‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Yeah I'd love to see Heathener's evidence given that this issue has the world's diplomats, military, and intelligence services scratching their heads.
To back up Heatheners argument, Putin moved quickly and with surprise to snatch the -arts of Ukraine he did. So what would you do yourself if you were serious about invading, do it quickly and with surprise, or put it up in lights for months and months to allow your opponents to turn it into one big booby trap death trap first?
More chillingly. Are we so sure what his motives and goals were before this began, so are we so sure behind the scenes he hadn’t achieved what he was hoping for already.
If we relate it to the historical fact of the allies holding back in 1945, allowing the soviets to create the Eastern Bloc and Warsaw Pact buffer zone, ourselves and historians took a long time to get to the truth. The truth here? Ukraine asking for NATO membership for long time, not getting it. Black ops we’ve been doing in Ukraine we don’t know about now called off?
To seriously invade the Ukraine, you need a serious deployment of troops. To even borrow a small area of the Ukraine would take that - the Ukrainians are on high alert to holidaying Russia army units these days.
The Russian military is better than it was under Yeltsin but it never had the high speed logistics the American shad, and they couldn't get the army required into place in less than days.
So strategic surprise was not possible.
So the only game possible is the slow build up, a few provocations. then go for it. If you can.
The assumption is that Putin is playing 5D chess - way ahead of everyone else. Possibly - but even in a dictatorships, the dictator has to keep the Barons and the Populace happy to an extent. And they aren't very happy with Putin at the moment.
So Putin may have been trying either for a nice war to make everything cosy at home, or he may have been trying to see what concession he could get and what splits he could create in the West.
Sri Lanka has been on my low-grade radar for a while. It's one of the few eastern countries I've not been to. Leon is making it sound extremely appealing. I don't mind edgy one bit. Heck I've done some batshit crazy stuff in my time.
It occurs to me that Starmer pressing for a windfall tax on the gas and oil industry is not going to win friends in Scotland when even the SNP oppose it and it is vital to Scotland's economy
Even though the SNP oppose it, not all Scots work in the oil and gas industry, and Scots are being hit harder by energy costs, due to the colder weather than other parts of the UK. I would suspect the majority of Scots will be in favour of a windfall tax.
And the SNP want to shut down the Oil and Gas industry anyway so why woukd they oppose taxing them more in the meantime?
I'm going to regret this as the Nats descend but WTF do they think their tax revenue is going to come from without oil and gas?
If I had a pound for every time some PBer has done the creaky old lights blue touch paper/puts on tin helmet cos the Nats are going to go MENTAL routine only to be met with a resounding silence, I’d be well into three figures.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us?
As Leon said, I've been saying all along on here that he isn't going to invade.
Hard to see what would have been in it for him. The best result is he gets something out of this but what he gets is of less value than the costs incurred in doing it. That way he won't do it again.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
rue - but surely he must of wondered about the large guns? They are a little bit OTT for pheasant, surely?
Even by these standards....
Great photo. A punt gun, possibly one or two bore.
WTF is a punt gun? And what are they hunting? Mammoth?
Also the size of the neo-classical pillars behind is quite something, well chosen to emphasize the smallness of humans. Is it the Capitol in DC?
Giant shotgun. You load it up, put it in your punt, and paddle quietly towards a flock of duck etc at dawn and then try and kill as many at once before they take flight.
Can only assume that both of them in that picture were deaf as a post!
I don't think they would have been firing it like that! I have seen a few, though much smaller than that one. The punt gunner lies down in the punt and the muzzle is forward of the front of the punt resting on the bow. It would have certainly made a lot of noise, significantly more than a 12 bore and was way before people started wearing ear defenders!
IIRC the "Elephant Gun" in the movie Tremors is actually a 4 bore shotgun....
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Yeah I'd love to see Heathener's evidence given that this issue has the world's diplomats, military, and intelligence services scratching their heads.
My expert mate said on Sunday that if they were going to they would have by now and that Biden gets it and is allowing just the right amount of wiggle room to climb down with dignity (offering concessions on measures that haven't been implemented, for example) that Putin can grab on to. The worry is that the hardliners in the Senate will override Biden but they haven't yet.
Your expert mate echoes the first Ukranian I listened to on this matter. He was very relaxed. 'Believe me, if Putin could have invaded he would have done it long ago. He wouldn't give a warning.'
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Yeah I'd love to see Heathener's evidence given that this issue has the world's diplomats, military, and intelligence services scratching their heads.
To back up Heatheners argument, Putin moved quickly and with surprise to snatch the -arts of Ukraine he did. So what would you do yourself if you were serious about invading, do it quickly and with surprise, or put it up in lights for months and months to allow your opponents to turn it into one big booby trap death trap first?
More chillingly. Are we so sure what his motives and goals were before this began, so are we so sure behind the scenes he hadn’t achieved what he was hoping for already.
If we relate it to the historical fact of the allies holding back in 1945, allowing the soviets to create the Eastern Bloc and Warsaw Pact buffer zone, ourselves and historians took a long time to get to the truth. The truth here? Ukraine asking for NATO membership for long time, not getting it. Black ops we’ve been doing in Ukraine we don’t know about now called off?
To seriously invade the Ukraine, you need a serious deployment of troops. To even borrow a small area of the Ukraine would take that - the Ukrainians are on high alert to holidaying Russia army units these days.
The Russian military is better than it was under Yeltsin but it never had the high speed logistics the American shad, and they couldn't get the army required into place in less than days.
So strategic surprise was not possible.
So the only game possible is the slow build up, a few provocations. then go for it. If you can.
The assumption is that Putin is playing 5D chess - way ahead of everyone else. Possibly - but even in a dictatorships, the dictator has to keep the Barons and the Populace happy to an extent. And they aren't very happy with Putin at the moment.
So Putin may have been trying either for a nice war to make everything cosy at home, or he may have been trying to see what concession he could get and what splits he could create in the West.
The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment was on that kind of magnitude.
This was indeed all part of a longer 5D chess game. I'm not suggesting that at some stage in the future he might not go for it, but I don't believe the build up this time was about that.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Yeah I'd love to see Heathener's evidence given that this issue has the world's diplomats, military, and intelligence services scratching their heads.
