Jump to content

Pound slumps to all-time low against dollar


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Scotland voted to stay in a UK that was a member of the EU. I don't think Scots signed on for this. They certainly didn't support Brexit at the polls..

The U.K as a whole voted on the  Brexit issue and the result of Brexit was for the whole of the U.K 

  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But the UK that Scotland voted to remain in was a member of the EU. If UK membership in the EU had been a major issue at the time that would have been a different. But it wasn't.  A huge change like Brexit entitles the Scots to another vote.

Just like the Brexit vote, there would be just the one referendum and that would be final .

   No second referendums .

Everyone was aware of that when they participated in the voting  .

   Once and once only 

  • Thanks 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Just like the Brexit vote, there would be just the one referendum and that would be final .

   No second referendums .

Everyone was aware of that when they participated in the voting  .

   Once and once only 

On your own logic then there should not have been a brexit vote in 2018 as there was an earlier referendum which voted to join ("no second referendums")

Or are you saying that the referendum to join was too long ago and times have changed - the EU has changed - then we are not talking about "if" the Scots should have another vote but "when".

My own view is that there should be at least a 10-year gap between the same referendum question being put again to the voters - but that the principle of self-determination should apply 

  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, SatEng said:

On your own logic then there should not have been a brexit vote in 2018 as there was an earlier referendum which voted to join ("no second referendums")

Or are you saying that the referendum to join was too long ago and times have changed - the EU has changed - then we are not talking about "if" the Scots should have another vote but "when".

My own view is that there should be at least a 10-year gap between the same referendum question being put again to the voters - but that the principle of self-determination should apply 

Going way off-topic 

Posted
8 hours ago, RayC said:

Jokes aside. This is embarrassing. This is political ineptness never previously seen in the UK.

 

Shortly before Johnson was ousted, someone - apologies; I can't remember who - posted that those of us who wanted him out should be careful what we wished for. I dismissed this comment as nonsense from a disgruntled Johnson apologist; any new leader could not possibly be as bad. Unfortunately, in hindsight, it seems that I may have been wrong.

It may not have been me, but it's certainly what I thought.

I said before he became PM that at least he was amusing and we would be entertained. The "amusing" didn't last long as PM, but the entire time he was PM was "interesting" at least. I liked the Boris from before he became PM, but even though the office changed him ( and not for the better ), I thought it a mistake to change leadership when all about is chaos.

Posted
6 hours ago, RayC said:

She had no choice but to back down. Imo if Truss had done when you suggest then there would have been a run on the pound. The markets would not have forgiven.

 

Whatever the merits of her economic argument this was - and apparently continues to be - politically ineptitude of the highest order. At the very least, the government could have released the partial analysis of the measures which the OBR had compiled to support their argument (unless, of course it didn't?).

 

As for the Labour party being unelectable. Not according to the opinion polls they're not. The polls may get things wrong at times but not by the magnitude of 25+%.

Doesn't mean they are right by wanting to elect Labour. The debacle of the "New Labour" government should never be forgotten ( I had to live through it ), and when it's a question of which party is the worst option, IMO that still belongs to Labour ( is it just Labour now, or still New Labour? ).

Posted
8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Truss should never have backed down to the pressure from the champagne communists. A slippery slope. A political mistake. She should have doubled down on those policies, not reversed.

 

Her only saving grace is that Labour are still unelectable. WMD Tony is probably considering a comeback as we speak.

It was her own MP’s that forced her to sack the Chancellor and will force a Budget U-turn, they are in danger of loosing their seats at the election, very many to Labour.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It may not have been me, but it's certainly what I thought.

I said before he became PM that at least he was amusing and we would be entertained. The "amusing" didn't last long as PM, but the entire time he was PM was "interesting" at least. I liked the Boris from before he became PM, but even though the office changed him ( and not for the better ), I thought it a mistake to change leadership when all about is chaos.

The only people being offered for election are those not competent to do the job.

This appears to be a worldwide phenomena an not just a UK problem.

 

All Liz had to do was nothing much for 6 months, repeat after me, "I'm new to this job and need to ease my way in before making any changes". But despite all the panic the pound is up t 43+ for the first time in months.

 

If I were PM, I would have sake the BOE boss as he appeared to be deliberately acting against the UK government. But what do I know!

 

5 Chancellors in 3 years has to be a new record.

 

Edited by BritManToo
Posted

The UK newspapers this morning are full of, "who will replace Truss", apparently Sunak is favorite once again, a PM and a Chancellor all in one, a two for one deal perhaps. ????

Posted
40 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

The only people being offered for election are those not competent to do the job.

This appears to be a worldwide phenomena an not just a UK problem.

I blame the media frenzy to find dirt on any politician, especially if of the "wrong" political persuasion.

IMO no sane person would subject themselves or their family to that sort of media abuse.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It may not have been me, but it's certainly what I thought.

I said before he became PM that at least he was amusing and we would be entertained. The "amusing" didn't last long as PM, but the entire time he was PM was "interesting" at least. I liked the Boris from before he became PM, but even though the office changed him ( and not for the better ), I thought it a mistake to change leadership when all about is chaos.

Which reminds me of the Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, RayC said:

No doubt a rhetorical question but I'll answer it anyway: The 'New' bit was quietly dropped years ago.

Thank Gaia for that. 

Posted
8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I agree, Truss could have played this as ‘not my mess but we are where we are’ it would have required the public to ignore the fact she was a member of the Government but if she had focussed on the cost of energy and left everything else alone she would have won support.

 

Unfortunately two things conspired against her:

 

1. The extreme rightwing economic dogma she bought into decades ago and has carried with her ever since. She was gagging to inflict it on the nation.

 

2. She’s as thick as two short planks.


The nation pays the price.

The planks will be rightly miffed at this unfair comparison of their IQ.

  • Haha 1
Posted
15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It was her own MP’s that forced her to sack the Chancellor and will force a Budget U-turn, they are in danger of loosing their seats at the election, very many to Labour.

Nobody forced her to do it. It was a political mistake. If there were a credible opposition it might have been costly.

 

Let's hope she learns from this before Labour become a serious alternative.

 

She's safe for now but if Starmer, Abbott, Lammy, Rayner etc. were replaced with competent, decent human beings it could become a real issue in terms of staying in power.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...