Best Of

I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.

As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.

For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.

What do you think?

The nominee Polymarket, with $300m+ traded so far, is very weird.

https://polymarket.com/event/democratic-presidential-nominee-2028

The two favourites are Newsom and AOC, and I don’t see how either of them get there. Middle America isn’t voting for a very coastal liberal.

Gretchen Whitmer at 50/1 could be a good outsider, and they’ll want to keep at least one woman in the race for as long as possible. Josh Shapiro is probably underpriced at 20/1, as is Andy Beshear at 33/1.

Middle America doesn't come into it. This is the nominee market.

I do wonder if the Dem primary voters will even try and take into account the suitability of the candidates to beat a Republican (likely one of Rubio or Vance or DeSantis), or if they go for the most woke coastal ideologue that makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside?

Should not be hard to beat that trio of absolute donkeys

Quite. Trump is at record levels of unpopularity. If that continues (probable), and the election is fair (unknown), then the Democrats will win with just about anyone, and said winner will get the Nobel Peace Prize just for not being Trump.

Sorta like Obama and GWB?

Re the recent discussion of Nimbyism not being specifically a LD thing, here are some Tory Nimbies [edit] objecting to a major UK-wide project - in comparison the SNP ones are trying to go for mitigation.

Slightly surprisingly, the Tory lead Nimby is quoting from Burns' words on Edward of England and Bannockburn, though tbf I'm not quite sure if he realises it.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/25703365.moray-council-objects-186-kilometre-ssen-powerline/?ref=eb&nid=1948&block=article_block_a&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=161225

Which Tory is it? And what's the quote? (Paywalled, I'm afraid)

It's Moray Council in re the Beauly to Peterhead overhead powerline.

'A debate over the 186-kilometre overhead transmission line today, Tuesday December 16, resulted in councillors voting 9-4 in favour of the objection.

Councillor Marc Macrae (Fochabers Lhanbryde, Conservative) seconded his party colleague councillor David Gordon (Speyside Glenlivet), who put forward an amendment to raise an objection to SSEN’s application.

Macrae said: “SSEN put the mental in environmental. This is vandalism of our countryside.”

[...]

Macrae explained that the motion wasn’t necessarily a rejection, but a chance for the applicant to propose something better.

He added: “We should send them (SSEN) home to think again.”'

SSEN is ofr course Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Not clear if there is agreement within the whole SNP group.

PS And I gave wrong credit for the song! It is of course Roy Williamson of the Corries.

Have had some contact with T & D guys (Transmission and Distribution) over the years and this is a common issue with any new Grid installation. People always want the lines (400kv?) buried but don't accept that there will be significant environmental damage and cost if you do bury it. I also know the area well as my OH is from there and beautiful as it is, it's not that special.

This sort of nimbyism is not specific to any party, nor is it specific to this country. A few brown envelopes have been known (allegedly) to smooth the way but it's illegal in this country AIUI.

https://www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/projects/project-planned-areas/?projectId={6e129490-ccf0-4fff-af42-9e8b156f7cca}

Edit: Fochabers is the back of beyond and Lhanbryde is even more insignificant, so it's quite bizarre they can cause this disruption.

Harris lost the popular vote by a mere 1.5%. She got a higher share of the popular vote than Trump did in 2016, than Dubya did in 2000, or than Bill Clinton did in 1992.

If they’d actually had primaries and nominated a candidate who wasn’t terrible, they might even have beaten Trump.

Biden hanging on till the last moment didn't help

With the support of his cabinet and the Dem establishment.

Compare how the cabinet and MPs forced Boris out here to the lickspittle loyalty Buttigieg and the others showed to Biden.

Yes and forcing Boris out led to a landslide Labour victory and loss of the all the Conservative redwall seats, Biden I suspect would still have done better in the rustbelt than Harris did as he did in 2020

Boris was on a bizarre journey of self-destruction, he would never had lasted to 2024.

