Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

It’s the economy stupid? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 31 in General
It’s the economy stupid? – politicalbetting.com

The National Infrastructure Commission estimates poorer households are likely to see a £6.66 per month increase in living costs. This is something that at least 25% of the lowest-earning Britons say they can't afford https://t.co/MIkGuhuRwm pic.twitter.com/A8BAxbB9Hk

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,023
    ... and the clocks have gone back, pointlessly making the next five months even more depressing than they need to be.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,023
    On topic, the cost of living crisis and economic decline generally are self-inflicted wounds (like putting the clocks back). It is an inevitable consequence of us forgetting the supply-side lessons that Mrs Thatcher taught us so painfully in the 1980s. The solutions are well known:

    - increased competition in labour and product markets
    - deregulation and simplification of the tax code
    - encouragement of enterprise generally, not favoured government projects
    - lower taxes
    - improved infrastructure.

    Unfortunately, Johnson and Sunak are doing the exact opposite, with the possible partial exception of the last. And their only defence, true enough in fairness, is that the opposition would be even worse.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,932
    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104
    Fishing said:

    On topic, the cost of living crisis and economic decline generally are self-inflicted wounds (like putting the clocks back). It is an inevitable consequence of us forgetting the supply-side lessons that Mrs Thatcher taught us so painfully in the 1980s. The solutions are well known:

    - increased competition in labour and product markets
    - deregulation and simplification of the tax code
    - encouragement of enterprise generally, not favoured government projects
    - lower taxes
    - improved infrastructure.

    Unfortunately, Johnson and Sunak are doing the exact opposite, with the possible partial exception of the last. And their only defence, true enough in fairness, is that the opposition would be even worse.

    They’re trying to wriggle out of improving infrastructure as well.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,932
    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    On topic, the cost of living crisis and economic decline generally are self-inflicted wounds (like putting the clocks back). It is an inevitable consequence of us forgetting the supply-side lessons that Mrs Thatcher taught us so painfully in the 1980s. The solutions are well known:

    - increased competition in labour and product markets
    - deregulation and simplification of the tax code
    - encouragement of enterprise generally, not favoured government projects
    - lower taxes
    - improved infrastructure.

    Unfortunately, Johnson and Sunak are doing the exact opposite, with the possible partial exception of the last. And their only defence, true enough in fairness, is that the opposition would be even worse.

    They’re trying to wriggle out of improving infrastructure as well.
    Whatever they might be trying to do, what significant infrastructure improvements, that might be noticed by voters, will have been completed by the next election ?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,023
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    On topic, the cost of living crisis and economic decline generally are self-inflicted wounds (like putting the clocks back). It is an inevitable consequence of us forgetting the supply-side lessons that Mrs Thatcher taught us so painfully in the 1980s. The solutions are well known:

    - increased competition in labour and product markets
    - deregulation and simplification of the tax code
    - encouragement of enterprise generally, not favoured government projects
    - lower taxes
    - improved infrastructure.

    Unfortunately, Johnson and Sunak are doing the exact opposite, with the possible partial exception of the last. And their only defence, true enough in fairness, is that the opposition would be even worse.

    They’re trying to wriggle out of improving infrastructure as well.
    Whatever they might be trying to do, what significant infrastructure improvements, that might be noticed by voters, will have been completed by the next election ?
    Oh, loads.

    - the third runway at Heathrow
    - HS2
    - rural broadband
    - HS3
    - Crossrail 2

    Hahahahahahahaha...
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,915
    The Tories' great genius is that they have managed to convince 40% of the electorate that things could not be better than they are right now but that at some undefined moment in the future they will be. For as long as that continues, whatever happens day to day - whether it be a cost of living crisis or raw sewage being pumped into our rivers and seas - will make very little difference to anything.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,915
    edited October 31

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    I agree but a rainbow alliance wouldnt work either
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,964

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.

    My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.

    My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
    There were those who made similar arguments in 2009. Brown still got the lowest voteshare of any incumbent PM in history (including Major in 1997).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,932
    Some cheery Halloween reading - the story of the largest ever nuclear device detonated:
    https://thebulletin.org/2021/10/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-biggest-nuclear-bomb/

    And a reminder of what a nutter Edward Teller was…
    … At a secret meeting of the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission, Teller broached, as he put it, “the possibility of much bigger bangs.” At his Livermore laboratory, he reported, they were working on two new weapon designs, dubbed Gnomon and Sundial. Gnomon would be 1,000 megatons and would be used like a “primary” to set off Sundial, which would be 10,000 megatons. Most of Teller’s testimony remains classified to this day, but other scientists at the meeting recorded, after Teller had left, that they were “shocked” by his proposal. “It would contaminate the Earth,” one suggested. Physicist I. I. Rabi, by then an experienced Teller skeptic, suggested it was probably just an “advertising stunt.”[4] But he was wrong; Livermore would for several years continue working on Gnomon, at least, and had even planned to test a prototype for the device in Operation Redwing in 1956 (but the test never took place).[5]…
  • pingping Posts: 1,409
    My money is on a consistent labour lead by May next year.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,915

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    I agree but a rainbow alliance wouldnt work either

    Agreed - if the majority of voters want the Tories out enough they will find a way.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    I agree but a rainbow alliance wouldnt work either
    The key will be if Labour + SNP > Tory.

    If that is the case, the equation is much easier as the other parties only have to abstain.

    However, the difficulty for the SNP would be if Starmer refused a second Sindy vote. Would they then still put him into power, and attract the fury of their diehard supporters? Or fail to do so and attract the fury of their left wing voters for whom Sindy is a means of getting rid of the Tories?

    It would be a nasty mess for them and therefore incredibly funny to watch.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,932
    A couple of interesting stories on green hydrogen:

    JCB signs green hydrogen deal worth billions
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59107805

    The global race to produce hydrogen offshore
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55763356

    Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,964
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.

    My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
    There were those who made similar arguments in 2009. Brown still got the lowest voteshare of any incumbent PM in history (including Major in 1997).
    Voters being scared of Labour when the economy is bad fits in nicely with Brown doing badly in 2010. I am assuming you are thinking it is change they would be scared of rather than Labour? Probably applies to some, but I think more swing voters are scared by Labour than change.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,964

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    I agree but a rainbow alliance wouldnt work either

    Agreed - if the majority of voters want the Tories out enough they will find a way.

    Not sure that is how FPTP works.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.

    My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
    There were those who made similar arguments in 2009. Brown still got the lowest voteshare of any incumbent PM in history (including Major in 1997).
    Voters being scared of Labour when the economy is bad fits in nicely with Brown doing badly in 2010. I am assuming you are thinking it is change they would be scared of rather than Labour? Probably applies to some, but I think more swing voters are scared by Labour than change.
    Yes, the argument is that voters are scared of change.