My expert mate said on Sunday that if they were going to they would have by now and that Biden gets it and is allowing just the right amount of wiggle room to climb down with dignity (offering concessions on measures that haven't been implemented, for example) that Putin can grab on to. The worry is that the hardliners in the Senate will override Biden but they haven't yet.
Your expert mate echoes the first Ukranian I listened to on this matter. He was very relaxed. 'Believe me, if Putin could have invaded he would have done it long ago. He wouldn't give a warning.'
Exactly.
It's amazing how many people didn't listen to various Ukrainians.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Several of us did tell you. There comes a point when the "They're coming in 48 hours!!" US/UK warnings started to get counter-productive, as the Ukrainians pointed out. Zelenski played the issue well, gaining lots of support from Western countries without escalating unnecessarily.
Touch wood.
Echoes a point that someone (@rcs1000 I think?) has made here before. Russia doesn't really have the national wealth to win a fighting war against a real opponent. Lots of trolling and propoganda, because they're cheap. But actual armies are expensive and supplying them with effective kit even more so.
Sri Lanka has been on my low-grade radar for a while. It's one of the few eastern countries I've not been to. Leon is making it sound extremely appealing. I don't mind edgy one bit. Heck I've done some batshit crazy stuff in my time.
Qatar Airways, in my favoured two hops via Doha.
Business Class, obvs. You can tell I'm a leftie
Sri Lanka is fantastic. Small enough that your can see much of it in 2-3 weeks, and all of it in 6 (well, nearly all)
Also incredibly varied within that smallness. From Singapore-to-be Colombo to ancient Galle to vast national parks with proper leopards and elephants and hunter gathering tribes, then the tea country, the hill towns, royal Kandy, then the whole northern Tamil bit, which is a different kettle of Handallo altogether
It is also safe, despite having a brutally bloody history
And the weather is benign and my one complaint from my last visit - the food - has been utterly confounded by this visit, the food is epically good, possibly better than Thailand, definitely better on bangs-for-bucks. Sri Lanka is CHEAP
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Yeah I'd love to see Heathener's evidence given that this issue has the world's diplomats, military, and intelligence services scratching their heads.
To back up Heatheners argument, Putin moved quickly and with surprise to snatch the -arts of Ukraine he did. So what would you do yourself if you were serious about invading, do it quickly and with surprise, or put it up in lights for months and months to allow your opponents to turn it into one big booby trap death trap first?
More chillingly. Are we so sure what his motives and goals were before this began, so are we so sure behind the scenes he hadn’t achieved what he was hoping for already.
If we relate it to the historical fact of the allies holding back in 1945, allowing the soviets to create the Eastern Bloc and Warsaw Pact buffer zone, ourselves and historians took a long time to get to the truth. The truth here? Ukraine asking for NATO membership for long time, not getting it. Black ops we’ve been doing in Ukraine we don’t know about now called off?
To seriously invade the Ukraine, you need a serious deployment of troops. To even borrow a small area of the Ukraine would take that - the Ukrainians are on high alert to holidaying Russia army units these days.
The Russian military is better than it was under Yeltsin but it never had the high speed logistics the American shad, and they couldn't get the army required into place in less than days.
So strategic surprise was not possible.
So the only game possible is the slow build up, a few provocations. then go for it. If you can.
The assumption is that Putin is playing 5D chess - way ahead of everyone else. Possibly - but even in a dictatorships, the dictator has to keep the Barons and the Populace happy to an extent. And they aren't very happy with Putin at the moment.
So Putin may have been trying either for a nice war to make everything cosy at home, or he may have been trying to see what concession he could get and what splits he could create in the West.
The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment was on that kind of magnitude.
This was indeed all part of a longer 5D chess game. I'm not suggesting that at some stage in the future he might not go for it, but I don't believe the build up this time was about that.
The Russian military is quiet effective against peer opponents - they messed up some Ukrainian units quite nastily last time. They seem to have modernised and automated their radio triangulation setup to connect directly with their artillery - so units that state d in place died.
I think he was trying for another bite out of Ukraine, on the basis of look-at-me-Im-only-taking-a-bite-not-half-the-cake, but (hopefully) Western solidarity has convinced him that even a bite would be too expensive.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but we're talking here about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or is £1 not directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. New spending is funded by real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices we must make within our parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's seductive to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's deleterious to the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it is just a slogan.
'Levelling up' could be meaningful in one way Kinabalu overlooks. His analysis, generally sound, ignores the issue of the size of the cake.
It is feasible to level up thus:
A nation manages to get incrementally wealthier in terms of disposable wealth per head
and
uses social policies/redistribution/tax policies to ensure that the poorer you are the more you gain from this additional resource
and that there is maximally great equality of opportunity.
Contemplating the way some of the academies/free schools are doing in London some of this is possible. But don't hold your breath about other aspects of wealth distribution.
Right. But 'size of cake' is largely outside UK government control. If the answer to "How can we maximize wealth creation?" were mainly a matter of domestic political choices it'd be the end of politics.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but that's a teeny bit shallow and fatuous. We're talking here about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or is £1 not directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. Real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices we must make within our parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's seductive to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's deleterious to the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it is just a slogan.
What we have repeatedly seen over recent decades in particular is that there is a critical mass to growth. For really rapid growth you need businesses who generate the skills, innovation, entrepreneurial spirit and opportunity to attract skilled and enthusuastic workers in from around the world. We have seen this in California, in London and in several other places. That is fantastic for the likes of London but it also means that other areas lose out in that talent and innovators are enticed away.
The key question for levelling up is not whether public spending is increased in northern areas or Scotland. There is even some evidence that such spending actually diminishes growth rather than encouraging it because it attracts too many of the able young into public service and a less risky but adequately rewarding life. The key question is how do we create these hubs? Cambridge and Oxford are having some success but I don't see many other examples. We need to encourage our cities to specialise and attract particular kinds of business.