What you Conservatives need to ask yourselves is why you never made any attempt to control Boris's behaviour as PM.

Had Boris remained Conservative leader, Reform would not have got 14% at the last GE and Reform would not now be leading the polls.

Indeed Sunak might now be leading the polls as the new LOTO, Rishi made a stupid political move resigning to remove Boris

The expression 'the blind cannot see' comes to mind with your idolatry of Johnson

The obvious question is how would the Conservative Party survive having a Prime Minister suspended from Parliament for obvious lying?

But to be charitable... Johnson was the most electorally successful Conservative leader since Thatcher- the only one to get a thumping majority. Mostly by persuading Farage to walk off the relevant bits of the battlefield in 2019.

Boris won a thumping majority - then proceeded to shit the bed.

£570mn a year for Erasmus?! I see the Chagos negotiators have already found a new job in government.

We need a comparator on that.

The requested contribution for 2021 that the UK Govt walked away from was £600 million per annum: *

Under Erasmus+, the UK already contributed significantly more than we got out in the form of receipts, and the only terms of offer for continued participation would have required an annual gross contribution of £600 million, or a net contribution in the region of £2 billion over the course of the programme.

£600 million a year in 2027 with 2021->2027 inflation of 30% (about right) would be £780 million pro-rata, so £570 million is a like for like reduction of 27%.

Is that a good deal? I think that probably depends on how well we fill our quota of 100k students.

Back in 2020 there was funding for 55.7k students to be involved, and we sent 10k and received 16k. It's up to us to use it fully. I think in that case it will be good value, especially in undermining the xenophobia that poisons our politics.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg4ng7ee9vwo

* https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-07-12/HL1883/

It's not a zero sum game anyway - just as with our membership of the EU.
There's cake in hosting the best and brightest from the continent - and vice versa.

It's the little Britainers who oppose such deals.

I think it does highlight the increasingly transactional nature of our current relationship with the EU.

When we were members we notably failed to use the relationship to our best advantage - I would argue at least in part because of complacent, woolly brains high in the civil service, arse sitting rathe rather than paying continuing attention, and inconsistent policy.

I'd say the lesson is more important now.

Inflation minus 0.2% in November, bringing the annual rate down to 3.2%. I expect that'll continue to fall down towards target by the middle of next year.

BoE certain to cut rates to 3.75% tomorrow and we're likely to see further cuts next year.

You're probably right, these figures have changed the balance. But the 10 year gilt is still at 4.5% and the illusion of control that the base rate gives us is weakened if the gap between the two becomes too great. I acknowledge that I am somewhat hawkish about these things but personally I would be voting no change tomorrow.

There is a fiscal question and a monetary question.

The government's borrowing costs for 10-year and longer lending is driven in part by the amount of borrowing they need to do, rather than expectations that the BoE will need to hike rates again. That's no business of the BoE. The 10-year swap rate is around 4.0% so not dissimilar to short-term rates.

On the monetary side, we can see 1) falling headline and core inflation, 2) rising unemployment, 3) weak economy, 4) Trump tariffs which should be disinflationary here at the margins for imports from third countries. And unlike last year, the budget was a nothing event for future inflation.

My guess is we see base rates down at 3% by the end of next year.

I agree with some of that.

The bits I don't are that it is not just the quantity of borrowing required but the gradually increasing risk premium attached to UK gilts given our inability to bring borrowing under control and to get spending in line with income. The longer we allow that to continue the higher that premium is going to get and this budget was a step in the wrong direction. The increase in the NMW announced at the budget will also have secondary inflation effects.

I think that this is a problem for nearly all western countries, not just the UK. I think that those with surpluses to invest are going to become increasingly nervous about our ability to service and repay the debts we are incurring. The temptation to resort to unconventional means, such as QE, will be strong as will be the temptation to have a burst of inflation to reduce the debt burden. Western bonds are going to become increasingly hard to sell.