    Your position fails on two levels:

    1) Until 2007-8 Labour were far more trusted on the economy than the Tories. So these things can and do change very quickly;

    2) The Tories are not in fact much more trusted than Labour at this moment. It is striking that every poll says Starmer is doing a bad job, yet the gap on ‘Best PM’ remains very narrow.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,915

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    I agree but a rainbow alliance wouldnt work either

    Agreed - if the majority of voters want the Tories out enough they will find a way.

    Not sure that is how FPTP works.

    I disagree. FPTP encourages negative votes. That's one of the reasons why I have always been opposed to it.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104
    Wind currently producing 51% of our electricity.

    Not surprised give the wind outside my window!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    I agree but a rainbow alliance wouldnt work either
    The key will be if Labour + SNP > Tory.

    If that is the case, the equation is much easier as the other parties only have to abstain.

    However, the difficulty for the SNP would be if Starmer refused a second Sindy vote. Would they then still put him into power, and attract the fury of their diehard supporters? Or fail to do so and attract the fury of their left wing voters for whom Sindy is a means of getting rid of the Tories?

    It would be a nasty mess for them and therefore incredibly funny to watch.
    There’s actually quite a big spread of seat totals where that situation happens, and (as in 2015) Starmer will have little choice but to announce during the campaign that he will refuse to work with the SNP in the event of a hung parliament.

    An unstable government will almost certainly result, with (as in 1974) another election following soon after.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    I agree but a rainbow alliance wouldnt work either
    The key will be if Labour + SNP > Tory.

    If that is the case, the equation is much easier as the other parties only have to abstain.

    However, the difficulty for the SNP would be if Starmer refused a second Sindy vote. Would they then still put him into power, and attract the fury of their diehard supporters? Or fail to do so and attract the fury of their left wing voters for whom Sindy is a means of getting rid of the Tories?

    It would be a nasty mess for them and therefore incredibly funny to watch.
    There’s actually quite a big spread of seat totals where that situation happens, and (as in 2015) Starmer will have little choice but to announce during the campaign that he will refuse to work with the SNP in the event of a hung parliament.

    An unstable government will almost certainly result, with (as in 1974) another election following soon after.
    That would almost certainly be to Labour’s benefit. Standing again as the incumbents after twelve months would help enormously in terms of profile and electoral position. It would also negate the aforementioned fear of change.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    I agree but a rainbow alliance wouldnt work either
    The key will be if Labour + SNP > Tory.

    If that is the case, the equation is much easier as the other parties only have to abstain.

    However, the difficulty for the SNP would be if Starmer refused a second Sindy vote. Would they then still put him into power, and attract the fury of their diehard supporters? Or fail to do so and attract the fury of their left wing voters for whom Sindy is a means of getting rid of the Tories?

    It would be a nasty mess for them and therefore incredibly funny to watch.
    There’s actually quite a big spread of seat totals where that situation happens, and (as in 2015) Starmer will have little choice but to announce during the campaign that he will refuse to work with the SNP in the event of a hung parliament.

    An unstable government will almost certainly result, with (as in 1974) another election following soon after.
    That would almost certainly be to Labour’s benefit. Standing again as the incumbents after twelve months would help enormously in terms of profile and electoral position. It would also negate the aforementioned fear of change.
    Yes, agreed. The most likely losers are the SNP, but it’s difficult to see what they can do about it, if Starmer won’t work formally with them.

    The alternative is that the Tories install a charismatic and optimistic LotO, who can make quick headway and win some marginals back.

    We could be in for a repeat of the ‘17-‘19 Parliament, where it’s almost impossible to do anything.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    ydoethur said:

    Wind currently producing 51% of our electricity.

    Not surprised give the wind outside my window!

    The rain here in Sussex is very heavy.
  • pingping Posts: 1,409
    edited October 31
    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Interesting the BBC don’t seem to be covering it. They went big on the original allegations, I’d have thought they owe it to Andrew to at least cover his defence.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Ping, given he chose to scuttle himself with that interview, I'm going to guess his action is stupid.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,459

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.

    My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
    There were those who made similar arguments in 2009. Brown still got the lowest voteshare of any incumbent PM in history (including Major in 1997).
    Voters being scared of Labour when the economy is bad fits in nicely with Brown doing badly in 2010. I am assuming you are thinking it is change they would be scared of rather than Labour? Probably applies to some, but I think more swing voters are scared by Labour than change.
    Starmer has done a good job reining in the crazier elements but still has more to do. Labour needs a message too. It is currently little more than a vehicle for single issue protest groups currently.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,446
    edited October 31
    People worried about inflation & interest rates rising, a cost of living crisis, the Labour Treasury girls being the current flavour of the month etc etc - but barely any change on who is more trusted with the economy since March, in fact a small move to the Cons


  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    edited October 31

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,459
    Nigelb said:

    A couple of interesting stories on green hydrogen:

    JCB signs green hydrogen deal worth billions
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59107805

    The global race to produce hydrogen offshore
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55763356

    Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.

    ITM recently raised a large pot of cash to expand its factory in Sheffield and build further factories too.

    https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2021/10/15/itm-power-to-raise-250m-for-new-uk-factory/

    A local company to me, Haskel, is investing heavily in Hydrogen too and domestic boiler makers are already trialling fully hydrogen enabled boilers.

    There are issues to resolve but it is attracting lots of interest and money,
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,676
    That first poll should be thrown in the bin.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    I agree but a rainbow alliance wouldnt work either
    The key will be if Labour + SNP > Tory.

    If that is the case, the equation is much easier as the other parties only have to abstain.

    However, the difficulty for the SNP would be if Starmer refused a second Sindy vote. Would they then still put him into power, and attract the fury of their diehard supporters? Or fail to do so and attract the fury of their left wing voters for whom Sindy is a means of getting rid of the Tories?

    It would be a nasty mess for them and therefore incredibly funny to watch.
    There’s actually quite a big spread of seat totals where that situation happens, and (as in 2015) Starmer will have little choice but to announce during the campaign that he will refuse to work with the SNP in the event of a hung parliament.

    An unstable government will almost certainly result, with (as in 1974) another election following soon after.
    Good morning one and all.
    The Feb 74 election resulted in, effectively, a hung Parliament. However had Heath been prepared to concede some form of PR the (then Liberals might have co-operated, although there was a widespread view that who ever had or hadn't 'won' Heath and the Tories had lost.
    Wilson was a more experienced politician than Starmer, so knew what to do to survive, and, crucially had some 'big beasts' behind him.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,852
    ping said:

    My money is on a consistent labour lead by May next year.

    Have you put £3,500 on it on an undisclosed market?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,852
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.

    My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
    There were those who made similar arguments in 2009. Brown still got the lowest voteshare of any incumbent PM in history (including Major in 1997).
    Voters being scared of Labour when the economy is bad fits in nicely with Brown doing badly in 2010. I am assuming you are thinking it is change they would be scared of rather than Labour? Probably applies to some, but I think more swing voters are scared by Labour than change.
    Yes, the argument is that voters are scared of change.