Yes, I agree. The factors I think are most important for regions to grow and attract investment are:
- A clear specialism, and clustering in that specialism (hence Oxford and Cambridge with biotech and wider life sciences, and the West Midlands with automotive) - Not trying to be all things to all people: stick to your strengths - Non-business reasons for people to want to live there, and the ability market these. In warm areas, the weather. In large cities, the bright lights. In colder areas, the great outdoors. - Proper devolution that allows local government to prioritise tax and spending, and to offer tax incentives that help balance out other disadvantages.
I have a think tank dinner this evening focused entirely on this issue and plan on making similar points. I've met many regional development agencies over the years trying the tout their area and the ones that have most success are those where you can immediately understand what they stand for and what kind of businesses operate there.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Yeah I'd love to see Heathener's evidence given that this issue has the world's diplomats, military, and intelligence services scratching their heads.
To back up Heatheners argument, Putin moved quickly and with surprise to snatch the -arts of Ukraine he did. So what would you do yourself if you were serious about invading, do it quickly and with surprise, or put it up in lights for months and months to allow your opponents to turn it into one big booby trap death trap first?
More chillingly. Are we so sure what his motives and goals were before this began, so are we so sure behind the scenes he hadn’t achieved what he was hoping for already.
If we relate it to the historical fact of the allies holding back in 1945, allowing the soviets to create the Eastern Bloc and Warsaw Pact buffer zone, ourselves and historians took a long time to get to the truth. The truth here? Ukraine asking for NATO membership for long time, not getting it. Black ops we’ve been doing in Ukraine we don’t know about now called off?
To seriously invade the Ukraine, you need a serious deployment of troops. To even borrow a small area of the Ukraine would take that - the Ukrainians are on high alert to holidaying Russia army units these days.
The Russian military is better than it was under Yeltsin but it never had the high speed logistics the American shad, and they couldn't get the army required into place in less than days.
So strategic surprise was not possible.
So the only game possible is the slow build up, a few provocations. then go for it. If you can.
The assumption is that Putin is playing 5D chess - way ahead of everyone else. Possibly - but even in a dictatorships, the dictator has to keep the Barons and the Populace happy to an extent. And they aren't very happy with Putin at the moment.
So Putin may have been trying either for a nice war to make everything cosy at home, or he may have been trying to see what concession he could get and what splits he could create in the West.
I largely agree. The bit at the end, actually a game to get concessions, or remind us he’s pissy about previous concessions we are welching on, it will be secret for a long time what we gave him.
But your first bit, about the nature of this conflict, we disagree. Before any invasion I would have destabilised the country first. It would have been a long period of black ops and 5th column insurgency first before I went in. My premise for going in would then have been as peacekeeper and protector of the ones still looking east.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Something akin to Operation Desert Fox would seem attractive to Putin.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult. 2. Minimises Russian casualties. 3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response. 4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Sri Lanka has been on my low-grade radar for a while. It's one of the few eastern countries I've not been to. Leon is making it sound extremely appealing. I don't mind edgy one bit. Heck I've done some batshit crazy stuff in my time.
Qatar Airways, in my favoured two hops via Doha.
Business Class, obvs. You can tell I'm a leftie
Sri Lanka is fantastic. Small enough that your can see much of it in 2-3 weeks, and all of it in 6 (well, nearly all)
Also incredibly varied within that smallness. From Singapore-to-be Colombo to ancient Galle to vast national parks with proper leopards and elephants and hunter gathering tribes, then the tea country, the hill towns, royal Kandy, then the whole northern Tamil bit, which is a different kettle of Handallo altogether
It is also safe, despite having a brutally bloody history
And the weather is benign and my one complaint from my last visit - the food - has been utterly confounded by this visit, the food is epically good, possibly better than Thailand, definitely better on bangs-for-bucks. Sri Lanka is CHEAP
I've been to both, although Thailand many times as opposed to Sri Lanka only once. Both excellent, friendly people, with, as Leon says excellent food both in the hotels and on the street. And you feel safe.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but that's a teeny bit shallow and fatuous. We're talking here about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or is £1 not directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. Real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices we must make within our parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's seductive to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's deleterious to the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it is just a slogan.
What we have repeatedly seen over recent decades in particular is that there is a critical mass to growth. For really rapid growth you need businesses who generate the skills, innovation, entrepreneurial spirit and opportunity to attract skilled and enthusuastic workers in from around the world. We have seen this in California, in London and in several other places. That is fantastic for the likes of London but it also means that other areas lose out in that talent and innovators are enticed away.
The key question for levelling up is not whether public spending is increased in northern areas or Scotland. There is even some evidence that such spending actually diminishes growth rather than encouraging it because it attracts too many of the able young into public service and a less risky but adequately rewarding life. The key question is how do we create these hubs? Cambridge and Oxford are having some success but I don't see many other examples. We need to encourage our cities to specialise and attract particular kinds of business.
Yes, it has to be spending with a purpose and the purpose should be to create opportunities for well paid interesting work in sectors that have a future.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
Um, ever heard of IR35 - what you are saying is why the BBC got itself into such a mess with it's presenters.
The Telegraph would have been perfectly happy to employ him as an employee which from memory was how it worked.
The tax advantages of being a sole trader embodied as a PLC are much less obvious than is widely believed (AIUI they used to be significant, but the Treasury has slowly whittled them away)
There’s a shitload more paperwork and you gain some cash but not that much
It still makes a notable difference if you are earning over £1m a year or whatever, but i don’t think Boris was ever in that bracket?
If you take the PLC route you are also likelier to receive much closer Inland Revenue scrutiny, which is not always nice
A PLC? A public limited company?
I don't know any sole traders that incorporated as PLCs.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Yeah I'd love to see Heathener's evidence given that this issue has the world's diplomats, military, and intelligence services scratching their heads.
To back up Heatheners argument, Putin moved quickly and with surprise to snatch the -arts of Ukraine he did. So what would you do yourself if you were serious about invading, do it quickly and with surprise, or put it up in lights for months and months to allow your opponents to turn it into one big booby trap death trap first?
More chillingly. Are we so sure what his motives and goals were before this began, so are we so sure behind the scenes he hadn’t achieved what he was hoping for already.
