ok so moneterism is wrong & fuel driving inflation so what is wrong with my idea of slashing fuel taxes, eliminating inflation and thus allowing rates to be slashed?What's wrong with my idea is that MV does always = PT

As you were unwilling to check the data about money supply I did it for you. The broad definition of money preferred by the BoE, M4ex did indeed grow by 4% in the last 12 months to September, but that growth was not driven by Government spending or borrowing. It was due to money creation by the private banking sustem. In case you don’t understand the mechanism, let me explain it. Most broad money is created when commercial banks make loans. A mortgage or business loan creates a matching deposit, and that deposit is counted in M4ex. The recent data fits this: mortgage lending is growing at about 3.6% a year, consumer credit at around 9%, and borrowing by large businesses at over 10% (June figures). If private lending grows faster than money, other items must be pulling the other way. That would fit quantitative tightening (the Bank's gilt sales), plus bank funding that isn't counted as money. Government borrowing is large but it is mainly financed outside the banking system and so does not involve printing money. You have fallen into the monetarist fallacy, just because money printing causes inflation, it doesn’t mean that all inflation is caused by money printing. To that extent Milton Friedman was wrong.

P&G does not publicly disclose a definitive total number of Senior Vice-Presidents (SVPs) across the entire organisation.However, there is an important distinction:Corporate leadership: P&G's published global leadership team lists around 35 senior executives, many with CEO, President or Chief Officer titles. Wider organisation: P&G operates globally across numerous business units and regions, with additional SVPs below the corporate leadership team. Independent organisational data identifies hundreds of executives across P&G, but doesn't provide a reliable, complete SVP count. For Gill Whitty-Collins, the more important point is that she wasn't just one of hundreds of middle-ranking SVPs. She held a very senior global role in P&G Beauty, with responsibility for major international brands.That is a meaningful distinction when assessing her appointment to SBTX.

no she is either desperate enough to accept any gig or not very good at doing DD. Either is in my view a red flag but you know better as you have all the way down

I get it now. She's dodgy because she didn't read your articles. On the upside, she probably still isn't reading them.

I agree Cellular Goods is a fair point to raise but you are throwing the baby out with the bath water, poor judgement, yes, bad NED, not necessarily. We all make mistakes, she deserves a chance before you throw her under the bus, her experience in the sector says so.As for group think, I would not be happy with that on the BOD but again you are just speculating, wait for proof.

Clutching at straws. She clearly has over 25 years of relevant experience with a blue chip company and has been appointed for her commercial nous. She has sat on several boards and she is will be an asset on mine.

The record of Cellular Goods and of Bixby/Edwards was flagged up on thus website well before Gill joined and as such joining shows a spectacular lack of judgement /desparation and that is pertinent. How many SCPs foes P&G have BTW?You may be happy with GroupThink on a board but as BP showed that is a recipe for disaster. I am throwing back at those who have demanded diversity a demand for diversity!

I think this article does the new NED a considerable disservice and confuses political and demographic diversity with commercial competence and diversity of thought.The Cellular Goods connection is a fair point to raise, and her contribution there deserves scrutiny. However, suggesting that simply accepting a NED position at a company that subsequently failed means she has "no standards" is an extraordinary leap. Where is the evidence that she was responsible for, or failed to challenge, the decisions behind its problems?Why ignore her other 26 years at Procter & Gamble? As a Senior Vice-President, she had responsibility for major international brands including Olay, Pantene and Always. That is substantial experience in brand building, marketing and commercial execution.Surely that's exactly the sort of experience SBTX needs, particularly given my concerns about AxisBiotix and the company's wider commercial performance?I also disagree that a predominantly female Board automatically lacks diversity of thought. Different professional backgrounds, experience and the willingness to challenge assumptions matter far more than someone's sex, skin colour or political beliefs.Ultimately, I don't care where the directors went to university or what their politics are. I care whether they can deliver.Can Rachel improve performance, can Gill help unlock the commercial potential of the business, and can Alyson restore confidence in governance? Gill's appointment guarantees nothing, but based on her career I think SBTX has made a very good appointment.Let's judge the Board on results, not demographics or presumed political beliefs.