    Your position fails on two levels:

    1) Until 2007-8 Labour were far more trusted on the economy than the Tories. So these things can and do change very quickly;

    2) The Tories are not in fact much more trusted than Labour at this moment. It is striking that every poll says Starmer is doing a bad job, yet the gap on ‘Best PM’ remains very narrow.
    Isn’t that just the Boris discount?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,676

    The Tories' great genius is that they have managed to convince 40% of the electorate that things could not be better than they are right now but that at some undefined moment in the future they will be. For as long as that continues, whatever happens day to day - whether it be a cost of living crisis or raw sewage being pumped into our rivers and seas - will make very little difference to anything.

    When I was 10, the Labour Party told us that “things can only get better”. I now know that things can very much get worse.

    It will be fascinating to watch how the politicians handle rising interest rates. The loose monetary policy of the last 12 years has screwed over so many people. But Labour have never criticised it. I wonder if they’ll encourage the government to change the BoE’s remit? Sunak said he’d written to the governor to restate that their remit was controlling inflation.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.

    My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
    There were those who made similar arguments in 2009. Brown still got the lowest voteshare of any incumbent PM in history (including Major in 1997).
    Voters being scared of Labour when the economy is bad fits in nicely with Brown doing badly in 2010. I am assuming you are thinking it is change they would be scared of rather than Labour? Probably applies to some, but I think more swing voters are scared by Labour than change.
    Yes, the argument is that voters are scared of change.

    Your position fails on two levels:

    1) Until 2007-8 Labour were far more trusted on the economy than the Tories. So these things can and do change very quickly;

    2) The Tories are not in fact much more trusted than Labour at this moment. It is striking that every poll says Starmer is doing a bad job, yet the gap on ‘Best PM’ remains very narrow.
    Isn’t that just the Boris discount?
    Doesn’t that fly in the face of the widespread supposition that Johnson has a wider appeal than his party?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,852
    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    It’s an attempted shakedown

    She thought he would settle rather than risk damaging his brand
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104
    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    A couple of interesting stories on green hydrogen:

    JCB signs green hydrogen deal worth billions
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59107805

    The global race to produce hydrogen offshore
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55763356

    Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.

    ITM recently raised a large pot of cash to expand its factory in Sheffield and build further factories too.

    https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2021/10/15/itm-power-to-raise-250m-for-new-uk-factory/

    A local company to me, Haskel, is investing heavily in Hydrogen too and domestic boiler makers are already trialling fully hydrogen enabled boilers.

    There are issues to resolve but it is attracting lots of interest and money,
    Question for our scientists.

    I can see how hydrogen is feasible for road, rail and marine transport. Indeed, for a country like us it would be ideal given we’re surrounded by it.

    But wouldn’t water vapour in the upper atmosphere actually be worse in terms of warming effect than CO2? Which would rule it out for jet aircraft.

    If I’m wrong, please tell me.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,852
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.

    My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
    There were those who made similar arguments in 2009. Brown still got the lowest voteshare of any incumbent PM in history (including Major in 1997).
    Voters being scared of Labour when the economy is bad fits in nicely with Brown doing badly in 2010. I am assuming you are thinking it is change they would be scared of rather than Labour? Probably applies to some, but I think more swing voters are scared by Labour than change.
    Yes, the argument is that voters are scared of change.

    Your position fails on two levels:

    1) Until 2007-8 Labour were far more trusted on the economy than the Tories. So these things can and do change very quickly;

    2) The Tories are not in fact much more trusted than Labour at this moment. It is striking that every poll says Starmer is doing a bad job, yet the gap on ‘Best PM’ remains very narrow.
    Isn’t that just the Boris discount?
    Doesn’t that fly in the face of the widespread supposition that Johnson has a wider appeal than his party?
    From the sort of people who answer the detailed questions in opinion polls?

    I suspect there is also a group who suspect Starmer might make a better PM but don’t believe Labour is ready
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.

    What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,504
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.

    My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
    There were those who made similar arguments in 2009. Brown still got the lowest voteshare of any incumbent PM in history (including Major in 1997).
    Voters being scared of Labour when the economy is bad fits in nicely with Brown doing badly in 2010. I am assuming you are thinking it is change they would be scared of rather than Labour? Probably applies to some, but I think more swing voters are scared by Labour than change.
    Yes, the argument is that voters are scared of change.

    Your position fails on two levels:

    1) Until 2007-8 Labour were far more trusted on the economy than the Tories. So these things can and do change very quickly;

    2) The Tories are not in fact much more trusted than Labour at this moment. It is striking that every poll says Starmer is doing a bad job, yet the gap on ‘Best PM’ remains very narrow.
    Isn’t that just the Boris discount?
    Doesn’t that fly in the face of the widespread supposition that Johnson has a wider appeal than his party?
    From the sort of people who answer the detailed questions in opinion polls?

    I suspect there is also a group who suspect Starmer might make a better PM but don’t believe Labour is ready
    It is not unreasonable to believe Starmer to be competent (if dull), but surrounded by crazies.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.

    My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
    There were those who made similar arguments in 2009. Brown still got the lowest voteshare of any incumbent PM in history (including Major in 1997).
    Voters being scared of Labour when the economy is bad fits in nicely with Brown doing badly in 2010. I am assuming you are thinking it is change they would be scared of rather than Labour? Probably applies to some, but I think more swing voters are scared by Labour than change.
    Yes, the argument is that voters are scared of change.

    Your position fails on two levels:

    1) Until 2007-8 Labour were far more trusted on the economy than the Tories. So these things can and do change very quickly;

    2) The Tories are not in fact much more trusted than Labour at this moment. It is striking that every poll says Starmer is doing a bad job, yet the gap on ‘Best PM’ remains very narrow.
    Isn’t that just the Boris discount?
    Doesn’t that fly in the face of the widespread supposition that Johnson has a wider appeal than his party?
    From the sort of people who answer the detailed questions in opinion polls?

    I suspect there is also a group who suspect Starmer might make a better PM but don’t believe Labour is ready
    It is not unreasonable to believe Starmer to be competent (if dull), but surrounded by crazies.
    Its not a question of belief, more one of fact.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    DavidL said:

    So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.

    What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.

    Yes, but for the other 70% of the working population tax rises and wages lagging inflation mean less money in the pocket.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.

    My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
    There were those who made similar arguments in 2009. Brown still got the lowest voteshare of any incumbent PM in history (including Major in 1997).
    Voters being scared of Labour when the economy is bad fits in nicely with Brown doing badly in 2010. I am assuming you are thinking it is change they would be scared of rather than Labour? Probably applies to some, but I think more swing voters are scared by Labour than change.
    Yes, the argument is that voters are scared of change.