If we relate it to the historical fact of the allies holding back in 1945, allowing the soviets to create the Eastern Bloc and Warsaw Pact buffer zone, ourselves and historians took a long time to get to the truth. The truth here? Ukraine asking for NATO membership for long time, not getting it. Black ops we’ve been doing in Ukraine we don’t know about now called off?
To seriously invade the Ukraine, you need a serious deployment of troops. To even borrow a small area of the Ukraine would take that - the Ukrainians are on high alert to holidaying Russia army units these days.
The Russian military is better than it was under Yeltsin but it never had the high speed logistics the American shad, and they couldn't get the army required into place in less than days.
So strategic surprise was not possible.
So the only game possible is the slow build up, a few provocations. then go for it. If you can.
The assumption is that Putin is playing 5D chess - way ahead of everyone else. Possibly - but even in a dictatorships, the dictator has to keep the Barons and the Populace happy to an extent. And they aren't very happy with Putin at the moment.
So Putin may have been trying either for a nice war to make everything cosy at home, or he may have been trying to see what concession he could get and what splits he could create in the West.
The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment was on that kind of magnitude.
This was indeed all part of a longer 5D chess game. I'm not suggesting that at some stage in the future he might not go for it, but I don't believe the build up this time was about that.
By the latter stages of the Cold War, Reagan wasn’t particularly worried about the threat posed by the Soviets any more. The intelligence they were getting from their military spies was that they couldn’t reliably launch any long-range missiles, let alone the nuclear ones, even if they had wanted to. They were all made in the ‘60s and hadn’t been maintained since, but maybe they polished the outsides of a few for the parades.
I think you possibly underestimate Starmer at your peril. I am not a labour supporter, but as someone who has studied leadership for most of my career I would say he has most traits I would look for in an effective leader. This has always been my concern about Johnson. I wouldn't have put him in charge of a Parish Council
Time will tell - but he is significantly more left-wing than his current image implies and the electorate is not.
You reckon? Neither my left-wing friends nor my centrist friends in the party think he's anything but a straight down the line centrist, with varying degrees of enthusiasm or disappointment about that. He's shed quite a lot of active support as a result, though nearly all of them will vote Labour dutifully when the GE comes round.
Arguably the electorate is further to the left, which is why some of Johnson's populist stuff goes down well. I can imagine Johnson suddenly nationalising rail companies or slashing council tax in half, but I can't imagine Strarmer doing either because "it wouldn't be sound government". The issue at the GE is not going to be whether the voters like leftism but whether they're ready for a period of dull, worthy consolidation.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but we're talking here about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or is £1 not directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. New spending is funded by real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices we must make within our parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's seductive to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's deleterious to the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it is just a slogan.
'Levelling up' could be meaningful in one way Kinabalu overlooks. His analysis, generally sound, ignores the issue of the size of the cake.
It is feasible to level up thus:
A nation manages to get incrementally wealthier in terms of disposable wealth per head
and
uses social policies/redistribution/tax policies to ensure that the poorer you are the more you gain from this additional resource
and that there is maximally great equality of opportunity.
Contemplating the way some of the academies/free schools are doing in London some of this is possible. But don't hold your breath about other aspects of wealth distribution.
Right. But 'size of cake' is largely outside UK government control. If the answer to "How can we maximize wealth creation?" were mainly a matter of domestic political choices it'd be the end of politics.
How can we maximise wealth creation? Investing for the long term How can we win elections? Borrow to fudge the present
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Something akin to Operation Desert Fox would seem attractive to Putin.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult. 2. Minimises Russian casualties. 3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response. 4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Yes. I like this thinking. Tanks? In 2022? Pah!
What the West glaringly did not promise Ukraine was a no fly zone or any air support. In fact all the “standing shoulder to shoulder with our democratic allies Ukraine blah blah” was utterly hollow in reality. Quite disgusting really how it was all such transparent spin - whilst our actual policy was to repeat 1945 all over again, stand short of any real or determining help? 😕
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Yeah I'd love to see Heathener's evidence given that this issue has the world's diplomats, military, and intelligence services scratching their heads.
To back up Heatheners argument, Putin moved quickly and with surprise to snatch the -arts of Ukraine he did. So what would you do yourself if you were serious about invading, do it quickly and with surprise, or put it up in lights for months and months to allow your opponents to turn it into one big booby trap death trap first?
More chillingly. Are we so sure what his motives and goals were before this began, so are we so sure behind the scenes he hadn’t achieved what he was hoping for already.
If we relate it to the historical fact of the allies holding back in 1945, allowing the soviets to create the Eastern Bloc and Warsaw Pact buffer zone, ourselves and historians took a long time to get to the truth. The truth here? Ukraine asking for NATO membership for long time, not getting it. Black ops we’ve been doing in Ukraine we don’t know about now called off?
To seriously invade the Ukraine, you need a serious deployment of troops. To even borrow a small area of the Ukraine would take that - the Ukrainians are on high alert to holidaying Russia army units these days.
The Russian military is better than it was under Yeltsin but it never had the high speed logistics the American shad, and they couldn't get the army required into place in less than days.
So strategic surprise was not possible.
So the only game possible is the slow build up, a few provocations. then go for it. If you can.
The assumption is that Putin is playing 5D chess - way ahead of everyone else. Possibly - but even in a dictatorships, the dictator has to keep the Barons and the Populace happy to an extent. And they aren't very happy with Putin at the moment.
So Putin may have been trying either for a nice war to make everything cosy at home, or he may have been trying to see what concession he could get and what splits he could create in the West.
I largely agree. The bit at the end, actually a game to get concessions, or remind us he’s pissy about previous concessions we are welching on, it will be secret for a long time what we gave him.
But your first bit, about the nature of this conflict, we disagree. Before any invasion I would have destabilised the country first. It would have been a long period of black ops and 5th column insurgency first before I went in. My premise for going in would then have been as peacekeeper and protector of the ones still looking east.
