Best Of

On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.

What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.

Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.

When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.

Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.

More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.

The contrast with Trump is incredible, and not in a good way for Labour. Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan of what we he was gonna do from the very get go. And wow, he's doing it. Even if you despise him and his brillaint ideas, he's enacting them with ruthless speed and brutal efficiency

Labour look like they accidentally wandered in to power, and then started browsing the shelves to see if there are any scotch eggs

THEY HAD FOURTEEN YEARS TO PREPARE

Well Labour did present themselves as a govt in waiting, ready to go for the start. Obviously they weren't and many people, myself included, were mugged off by them on that. However I think they can turn it around as plenty of their former voters are DK/WNV rather than straight switchers.

Irrespective of what people think of Trump he has clearly hit the ground running and has an agenda and is implementing it. A few upset liberals, like the crying actress Selena Gomez in a now deleted video, won't bother them a bit either. Trump has a mandate and is on with it.

Labours problem was the ming vase approach. Ruling out stuff they really need to do such as the triple lock being reformed. Trump, OTOH, said what he would do rather than what he wouldn't.

Labour have now handily provided us with a metric by which to judge them. The third runway at Heathrow. It may be spurious or wrong-headed, but they've come straight out and said "We desperately need growth, this will provide that growth, we are going to do it". Presumably they are going io legislate to remove all remaining LHR3 obstacles, legal and otherwise, they certainly have a big enough majority to do this

So, if we see shovels at work near Hounslow in the next two years we will know they are serious. If it doesn't happen, then we know they are pathetic liars. My bet is on the second, I sincerely hope they surprise me

I have no doubt their intentions are good and their delivery will be mired by legal campaigns like the one from the crank I posted a twitter thread about the other day who stymies any development with legal objections.

But they have a big enough majority to smash through any objections. They've got 400 MPs FFS. We've also had endless inquiries and endless surveys and no more needs to be done, on that front

This is why it is such a good test of their real intent. There is nothing stopping them saying Action This Day - and seeing it done. They have the power to force this through. I'm not remotely optimistic but I am prepared to give them this one last chance

"Trump came in ready from day one minute one, with a detailed plan"

A plan he repeatedly denied had anything to do with him or his policies during the actual campaign.

So how do Labour turn this around?

There are ways - an appearance of competence would be a good start - but I'm unsure SKS or his team have it in them.

Keir Starmer invokes Margaret Thatcher as he goes for growth

We must ‘cure the sickness of stagnation and decline’ in Britain, the PM says while taking aim at ‘overreach’ by watchdogs

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-invokes-margaret-thatcher-as-he-goes-for-growth-kvp2fhbmg

yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.

And then something will happen somewhere. And there will be the inevitable inquiry. And yet more recommendations as to how that particular something can be avoided. And yet more regulations. We have been stuck on this escalator for decades now, regardless of the stripe of government. I can't believe Starmer is the man to stop it myself.

Inter alia the stuff coming out of Labour - deregulate and grow! - is not just vapid bilge - it is also a tacit but clinching argument for Brexit

Because; even if we did manage to sweep away all the stifling red tape and wankery, if we were still in the EU we would then confront an immovable second later of EU rules and regs. Which are now destroying the EU economically

I was on a panel with DBT and a bunch of businesses yesterday fielding questions on the government “reset” with the EU. One of the big repeated complaints is all the new red tape we’ve been faced with since Brexit. Enough to have stopped thousands of small businesses from exporting. (Red tape which was described at the time as project fear).

For bigger businesses there’s also a wish not to proliferate different regulatory regimes if the EU one is already familiar. It’s easier to deal with one set of rules than multiple.

So how do Labour turn this around?

There are ways - an appearance of competence would be a good start - but I'm unsure SKS or his team have it in them.

Keir Starmer invokes Margaret Thatcher as he goes for growth

We must ‘cure the sickness of stagnation and decline’ in Britain, the PM says while taking aim at ‘overreach’ by watchdogs

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-invokes-margaret-thatcher-as-he-goes-for-growth-kvp2fhbmg

yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.

PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.

Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.

PB Right: don’t believe them.

What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.

I agree, there is a lot of stupid blind opposition (tbf, there was when the Conservatives were in power). But it is possible to believe this government want to deregulate, but not believe they will find it possible because they are ideologically incapable of deregulating.

The alternative take is Starmer's approach to that A47 protestor. No, there won't be a bonfire of regulation. But there will be a meaningful pruning of regulatory abuse and overreach. And someone who believes in rules has got a better chance of making that work and stick than someone who just wants to burn it all down.

But yes, proof of pudding, eating and all that. For the next four years, all most of us can do is wait and see and heckle.

So how do Labour turn this around?

There are ways - an appearance of competence would be a good start - but I'm unsure SKS or his team have it in them.

Keir Starmer invokes Margaret Thatcher as he goes for growth

We must ‘cure the sickness of stagnation and decline’ in Britain, the PM says while taking aim at ‘overreach’ by watchdogs

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-invokes-margaret-thatcher-as-he-goes-for-growth-kvp2fhbmg

yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.

I’ll believe he’s taking growth seriously when Ed Miliband gets fired and all the overdue infrastructure projects have spades in the ground.

Including all those overdue infrastructure projects being pushed forward by Ed Miliband’s department?

Which minister has initiated by far the biggest volume of infrastructure investment since the election? Ed Miliband.

“We need to build infrastructure!” “Oh, no not THAT sort of infrastructure.”

So how do Labour turn this around?

There are ways - an appearance of competence would be a good start - but I'm unsure SKS or his team have it in them.

Keir Starmer invokes Margaret Thatcher as he goes for growth

We must ‘cure the sickness of stagnation and decline’ in Britain, the PM says while taking aim at ‘overreach’ by watchdogs

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-invokes-margaret-thatcher-as-he-goes-for-growth-kvp2fhbmg

yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.

PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.

Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.

PB Right: don’t believe them.

What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.

Because the government needs to be judged on actions not words. I will be the first to congratulate them if they actually get spades in the ground on national infrastructure and they institute fundamental reform to help unclog the bureaucracy around development. I genuinely will, because it was one of my big asks of this new government. I remain deeply skeptical, because this government has generally followed a pattern of talking big, but often governing in a contradictory way. It is early days, and maybe that will change, but I will take Starmer and Reeves’ pronouncements on these things with a healthy dose of salt for now.

Bloody hell the cost of Hinckley Point C is now estimated to be between £41.5bn and £46.5bn, what a mess.

Can someone explain to me why we're ploughing ahead with Sizewell C?! Give RR the contract for 5 SMRs and get moving. Let's own the next generation of nuclear energy, not spend another £60bn and 15 years building a reactor that probably won't ever turn on.

The problem with cancelling big projects like HS2/nuclear is that industry is going to take this systemic political uncertainty and apply it to the cost of infrastructure across the UK.

I'm told (friend) that the nuclear subs projects are actually a lot cheaper than they would be otherwise, hard as that is to believe, simply because it's much less likely that the government cancels them compared with other stuff like frigates.

We need the political/legal process of cancelling projects to be at least as onerous as approving them.

The British government fucks around for years delaying, rescoping, judically reviewing, and layering on extra requirements to projects, only to then cancel or cut them back when the folly of its actions make them unaffordable.

That's one reason why so few invest in them.