    Your position fails on two levels:

    1) Until 2007-8 Labour were far more trusted on the economy than the Tories. So these things can and do change very quickly;

    2) The Tories are not in fact much more trusted than Labour at this moment. It is striking that every poll says Starmer is doing a bad job, yet the gap on ‘Best PM’ remains very narrow.
    Isn’t that just the Boris discount?
    Doesn’t that fly in the face of the widespread supposition that Johnson has a wider appeal than his party?
    From the sort of people who answer the detailed questions in opinion polls?

    I suspect there is also a group who suspect Starmer might make a better PM but don’t believe Labour is ready
    It is not unreasonable to believe Starmer to be competent (if dull), but surrounded by crazies.
    I don't think he's surrounded by crazies; that's Boris' position. However Starmer has around him too many people who don't really seem competent, or who don't look like proving their competence..
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.

    What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.

    Yes, but for the other 70% of the working population tax rises and wages lagging inflation mean less money in the pocket.
    Not if real wages continue to grow which seems likely given the tightness of the labour market. The level of increase in the public sector will be important in this. My guess is that this will be inflation plus tenths of a percent resulting in some industrial action.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.

    My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
    There were those who made similar arguments in 2009. Brown still got the lowest voteshare of any incumbent PM in history (including Major in 1997).
    Voters being scared of Labour when the economy is bad fits in nicely with Brown doing badly in 2010. I am assuming you are thinking it is change they would be scared of rather than Labour? Probably applies to some, but I think more swing voters are scared by Labour than change.
    Yes, the argument is that voters are scared of change.

    Your position fails on two levels:

    1) Until 2007-8 Labour were far more trusted on the economy than the Tories. So these things can and do change very quickly;

    2) The Tories are not in fact much more trusted than Labour at this moment. It is striking that every poll says Starmer is doing a bad job, yet the gap on ‘Best PM’ remains very narrow.
    Isn’t that just the Boris discount?
    Doesn’t that fly in the face of the widespread supposition that Johnson has a wider appeal than his party?
    From the sort of people who answer the detailed questions in opinion polls?

    I suspect there is also a group who suspect Starmer might make a better PM but don’t believe Labour is ready
    It is not unreasonable to believe Starmer to be competent (if dull), but surrounded by crazies.
    I don't think he's surrounded by crazies; that's Boris' position. However Starmer has around him too many people who don't really seem competent, or who don't look like proving their competence..
    The issue is, there are still plenty of crazies in the PLP. Burgon, McDonnell, Butler, Lavery, Sultana and Long Bailey haven't gone away. Even if Corbyn, Pidcock and Webbe have been removed, there's still plenty of possible trouble there.

    Although I personally think them a poisonous irrelevance - and I don't see McDonnell or Lavery being around beyond the next election, while the younger generation are basically quite thick and will surely never return to the front rank - I can see why others might be spooked.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    R4 reporting that Tories intend to reject the findings of the parliamentary standards committee and let Patterson off his 30-day suspension.

    Surely that would be a big mistake?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Fishing said:

    On topic, the cost of living crisis and economic decline generally are self-inflicted wounds (like putting the clocks back). It is an inevitable consequence of us forgetting the supply-side lessons that Mrs Thatcher taught us so painfully in the 1980s. The solutions are well known:

    - increased competition in labour and product markets
    - deregulation and simplification of the tax code
    - encouragement of enterprise generally, not favoured government projects
    - lower taxes
    - improved infrastructure.

    Unfortunately, Johnson and Sunak are doing the exact opposite, with the possible partial exception of the last. And their only defence, true enough in fairness, is that the opposition would be even worse.

    Mrs Thatcher taught the importance of MMT.

    In her case, magic money trees, like North Sea Oil. Now, modern monetary theory.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    And, in other news, wedding dresses look like being the next Brexit shortage.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    Of course, if she hadn't been trafficked over here (and I'm not too sure about the legalities there) she was over 16 when/if anything happened, so, while reprehensible and/or repulsive, whatever did or might happen here in UK wasn't illegal.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    IanB2 said:

    R4 reporting that Tories intend to reject the findings of the parliamentary standards committee and let Patterson off his 30-day suspension.

    Surely that would be a big mistake?

    That rather depends on whether the PSC made a mistake. I don't have all the facts but Patterson is pretty detetmined to say that they have.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    This may be a niche area, so it should fit right in here. Just reviewed Shadow Hearts: Covenant, a PS2 classic that holds up surprisingly well: https://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.com/2021/10/retro-review-shadow-hearts-covenant-ps2.html
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,940
    Cicero said:

    the unique conditions caused by the Johnson government will take the UK back to being the weakest of the G7 economies and one of the worst performers in the OECD.

    Over what time frame?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144

    IanB2 said:

    R4 reporting that Tories intend to reject the findings of the parliamentary standards committee and let Patterson off his 30-day suspension.

    Surely that would be a big mistake?

    That rather depends on whether the PSC made a mistake. I don't have all the facts but Patterson is pretty detetmined to say that they have.
    The standards were moved, like the goalposts by the badgers?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,940
    isam said:

    Ratio of EU workers to natives across different industries from 1992 to 2014

    Is it any wonder management/professionals were so blasé about FOM? They lived in a different world



    “ We find that immigration has a small negative impact on average British wages. Our results also reveal that the biggest impact of immigration on wages is within the semi/unskilled services occupational group, which have seen a large inflow of migration from the EU.”

    https://izajodm.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40176-017-0096-0

    The "Polish plumber" meant very different things to the middle classes who used them and the working class they undercut. No wonder they voted for Brexit. And their "betters" (sic) sneer at them for being "stupid"!
  • DavidL said:

    So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.

    What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.

    For the people struggling on UC the changes you describe move the situation from being impossible to merely grim. They still face an increase in the cost of living, just less severe than it would have been.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,180
    Has Johnny Mercer commented yet? Looking forward to a new range of ‘I stand with soldier xyz’ t-shirts.

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1454504036359606290?s=21
  • ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good header, TSE.
    I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.

    ..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....

    The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.

    A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.

    My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
    There were those who made similar arguments in 2009. Brown still got the lowest voteshare of any incumbent PM in history (including Major in 1997).
    Voters being scared of Labour when the economy is bad fits in nicely with Brown doing badly in 2010. I am assuming you are thinking it is change they would be scared of rather than Labour? Probably applies to some, but I think more swing voters are scared by Labour than change.
    Yes, the argument is that voters are scared of change.

    Your position fails on two levels:

    1) Until 2007-8 Labour were far more trusted on the economy than the Tories. So these things can and do change very quickly;

    2) The Tories are not in fact much more trusted than Labour at this moment. It is striking that every poll says Starmer is doing a bad job, yet the gap on ‘Best PM’ remains very narrow.
    Isn’t that just the Boris discount?
    Doesn’t that fly in the face of the widespread supposition that Johnson has a wider appeal than his party?
    From the sort of people who answer the detailed questions in opinion polls?