Putin has tried the destabilisation stuff for a long while - in Ukraine it has got to the point that people detect and ignore his puppets quite rapidly. It has even turned off quite a few Russian Ukrainians - who aren't all thrilled at the joy joy of joining Putin's Russia.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but we're talking here about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or is £1 not directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. New spending is funded by real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices we must make within our parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's seductive to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's deleterious to the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it is just a slogan.
'Levelling up' could be meaningful in one way Kinabalu overlooks. His analysis, generally sound, ignores the issue of the size of the cake.
It is feasible to level up thus:
A nation manages to get incrementally wealthier in terms of disposable wealth per head
and
uses social policies/redistribution/tax policies to ensure that the poorer you are the more you gain from this additional resource
and that there is maximally great equality of opportunity.
Contemplating the way some of the academies/free schools are doing in London some of this is possible. But don't hold your breath about other aspects of wealth distribution.
Right. But 'size of cake' is largely outside UK government control. If the answer to "How can we maximize wealth creation?" were mainly a matter of domestic political choices it'd be the end of politics.
No, size of cake is massively in the control of government. They need to create the right conditions for entrepreneurship and investment into their country.
Look at Ireland for a great example, they cut their corporation tax to be lowest rate in the Western world, and earn billions in taxes by hosting regional offices and revenue centres for the likes of Apple and Microsoft. Ireland grew themselves a massively bigger cake.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Something akin to Operation Desert Fox would seem attractive to Putin.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult. 2. Minimises Russian casualties. 3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response. 4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Yes. I like this thinking. Tanks? In 2022? Pah!
What the West glaringly did not promise Ukraine was a no fly zone or any air support. In fact all the “standing shoulder to shoulder with our democratic allies Ukraine blah blah” was utterly hollow in reality. Quite disgusting really how it was all such transparent spin - whilst our actual policy was to repeat 1945 all over again, stand short of any real or determining help? 😕
Actual NATO aircraft attacking actual Russian aircraft or troops? That would be WWIII in a can. Which no-one sane wants.
Also, even threatening that would have been pushing Putin very very hard. It would imply defecato membership of NATO. At that point he wouldn't be able to back down without serious risk to his position with the hardline Greater Russian Nationalists.
I think you possibly underestimate Starmer at your peril. I am not a labour supporter, but as someone who has studied leadership for most of my career I would say he has most traits I would look for in an effective leader. This has always been my concern about Johnson. I wouldn't have put him in charge of a Parish Council
Time will tell - but he is significantly more left-wing than his current image implies and the electorate is not.
You reckon? Neither my left-wing friends nor my centrist friends in the party think he's anything but a straight down the line centrist, with varying degrees of enthusiasm or disappointment about that. He's shed quite a lot of active support as a result, though nearly all of them will vote Labour dutifully when the GE comes round.
Arguably the electorate is further to the left, which is why some of Johnson's populist stuff goes down well. I can imagine Johnson suddenly nationalising rail companies or slashing council tax in half, but I can't imagine Strarmer doing either because "it wouldn't be sound government". The issue at the GE is not going to be whether the voters like leftism but whether they're ready for a period of dull, worthy consolidation.
He seems quite Ed Milibandish to me. Certainly to the left of the Blairites.
He could do with garnering some of the change vote. At the moment the Tory reinvention machine is such that it's they who seem the agents of change (albeit for the worst in many cases) despite having been in power for over a decade.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
Um, ever heard of IR35 - what you are saying is why the BBC got itself into such a mess with it's presenters.
The Telegraph would have been perfectly happy to employ him as an employee which from memory was how it worked.
The tax advantages of being a sole trader embodied as a PLC are much less obvious than is widely believed (AIUI they used to be significant, but the Treasury has slowly whittled them away)
There’s a shitload more paperwork and you gain some cash but not that much
It still makes a notable difference if you are earning over £1m a year or whatever, but i don’t think Boris was ever in that bracket?
If you take the PLC route you are also likelier to receive much closer Inland Revenue scrutiny, which is not always nice
A PLC? A public limited company?
I don't know any sole traders that incorporated as PLCs.
I dunno the precise lingo. It’s too dull. But you know what I mean. Becoming a company paying yourself dividends or whatever
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Something akin to Operation Desert Fox would seem attractive to Putin.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult. 2. Minimises Russian casualties. 3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response. 4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Yes. I like this thinking. Tanks? In 2022? Pah!
What the West glaringly did not promise Ukraine was a no fly zone or any air support. In fact all the “standing shoulder to shoulder with our democratic allies Ukraine blah blah” was utterly hollow in reality. Quite disgusting really how it was all such transparent spin - whilst our actual policy was to repeat 1945 all over again, stand short of any real or determining help? 😕
Surely not 1945? That would be a 'robust' response. More 1938?
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but we're talking here about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or is £1 not directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. New spending is funded by real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices we must make within our parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's seductive to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's deleterious to the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it is just a slogan.
'Levelling up' could be meaningful in one way Kinabalu overlooks. His analysis, generally sound, ignores the issue of the size of the cake.
It is feasible to level up thus:
A nation manages to get incrementally wealthier in terms of disposable wealth per head
and
uses social policies/redistribution/tax policies to ensure that the poorer you are the more you gain from this additional resource
and that there is maximally great equality of opportunity.
Contemplating the way some of the academies/free schools are doing in London some of this is possible. But don't hold your breath about other aspects of wealth distribution.
Right. But 'size of cake' is largely outside UK government control. If the answer to "How can we maximize wealth creation?" were mainly a matter of domestic political choices it'd be the end of politics.
No, size of cake is massively in the control of government. They need to create the right conditions for entrepreneurship and investment into their country.
Look at Ireland for a great example, they cut their corporation tax to be lowest rate in the Western world, and earn billions in taxes by hosting regional offices and revenue centres for the likes of Apple and Microsoft. Ireland grew themselves a massively bigger cake.
Isn't Ireland's economic policy the epitome of slippery slope economics? Beggaring your neighbours tax base doesn't work if everyone is doing it.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Something akin to Operation Desert Fox would seem attractive to Putin.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult. 2. Minimises Russian casualties. 3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response. 4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Yes. I like this thinking. Tanks? In 2022? Pah!
