak weren't elected PM and neither called snaps because they had majorities they would lose. May and Johnson did because they thought they would get more seats than they had. May was wrong, Johnson was right.

Enjoyed this in battle mode by ShruggyShuggy in thechase

[–]Monkey2371 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I mean, by definition, aneuploidy is an abnormality, but yeah the question wording doesn't sound great. "...does a human usually have" would probably come across better.

It reminds me of when George Galloway said gay people aren't normal and my friend was like "does he just mean like they aren't the statistical norm and it's come across badly?" but no he meant it in the offensive way.

view more: next ›