    I suspect there is also a group who suspect Starmer might make a better PM but don’t believe Labour is ready
    It is not unreasonable to believe Starmer to be competent (if dull), but surrounded by crazies.
    I don't think he's surrounded by crazies; that's Boris' position. However Starmer has around him too many people who don't really seem competent, or who don't look like proving their competence..
    The issue is, there are still plenty of crazies in the PLP. Burgon, McDonnell, Butler, Lavery, Sultana and Long Bailey haven't gone away. Even if Corbyn, Pidcock and Webbe have been removed, there's still plenty of possible trouble there.

    Although I personally think them a poisonous irrelevance - and I don't see McDonnell or Lavery being around beyond the next election, while the younger generation are basically quite thick and will surely never return to the front rank - I can see why others might be spooked.
    Had a fascinating conversation with a long-standing Labour person. Essentially bemoaning that they can't get media coverage for the positive policies they have, instead its all about "poisonous irrelevance" like that lot you listed.

    I pointed out that people don't need to hear policy ideas at this stage of the parliament, its the direction of travel thats most important. And despite Starmer making a decent speech with one mega critical part to it, it was drowned out completely by hard left wazzocks heckling. That became the story, not the brilliant "get brexit done". Same with Rayner getting huge chears for attacking "Tory Scum".

    Labour won't make progress without the kind of cut through policy in soundbite form (and "make Brexit work" absolutely could be) where the entire party relentlessly drills it. As the party remains at war with itself and even sensible heads are still attacking "stupid" voters, they have no chance.

    Thats not to say the Tories have a cakewalk - you can't make the mess they are making and walk re-election. I expect a hung parliament, the Tories the largest party but the combined opposition agreeing to work together for the love of sanity.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    DavidL said:

    So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.

    What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.

    For the people struggling on UC the changes you describe move the situation from being impossible to merely grim. They still face an increase in the cost of living, just less severe than it would have been.
    I never thought i would ever hear the words "labour shortage" in my lifetime. There is always a shortage of skilled labour. But for unskilled?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,437
    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    It's a difficult one isn't it? You are absolutely right and he should use everything available to him but it doesn't look good.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,726

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    Of course, if she hadn't been trafficked over here (and I'm not too sure about the legalities there) she was over 16 when/if anything happened, so, while reprehensible and/or repulsive, whatever did or might happen here in UK wasn't illegal.
    Unless she was paid. I believe prostitution of a minor is an offence.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:

    1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.

    2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.

    Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    My understanding is that he is denying sleeping with her when she was 17 (and thus above the age of consent in the UK) or indeed at all. She is trying to claim that she had been trafficked by Epstein for that purpose and that Andrew was aware of that. She also claims, somewhat conveniently, that they had sex in a US state where that was below the age of consent.

    The fact that she was paid off by Epstein for allegations of being trafficked is not obviously helpful to Andrew's position.

  • DavidL said:

    So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.

    What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.

    For the people struggling on UC the changes you describe move the situation from being impossible to merely grim. They still face an increase in the cost of living, just less severe than it would have been.
    I never thought i would ever hear the words "labour shortage" in my lifetime. There is always a shortage of skilled labour. But for unskilled?
    Yep. For a whole stack of reasons:
    1. The job is "demeaning"
    2. The jobs are miles and miles from where the available labour is
    3. The job results is a net loss vs not taking it (via UC taper plus cost of getting to the job)
    4. The job is shiftwork and the potential worker has kids.
    etc etc etc

    The hard right element of the Tories always pile in with "make people work for their benefits". I remember IDS in the Valleys suggesting to unemployed mums that there were jobs aplenty in Cardiff. Yeah. Minimum wage bar jobs, in the evening. With no childcare or public transport available even if they could be afforded on minimum wage.

    The stuctural labour issue of the last decade or two is that we both have people wanting work and jobs needing filling. But the two are geographically and financially incompatible. The move to flexible working must be allowed to help spread job locations about, and we need things like wrap-around childcare that doesn't cost a 2nd mortgage.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    Of course, if she hadn't been trafficked over here (and I'm not too sure about the legalities there) she was over 16 when/if anything happened, so, while reprehensible and/or repulsive, whatever did or might happen here in UK wasn't illegal.
    There’s a long discussion to be had about the difference between moral and legal in cases like this one.

    Andrew and the accuser met at a party in New York, when she was 17 and he was in his 30s.

    Now, 17 is of legal age in New York, so he didn’t commit any obvious sexual offence against the woman, and she is not arguing that any activity between them wasn’t consensual.

    However, there is a federal law that prohibits moving someone under 18 across state lines for the purpose of prostitution, which apparently does cover this woman, she didn’t live in NY and was hired for the party. The criminal case question was did Andrew, who can reasonably say he didn’t know where exactly all the girls at the party came from, know that she was 17 and had been moved across a state line?

    The talk of a ‘rape’ case refers to the US offence of ‘statutory rape’, which in the UK would be described as ‘unlawful sex’ rather than rape. The New York prosecutor gave up on trying to get Andrew for that one after he refused to be interviewed by the prosecutor.

    The woman came to an settlement with Epstein some years ago, and is under a non-disclosure agreement. The assumption is that she was paid a sum of money in exchange for her silence, which is not uncommon (although again we can argue the morality of these settlements)

    It’s been suggested that she subsequently met Andrew in London, but I don’t know how old she was or how she got there. A similar law exists in the UK about controlling someone under 18 for the purposes of prostitution, but as far as I can see no UK prosecutor has picked up the case.

    Of course, morally Andrew’s reputation has suffered immensely, for associating with someone (Epstein) convicted of sexual offences against minors, and well known for at best being careless as to how old were the girls at his parties.

    I do feel sorry for the Queen, who has morally lost two members of her family in the last couple of years, both in very public circumstances, as well as losing her husband.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,437

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It is a civil case so assuming American rules are the same all is required is balance of probability so no need to prove guilty just more likely than not so he really does need to avoid a case if he can.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,446

    Has Johnny Mercer commented yet? Looking forward to a new range of ‘I stand with soldier xyz’ t-shirts.

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1454504036359606290?s=21

    He comments in the piece you link to doesn’t he?! What a horrific story
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,646
    I have been saying on here for months that the inflationary economics of this Conservative Government will be their downfall. Yet there is no sign of it the looming economic crisis affecting their popularity at all

    Will the voters see through Johnson's bumbling charm and general gorgeousness as the bailiffs repossess their home and lease car? I am not so sure. I suspect it might be someone else's fault.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    The Sunday Rawnsley:

    There’s a reason why many public services will remain mediocre or worse even as taxes rise to their highest level in 70 years. The fundamental explanation is the sluggardly pace of economic growth. When the economy expands at 2.5% a year, the country can afford to buy itself decent public services with relatively modest levels of taxation. At growth of 1.5%, you end up with inferior public services for higher levels of taxation. For the past decade, growth has been much closer to 1.5% than it has been to 2.5%. “Rishi is crossing his fingers and saying we can have this extra spending and then some tax cuts before the election,” says one former cabinet minister on the One Nation wing of the Conservative party. “The gamble is on growth.”