What the West glaringly did not promise Ukraine was a no fly zone or any air support. In fact all the “standing shoulder to shoulder with our democratic allies Ukraine blah blah” was utterly hollow in reality. Quite disgusting really how it was all such transparent spin - whilst our actual policy was to repeat 1945 all over again, stand short of any real or determining help? 😕
Surely not 1945? That would be a 'robust' response. More 1938?
@MoonRabbit is referring to letting the Russians take Eastern Europe in 1945, I think....
Then again, maybe she does mean 6th August '45, but that is certainly a touch on the strong side....
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
Um, ever heard of IR35 - what you are saying is why the BBC got itself into such a mess with it's presenters.
The Telegraph would have been perfectly happy to employ him as an employee which from memory was how it worked.
The tax advantages of being a sole trader embodied as a PLC are much less obvious than is widely believed (AIUI they used to be significant, but the Treasury has slowly whittled them away)
There’s a shitload more paperwork and you gain some cash but not that much
It still makes a notable difference if you are earning over £1m a year or whatever, but i don’t think Boris was ever in that bracket?
If you take the PLC route you are also likelier to receive much closer Inland Revenue scrutiny, which is not always nice
A PLC? A public limited company?
I don't know any sole traders that incorporated as PLCs.
I assumed Private Limited Company (Ltd), rather than what most of us think as a PLC.
Sri Lanka has been on my low-grade radar for a while. It's one of the few eastern countries I've not been to. Leon is making it sound extremely appealing. I don't mind edgy one bit. Heck I've done some batshit crazy stuff in my time.
Qatar Airways, in my favoured two hops via Doha.
Business Class, obvs. You can tell I'm a leftie
Talking of airline classes, at one time it probably would have been mainly conservatives in business/first class. Now it's lefty/liberals.
My understanding (gleaned largely from undergrad physics and a lecturer who used to work at JET) is that it's a fairly big deal. Tests the kind of setup that will be at ITER (but on a much bigger scale there) and gets it to work*.
Not really a fishing expedition for JET funding as JET's set to close anyway. I guess ITER future could have been in doubt if it failed, but the initial build there is all funded, I believe.
*detail in the materials used for the plasma and the chamber wall, which were different to what JET originally used. Last few years at JET have been about solving some problems for ITER before ITER is completed.
Edit: ITER being the much bigger doughnut in France
Further edit. I visited JET once, courtesy of said lecturer. Kinda cool, looked ery futuristic in places. As it should, of course, given that fusion is forever in the future (as said lecturer ruefully remarked - he'd decided it was never going to happen so changed jobs)
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
Um, ever heard of IR35 - what you are saying is why the BBC got itself into such a mess with it's presenters.
The Telegraph would have been perfectly happy to employ him as an employee which from memory was how it worked.
The tax advantages of being a sole trader embodied as a PLC are much less obvious than is widely believed (AIUI they used to be significant, but the Treasury has slowly whittled them away)
There’s a shitload more paperwork and you gain some cash but not that much
It still makes a notable difference if you are earning over £1m a year or whatever, but i don’t think Boris was ever in that bracket?
If you take the PLC route you are also likelier to receive much closer Inland Revenue scrutiny, which is not always nice
A PLC? A public limited company?
I don't know any sole traders that incorporated as PLCs.
I dunno the precise lingo. It’s too dull. But you know what I mean. Becoming a company paying yourself dividends or whatever
It's not dull it's exciting. You can do all sorts as a limited company.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but we're talking here about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or is £1 not directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. New spending is funded by real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices we must make within our parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's seductive to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's deleterious to the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it is just a slogan.
'Levelling up' could be meaningful in one way Kinabalu overlooks. His analysis, generally sound, ignores the issue of the size of the cake.
It is feasible to level up thus:
A nation manages to get incrementally wealthier in terms of disposable wealth per head
and
uses social policies/redistribution/tax policies to ensure that the poorer you are the more you gain from this additional resource
and that there is maximally great equality of opportunity.
Contemplating the way some of the academies/free schools are doing in London some of this is possible. But don't hold your breath about other aspects of wealth distribution.
Right. But 'size of cake' is largely outside UK government control. If the answer to "How can we maximize wealth creation?" were mainly a matter of domestic political choices it'd be the end of politics.
No, size of cake is massively in the control of government. They need to create the right conditions for entrepreneurship and investment into their country.
Look at Ireland for a great example, they cut their corporation tax to be lowest rate in the Western world, and earn billions in taxes by hosting regional offices and revenue centres for the likes of Apple and Microsoft. Ireland grew themselves a massively bigger cake.
Isn't Ireland's economic policy the epitome of slippery slope economics? Beggaring your neighbours tax base doesn't work if everyone is doing it.
Not at all, they’re growing the pie by letting new companies invest. They were the first country to spot that international online software and advertising sales were the next big thing, and made sure the companies doing this were all based in Ireland.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Something akin to Operation Desert Fox would seem attractive to Putin.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult. 2. Minimises Russian casualties. 3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response. 4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Yes. I like this thinking. Tanks? In 2022? Pah!
What the West glaringly did not promise Ukraine was a no fly zone or any air support. In fact all the “standing shoulder to shoulder with our democratic allies Ukraine blah blah” was utterly hollow in reality. Quite disgusting really how it was all such transparent spin - whilst our actual policy was to repeat 1945 all over again, stand short of any real or determining help? 😕
Surely not 1945? That would be a 'robust' response. More 1938?
@MoonRabbit is referring to letting the Russians take Eastern Europe in 1945, I think....
Then again, maybe she does mean 6th August '45, but that is certainly a touch on the strong side....
Aye, good point. I did think about the partition of Germany after posting that, which would be another parallel if partial occupation of Ukraine was tolerated (it already is, of course, wrt Crimea and the Eastern regions)
He who is a smartarse in haste gets to look a tit at leisure...
My understanding (gleaned largely from undergrad physics and a lecturer who used to work at JET) is that it's a fairly big deal. Tests the kind of setup that will be at ITER (but on a much bigger scale there) and gets it to work*.
Not really a fishing expedition for JET funding as JET's set to close anyway. I guess ITER future could have been in doubt if it failed, but the initial build there is all funded, I believe.
*detail in the materials used for the plasma and the chamber wall, which were different to what JET originally used. Last few years at JET have been about solving some problems for ITER before ITER is completed.
Awesome, thanks.
If this and the Rolls-Royce SMR fission reactors can both turn out well, then the UK is set up to be at the forefront of world energy production for the next few decades.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but we're talking here about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or is £1 not directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. New spending is funded by real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices we must make within our parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's seductive to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's deleterious to the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it is just a slogan.
'Levelling up' could be meaningful in one way Kinabalu overlooks. His analysis, generally sound, ignores the issue of the size of the cake.
It is feasible to level up thus:
A nation manages to get incrementally wealthier in terms of disposable wealth per head
and
uses social policies/redistribution/tax policies to ensure that the poorer you are the more you gain from this additional resource
and that there is maximally great equality of opportunity.
Contemplating the way some of the academies/free schools are doing in London some of this is possible. But don't hold your breath about other aspects of wealth distribution.
Right. But 'size of cake' is largely outside UK government control. If the answer to "How can we maximize wealth creation?" were mainly a matter of domestic political choices it'd be the end of politics.
No, size of cake is massively in the control of government. They need to create the right conditions for entrepreneurship and investment into their country.
Look at Ireland for a great example, they cut their corporation tax to be lowest rate in the Western world, and earn billions in taxes by hosting regional offices and revenue centres for the likes of Apple and Microsoft. Ireland grew themselves a massively bigger cake.
Can't all do that though. It's ultimately self defeating.
My understanding (gleaned largely from undergrad physics and a lecturer who used to work at JET) is that it's a fairly big deal. Tests the kind of setup that will be at ITER (but on a much bigger scale there) and gets it to work*.
Not really a fishing expedition for JET funding as JET's set to close anyway. I guess ITER future could have been in doubt if it failed, but the initial build there is all funded, I believe.
*detail in the materials used for the plasma and the chamber wall, which were different to what JET originally used. Last few years at JET have been about solving some problems for ITER before ITER is completed.
Awesome, thanks.
If this and the Rolls-Royce SMR fission reactors can both turn out well, then the UK is set up to be at the forefront of world energy production for the next few decades.
ITER may on may not break even in 2035. And then it may well not be break even in the sense of actually generating usable extra power. Quite a few people reckon that the design beyond ITER will be the one for that.
By contrast the mini-nukes are essentially a warmed over version of nuclear submarine reactors which we have been building for years....
Right. But 'size of cake' is largely outside UK government control. If the answer to "How can we maximize wealth creation?" were mainly a matter of domestic political choices it'd be the end of politics.
Sure if we discover oil in the Irish sea that's a bit random... and the economy goes through cycles and shocks (and pandemics), but in the long run the strength of our economy is strongly influenced by the various choices the UK govt makes.
Bizarre comment by George Freeman, science minister, on the news about fusion power from Culham:
“Like a modern day Knights of the Round Table these extraordinary scientists have demonstrated that fusion is not just legitimate but is now within grasp as a serious offer in the long-term energy mix.”
My understanding (gleaned largely from undergrad physics and a lecturer who used to work at JET) is that it's a fairly big deal. Tests the kind of setup that will be at ITER (but on a much bigger scale there) and gets it to work*.
Not really a fishing expedition for JET funding as JET's set to close anyway. I guess ITER future could have been in doubt if it failed, but the initial build there is all funded, I believe.
*detail in the materials used for the plasma and the chamber wall, which were different to what JET originally used. Last few years at JET have been about solving some problems for ITER before ITER is completed.
Awesome, thanks.
If this and the Rolls-Royce SMR fission reactors can both turn out well, then the UK is set up to be at the forefront of world energy production for the next few decades.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
Um, ever heard of IR35 - what you are saying is why the BBC got itself into such a mess with it's presenters.
The Telegraph would have been perfectly happy to employ him as an employee which from memory was how it worked.
The tax advantages of being a sole trader embodied as a PLC are much less obvious than is widely believed (AIUI they used to be significant, but the Treasury has slowly whittled them away)
There’s a shitload more paperwork and you gain some cash but not that much
It still makes a notable difference if you are earning over £1m a year or whatever, but i don’t think Boris was ever in that bracket?
If you take the PLC route you are also likelier to receive much closer Inland Revenue scrutiny, which is not always nice
A PLC? A public limited company?
I don't know any sole traders that incorporated as PLCs.
I dunno the precise lingo. It’s too dull. But you know what I mean. Becoming a company paying yourself dividends or whatever
It's not dull it's exciting. You can do all sorts as a limited company.
Bizarre comment by George Freeman, science minister, on the news about fusion power from Culham:
“Like a modern day Knights of the Round Table these extraordinary scientists have demonstrated that fusion is not just legitimate but is now within grasp as a serious offer in the long-term energy mix.”
Good to see members of the government are moving on from "trying to lie like Boris" to "trying to use incomprehensible analogies from half-remembered school literary references in order to sound clever like Boris".
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but we're talking here about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or is £1 not directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. New spending is funded by real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices we must make within our parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's seductive to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's deleterious to the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it is just a slogan.
'Levelling up' could be meaningful in one way Kinabalu overlooks. His analysis, generally sound, ignores the issue of the size of the cake.
It is feasible to level up thus:
A nation manages to get incrementally wealthier in terms of disposable wealth per head
and
uses social policies/redistribution/tax policies to ensure that the poorer you are the more you gain from this additional resource
and that there is maximally great equality of opportunity.
Contemplating the way some of the academies/free schools are doing in London some of this is possible. But don't hold your breath about other aspects of wealth distribution.
Right. But 'size of cake' is largely outside UK government control. If the answer to "How can we maximize wealth creation?" were mainly a matter of domestic political choices it'd be the end of politics.
No, size of cake is massively in the control of government. They need to create the right conditions for entrepreneurship and investment into their country.