    The gamble on growth is one the chancellor will lose if the official forecasters have got it right about the economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility reckons the rebound from the pandemic will fizzle out and growth will become highly disappointing towards the end of this parliament. It has also confirmed that the government handicapped itself with a very hard version of Brexit. Mr Sunak might brag that departure from the EU has liberated him to reform taxes on booze, but he can’t claim any Brexit bonus for the economy. The reverse is the case. Brexit will permanently erase 4% from GDP, reckons the OBR, twice the damage inflicted by Covid.

    Rising costs are already making many households feel pessimistic about their future living standards, an issue that affects nearly everyone, but one about which the chancellor said little and did less. Britons face soaring energy bills, higher prices in the shops and inflation threatening to rise to its worst level in three decades.

    Rising inflation and borrowing costs combined with poor growth and heavier taxes is a recipe for near-frozen disposable incomes. Independent forecasters expect most people to experience little improvement to their living standards and some a squeeze over the next five years. The chancellor is desperately hoping that these forecasts will turn out to be wrong. Because, if they are right, the public will not be experiencing a vibrant Age of Optimism when they next elect a government. It will feel a lot more like a grinding Age of Stagnation.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,180
    isam said:

    Has Johnny Mercer commented yet? Looking forward to a new range of ‘I stand with soldier xyz’ t-shirts.

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1454504036359606290?s=21

    He comments in the piece you link to doesn’t he?! What a horrific story
    Dunno, I haven’t a Times sub.
    What does he say as a matter of interest?

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,164
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:

    1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.

    2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.

    Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
    Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,437
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    Of course, if she hadn't been trafficked over here (and I'm not too sure about the legalities there) she was over 16 when/if anything happened, so, while reprehensible and/or repulsive, whatever did or might happen here in UK wasn't illegal.
    There’s a long discussion to be had about the difference between moral and legal in cases like this one.

    Andrew and the accuser met at a party in New York, when she was 17 and he was in his 30s.

    Now, 17 is of legal age in New York, so he didn’t commit any obvious sexual offence against the woman, and she is not arguing that any activity between them wasn’t consensual.

    However, there is a federal law that prohibits moving someone under 18 across state lines for the purpose of prostitution, which apparently does cover this woman, she didn’t live in NY and was hired for the party. The criminal case question was did Andrew, who can reasonably say he didn’t know where exactly all the girls at the party came from, know that she was 17 and had been moved across a state line?

    The talk of a ‘rape’ case refers to the US offence of ‘statutory rape’, which in the UK would be described as ‘unlawful sex’ rather than rape. The New York prosecutor gave up on trying to get Andrew for that one after he refused to be interviewed by the prosecutor.

    The woman came to an settlement with Epstein some years ago, and is under a non-disclosure agreement. The assumption is that she was paid a sum of money in exchange for her silence, which is not uncommon (although again we can argue the morality of these settlements)

    It’s been suggested that she subsequently met Andrew in London, but I don’t know how old she was or how she got there. A similar law exists in the UK about controlling someone under 18 for the purposes of prostitution, but as far as I can see no UK prosecutor has picked up the case.

    Of course, morally Andrew’s reputation has suffered immensely, for associating with someone (Epstein) convicted of sexual offences against minors, and well known for at best being careless as to how old were the girls at his parties.

    I do feel sorry for the Queen, who has morally lost two members of her family in the last couple of years, both in very public circumstances, as well as losing her husband.
    Not something I know much about and assuming everything you have said is correct that is a well written summary.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,743
    https://twitter.com/tomjchicago/status/1454626645525020676?s=21

    An amusing video of perhaps the only person in the world standing in between Trump and the nomination.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,893
    edited October 31
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    A couple of interesting stories on green hydrogen:

    JCB signs green hydrogen deal worth billions
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59107805

    The global race to produce hydrogen offshore
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55763356

    Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.

    ITM recently raised a large pot of cash to expand its factory in Sheffield and build further factories too.

    https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2021/10/15/itm-power-to-raise-250m-for-new-uk-factory/

    A local company to me, Haskel, is investing heavily in Hydrogen too and domestic boiler makers are already trialling fully hydrogen enabled boilers.

    There are issues to resolve but it is attracting lots of interest and money,
    Question for our scientists.

    I can see how hydrogen is feasible for road, rail and marine transport. Indeed, for a country like us it would be ideal given we’re surrounded by it.

    But wouldn’t water vapour in the upper atmosphere actually be worse in terms of warming effect than CO2? Which would rule it out for jet aircraft.

    If I’m wrong, please tell me.
    Automotive hydrogen tanks are pressurised to 700 bar which makes making them crashworthy a very expensive challenge.

    It's also the reason you never see any hydrogen fuelled cars in any FIM sanctioned motorsport.

    It's a possible solution for heavy plant, aviation and other controlled environments.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,944
    edited October 31
    DavidL said:

    So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.

    What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.

    The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,180

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:

    1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.

    2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.

    Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
    Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
    What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,743
    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    Of course, if she hadn't been trafficked over here (and I'm not too sure about the legalities there) she was over 16 when/if anything happened, so, while reprehensible and/or repulsive, whatever did or might happen here in UK wasn't illegal.
    There’s a long discussion to be had about the difference between moral and legal in cases like this one.

    Andrew and the accuser met at a party in New York, when she was 17 and he was in his 30s.

    Now, 17 is of legal age in New York, so he didn’t commit any obvious sexual offence against the woman, and she is not arguing that any activity between them wasn’t consensual.

    However, there is a federal law that prohibits moving someone under 18 across state lines for the purpose of prostitution, which apparently does cover this woman, she didn’t live in NY and was hired for the party. The criminal case question was did Andrew, who can reasonably say he didn’t know where exactly all the girls at the party came from, know that she was 17 and had been moved across a state line?

    The talk of a ‘rape’ case refers to the US offence of ‘statutory rape’, which in the UK would be described as ‘unlawful sex’ rather than rape. The New York prosecutor gave up on trying to get Andrew for that one after he refused to be interviewed by the prosecutor.

    The woman came to an settlement with Epstein some years ago, and is under a non-disclosure agreement. The assumption is that she was paid a sum of money in exchange for her silence, which is not uncommon (although again we can argue the morality of these settlements)

    It’s been suggested that she subsequently met Andrew in London, but I don’t know how old she was or how she got there. A similar law exists in the UK about controlling someone under 18 for the purposes of prostitution, but as far as I can see no UK prosecutor has picked up the case.

    Of course, morally Andrew’s reputation has suffered immensely, for associating with someone (Epstein) convicted of sexual offences against minors, and well known for at best being careless as to how old were the girls at his parties.

    I do feel sorry for the Queen, who has morally lost two members of her family in the last couple of years, both in very public circumstances, as well as losing her husband.
    Not something I know much about and assuming everything you have said is correct that is a well written summary.
    Was the Epstein ring involved with girls younger than 16? Seems pretty careless to have been using 17 year old girls when if they’d used 18 year olds it would have taken a considerable amount of the sting out of the illegality. Or was that the whole point? Getting the kompramat on the visitors to be as legally juicy as possible.
  • IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley:

    There’s a reason why many public services will remain mediocre or worse even as taxes rise to their highest level in 70 years. The fundamental explanation is the sluggardly pace of economic growth. When the economy expands at 2.5% a year, the country can afford to buy itself decent public services with relatively modest levels of taxation. At growth of 1.5%, you end up with inferior public services for higher levels of taxation. For the past decade, growth has been much closer to 1.5% than it has been to 2.5%. “Rishi is crossing his fingers and saying we can have this extra spending and then some tax cuts before the election,” says one former cabinet minister on the One Nation wing of the Conservative party. “The gamble is on growth.”

    The gamble on growth is one the chancellor will lose if the official forecasters have got it right about the economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility reckons the rebound from the pandemic will fizzle out and growth will become highly disappointing towards the end of this parliament. It has also confirmed that the government handicapped itself with a very hard version of Brexit. Mr Sunak might brag that departure from the EU has liberated him to reform taxes on booze, but he can’t claim any Brexit bonus for the economy. The reverse is the case. Brexit will permanently erase 4% from GDP, reckons the OBR, twice the damage inflicted by Covid.

    Rising costs are already making many households feel pessimistic about their future living standards, an issue that affects nearly everyone, but one about which the chancellor said little and did less. Britons face soaring energy bills, higher prices in the shops and inflation threatening to rise to its worst level in three decades.

    Rising inflation and borrowing costs combined with poor growth and heavier taxes is a recipe for near-frozen disposable incomes. Independent forecasters expect most people to experience little improvement to their living standards and some a squeeze over the next five years. The chancellor is desperately hoping that these forecasts will turn out to be wrong. Because, if they are right, the public will not be experiencing a vibrant Age of Optimism when they next elect a government. It will feel a lot more like a grinding Age of Stagnation.

    This is why despite the bluster I can see the reverse ferret from the government on alignment. Most of the cost from Brexit is the additional cost of trade which we've demanded be imposed despite the absolute alignment between the EU and both trading zones of the former UK.

    The NI renegotiation provides them with cover in removing most of this red tape, spin it as "EU agree to our rules" and give people their Brexit bonus by hosing money at them and their community. That delivers the growth to pay for it. Or, we can have -4%, not get the required groth at best, or make it -6% (or worse) by blundering into a trade war.

    Such a pragmatic Brexit solution will properly wind up the small number of sovvrinty or death merchants like Philip. But the vast majority won't know or care. A "win" and cash for them and theirs will be enough. Its there for the taking, and we know Boris is flexible with the truth morality principle. Could happen.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,746

    DavidL said:

    So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.

    What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.

    The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
    Relative inflation rates differ for people. If your electricity / heating bill is 5% of your monthly budget and it goes up 50% it's painful but you wouldn't really notice.

    If it's 20% of your income and it goes up 50% something has to give.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,446

    isam said:

    Has Johnny Mercer commented yet? Looking forward to a new range of ‘I stand with soldier xyz’ t-shirts.

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1454504036359606290?s=21

    He comments in the piece you link to doesn’t he?! What a horrific story
    Dunno, I haven’t a Times sub.
    What does he say as a matter of interest?

    Not much to be fair

    “John Healey, the shadow defence secretary, has written to Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, branding the response inadequate and claiming that there was “evidence to suggest the case was actively suppressed”. The Conservative MP Johnny Mercer, a former veterans minister, said that the MoD’s inability to deal with serious incidents was “pathetic”.”
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,893

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:

    1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.

    2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.

    Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
    Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
    What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
    Aggressively average Sea King driver.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,944
    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.

    What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.

    The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
    Relative inflation rates differ for people. If your electricity / heating bill is 5% of your monthly budget and it goes up 50% it's painful but you wouldn't really notice.

    If it's 20% of your income and it goes up 50% something has to give.
    Precisely. But no need to worry, because prosecco's going to be cheaper.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,164

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:

    1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.

    2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.

    Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
    Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
    What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
    That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.

    It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley:

    There’s a reason why many public services will remain mediocre or worse even as taxes rise to their highest level in 70 years. The fundamental explanation is the sluggardly pace of economic growth. When the economy expands at 2.5% a year, the country can afford to buy itself decent public services with relatively modest levels of taxation. At growth of 1.5%, you end up with inferior public services for higher levels of taxation. For the past decade, growth has been much closer to 1.5% than it has been to 2.5%. “Rishi is crossing his fingers and saying we can have this extra spending and then some tax cuts before the election,” says one former cabinet minister on the One Nation wing of the Conservative party. “The gamble is on growth.”

    The gamble on growth is one the chancellor will lose if the official forecasters have got it right about the economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility reckons the rebound from the pandemic will fizzle out and growth will become highly disappointing towards the end of this parliament. It has also confirmed that the government handicapped itself with a very hard version of Brexit. Mr Sunak might brag that departure from the EU has liberated him to reform taxes on booze, but he can’t claim any Brexit bonus for the economy. The reverse is the case. Brexit will permanently erase 4% from GDP, reckons the OBR, twice the damage inflicted by Covid.

    Rising costs are already making many households feel pessimistic about their future living standards, an issue that affects nearly everyone, but one about which the chancellor said little and did less. Britons face soaring energy bills, higher prices in the shops and inflation threatening to rise to its worst level in three decades.

    Rising inflation and borrowing costs combined with poor growth and heavier taxes is a recipe for near-frozen disposable incomes. Independent forecasters expect most people to experience little improvement to their living standards and some a squeeze over the next five years. The chancellor is desperately hoping that these forecasts will turn out to be wrong. Because, if they are right, the public will not be experiencing a vibrant Age of Optimism when they next elect a government. It will feel a lot more like a grinding Age of Stagnation.

    This is, with respect, gibberish. It is unbelievable that he gets paid to write this nonsense.

    It completely confuses unrelated matters. Growth is the increase in the level of output in society. Good growth might allow you to increase funding of public services thus, hopefully, improving the quality of the service but it does not determine the level of funding. That depends on the actual GDP per head and the proportion of that GDP committed to the services.

    And the level of funding does not, except in extreme scenarios, determine the level of services which can change one way or another as a result of a whole series of factors. It really is nonsense.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.

    What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.

    The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
    Relative inflation rates differ for people. If your electricity / heating bill is 5% of your monthly budget and it goes up 50% it's painful but you wouldn't really notice.

    If it's 20% of your income and it goes up 50% something has to give.
    Precisely. But no need to worry, because prosecco's going to be cheaper.
    He seems to have got away with telling porkies about rose wine, though
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,164
    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    A couple of interesting stories on green hydrogen:

    JCB signs green hydrogen deal worth billions
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59107805

    The global race to produce hydrogen offshore
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55763356

    Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.

    ITM recently raised a large pot of cash to expand its factory in Sheffield and build further factories too.

    https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2021/10/15/itm-power-to-raise-250m-for-new-uk-factory/

    A local company to me, Haskel, is investing heavily in Hydrogen too and domestic boiler makers are already trialling fully hydrogen enabled boilers.

    There are issues to resolve but it is attracting lots of interest and money,
    Question for our scientists.

    I can see how hydrogen is feasible for road, rail and marine transport. Indeed, for a country like us it would be ideal given we’re surrounded by it.

    But wouldn’t water vapour in the upper atmosphere actually be worse in terms of warming effect than CO2? Which would rule it out for jet aircraft.

    If I’m wrong, please tell me.
    Automotive hydrogen tanks are pressurised to 700 bar which makes making them crashworthy a very expensive challenge.

    It's also the reason you never see any hydrogen fuelled cars in any FIM sanctioned motorsport.

    It's a possible solution for heavy plant, aviation and other controlled environments.
    I'm a bit of a fan of JCB (my dad had a few, I went to some product launches, and I went to school at the hill above the factory). But putting that to one side, I think they need congratulating for investing in this technology.

    And for not going with 'Blue hydrogen', which may have allowed easier sourcing.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:

    1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.

    2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.

    Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
    1. The ‘slutty girls’ quote is from another woman who says she was recruited by Andrew’s accuser. He’s trying to paint the accuser as being of immoral character.
    2. Epstein has already settled with the woman, therefore chasing Andrew for money amounts to double jeopardy, is Andrew’s argument.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,446

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:

    1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.

    2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.

    Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
    Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
    What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
    That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.

    It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
    The attitude that led to the South Yorkshire grooming debacle
  • DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley:

    There’s a reason why many public services will remain mediocre or worse even as taxes rise to their highest level in 70 years. The fundamental explanation is the sluggardly pace of economic growth. When the economy expands at 2.5% a year, the country can afford to buy itself decent public services with relatively modest levels of taxation. At growth of 1.5%, you end up with inferior public services for higher levels of taxation. For the past decade, growth has been much closer to 1.5% than it has been to 2.5%. “Rishi is crossing his fingers and saying we can have this extra spending and then some tax cuts before the election,” says one former cabinet minister on the One Nation wing of the Conservative party. “The gamble is on growth.”

    The gamble on growth is one the chancellor will lose if the official forecasters have got it right about the economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility reckons the rebound from the pandemic will fizzle out and growth will become highly disappointing towards the end of this parliament. It has also confirmed that the government handicapped itself with a very hard version of Brexit. Mr Sunak might brag that departure from the EU has liberated him to reform taxes on booze, but he can’t claim any Brexit bonus for the economy. The reverse is the case. Brexit will permanently erase 4% from GDP, reckons the OBR, twice the damage inflicted by Covid.

    Rising costs are already making many households feel pessimistic about their future living standards, an issue that affects nearly everyone, but one about which the chancellor said little and did less. Britons face soaring energy bills, higher prices in the shops and inflation threatening to rise to its worst level in three decades.

    Rising inflation and borrowing costs combined with poor growth and heavier taxes is a recipe for near-frozen disposable incomes. Independent forecasters expect most people to experience little improvement to their living standards and some a squeeze over the next five years. The chancellor is desperately hoping that these forecasts will turn out to be wrong. Because, if they are right, the public will not be experiencing a vibrant Age of Optimism when they next elect a government. It will feel a lot more like a grinding Age of Stagnation.

    This is, with respect, gibberish. It is unbelievable that he gets paid to write this nonsense.

    It completely confuses unrelated matters. Growth is the increase in the level of output in society. Good growth might allow you to increase funding of public services thus, hopefully, improving the quality of the service but it does not determine the level of funding. That depends on the actual GDP per head and the proportion of that GDP committed to the services.

    And the level of funding does not, except in extreme scenarios, determine the level of services which can change one way or another as a result of a whole series of factors. It really is nonsense.
    But he is directly quoting this "nonsense" from former Tory cabinet ministers. Anyway, at a fundamental level growth drives tax revenues. As they cannot spend money they don't have, growth does drive services.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    Looks like prince Andrew is coming out fighting.

    Brave, or stupid?

    Innocent until proved guity.
    It’s a civil case too, not a criminal matter.

    It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
    Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
    He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.

    Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
    It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:

    1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.

    2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.

    Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
    Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
    What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
    Aggressively average Sea King driver.
    Better than his elder brother then, who was a very below-average BAe-146 driver.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    Blimey. A ten-sentence piece that manages to call Macron 'preening', 'sneering', 'whiney', 'flagging', 'spineless', 'desperate', 'pound-shop Napoleon', 'tin-pot autocrat facing his Waterloo', and 'two-faced'. Oh, and in the end it turns into an attack on the BBC. Triggered. 🤪 https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1454734347374891010/photo/1
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,852

    DavidL said:

    So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.

    What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.

    For the people struggling on UC the changes you describe move the situation from being impossible to merely grim. They still face an increase in the cost of living, just less severe than it would have been.
    I never thought i would ever hear the words "labour shortage" in my lifetime. There is always a shortage of skilled labour. But for unskilled?
    Yep. For a whole stack of reasons:
    1. The job is "demeaning"
    2. The jobs are miles and miles from where the available labour is
    3. The job results is a net loss vs not taking it (via UC taper plus cost of getting to the job)
    4. The job is shiftwork and the potential worker has kids.
    etc etc etc

    The hard right element of the Tories always pile in with "make people work for their benefits". I remember IDS in the Valleys suggesting to unemployed mums that there were jobs aplenty in Cardiff. Yeah. Minimum wage bar jobs, in the evening. With no childcare or public transport available even if they could be afforded on minimum wage.

    The stuctural labour issue of the last decade or two is that we both have people wanting work and jobs needing filling. But the two are geographically and financially incompatible. The move to flexible working must be allowed to help spread job locations about, and we need things like wrap-around childcare that doesn't cost a 2nd mortgage.
    Geography doesn't explain why London continually has higher unemployment than the country as a whole.

    But there are certainly parts of the country where the geographical issue is vital and I don't see how some places eg the South Wales Valleys will ever be economically strong. After all the population is only there as a legacy of mining and the pits aren't going to come back.

    Its a pity we cannot remove the 'unemployables' from London and swap them for people who do want to work from the remote parts.
This discussion has been closed.