Look at Ireland for a great example, they cut their corporation tax to be lowest rate in the Western world, and earn billions in taxes by hosting regional offices and revenue centres for the likes of Apple and Microsoft. Ireland grew themselves a massively bigger cake.
Isn't Ireland's economic policy the epitome of slippery slope economics? Beggaring your neighbours tax base doesn't work if everyone is doing it.
Not at all, they’re growing the pie by letting new companies invest. They were the first country to spot that international online software and advertising sales were the next big thing, and made sure the companies doing this were all based in Ireland.
They might have grown their 'pie' but by doing so the shrunk the total volume of the potential pie by some margin.
Tax havens are surely parasitical to the nations whose productivity created the wealth. Apple's effective tax rate was 0.05% in Ireland![1]. letting them invest? Maybe in brass name plates
My understanding (gleaned largely from undergrad physics and a lecturer who used to work at JET) is that it's a fairly big deal. Tests the kind of setup that will be at ITER (but on a much bigger scale there) and gets it to work*.
Not really a fishing expedition for JET funding as JET's set to close anyway. I guess ITER future could have been in doubt if it failed, but the initial build there is all funded, I believe.
*detail in the materials used for the plasma and the chamber wall, which were different to what JET originally used. Last few years at JET have been about solving some problems for ITER before ITER is completed.
Awesome, thanks.
If this and the Rolls-Royce SMR fission reactors can both turn out well, then the UK is set up to be at the forefront of world energy production for the next few decades.
I think a key thing for fusion, if it ever works at scale, will be the role of fission over the medium term. Fusion is still decades off commercially (it may be ever thus...). If the settlement to get us to 2040-2050 includes significiant fission nuclear then I can see fusion as the natural replacement for that. If it doesn't and we're meeting energy demands through renewables then I struggle to see fusion gaining popularity - first reactors will be huge investments and still with commercial risk. Much safer to fund more turbines, tidal schemes etc already proven by then.
Slam dunk replacement for fission though, on the face of it, if fission is still significant. For one thing (and it's big one) little and shortlived radioactive waste, which is the real big downside of fission with the long half lives for its waste, for which we still don't have a long term plan.
Edit: Also worth noting that JET is the Joint European Torus, so although located in the UK it's still an international effort. Still local expertise etc which is good.
My understanding (gleaned largely from undergrad physics and a lecturer who used to work at JET) is that it's a fairly big deal. Tests the kind of setup that will be at ITER (but on a much bigger scale there) and gets it to work*.
Not really a fishing expedition for JET funding as JET's set to close anyway. I guess ITER future could have been in doubt if it failed, but the initial build there is all funded, I believe.
*detail in the materials used for the plasma and the chamber wall, which were different to what JET originally used. Last few years at JET have been about solving some problems for ITER before ITER is completed.
Awesome, thanks.
If this and the Rolls-Royce SMR fission reactors can both turn out well, then the UK is set up to be at the forefront of world energy production for the next few decades.
ITER may on may not break even in 2035. And then it may well not be break even in the sense of actually generating usable extra power. Quite a few people reckon that the design beyond ITER will be the one for that.
By contrast the mini-nukes are essentially a warmed over version of nuclear submarine reactors which we have been building for years....
Fusion is still 20 years away - but it's a bit close then it was last year.
Those mini-nukes could be working in 10 years once Rolls Royce kicks off building them.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Something akin to Operation Desert Fox would seem attractive to Putin.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult. 2. Minimises Russian casualties. 3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response. 4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Yes. I like this thinking. Tanks? In 2022? Pah!
What the West glaringly did not promise Ukraine was a no fly zone or any air support. In fact all the “standing shoulder to shoulder with our democratic allies Ukraine blah blah” was utterly hollow in reality. Quite disgusting really how it was all such transparent spin - whilst our actual policy was to repeat 1945 all over again, stand short of any real or determining help? 😕
Actual NATO aircraft attacking actual Russian aircraft or troops? That would be WWIII in a can. Which no-one sane wants.
Also, even threatening that would have been pushing Putin very very hard. It would imply defecato membership of NATO. At that point he wouldn't be able to back down without serious risk to his position with the hardline Greater Russian Nationalists.
I totally agree with your post as being the reality. But I still totally agree with my own post, the rhetoric from Washington and London so detached from that reality, it must as sounded just as hollow in both Kiev and Moscow as it did in Paris and Berlin. Part of clever hard ball diplomacy by the West that achieved great outcome for us and Ukraine, or Orwellian distraction for UK and US citizens? Truth is we can never know the story here for years is that fair to say?
So is Ukraine receding now as a play in the Buy’s Boris Recovery Period leadership narrative?
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but we're talking here about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or is £1 not directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. New spending is funded by real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices we must make within our parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's seductive to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's deleterious to the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it is just a slogan.
'Levelling up' could be meaningful in one way Kinabalu overlooks. His analysis, generally sound, ignores the issue of the size of the cake.
It is feasible to level up thus:
A nation manages to get incrementally wealthier in terms of disposable wealth per head
and
uses social policies/redistribution/tax policies to ensure that the poorer you are the more you gain from this additional resource
and that there is maximally great equality of opportunity.
Contemplating the way some of the academies/free schools are doing in London some of this is possible. But don't hold your breath about other aspects of wealth distribution.
Right. But 'size of cake' is largely outside UK government control. If the answer to "How can we maximize wealth creation?" were mainly a matter of domestic political choices it'd be the end of politics.
No, size of cake is massively in the control of government. They need to create the right conditions for entrepreneurship and investment into their country.
Look at Ireland for a great example, they cut their corporation tax to be lowest rate in the Western world, and earn billions in taxes by hosting regional offices and revenue centres for the likes of Apple and Microsoft. Ireland grew themselves a massively bigger cake.
Can't all do that though. It's ultimately self defeating.
No it isn’t. Look to where the next generation of technology-based companies are coming from, and make sure they’ll all base themselves in the UK.
Bioscience, nuclear energy and battery manufacturing are three obvious examples, look at the worldwide regulatory structures for these industries and make sure the UK is competitive.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Something akin to Operation Desert Fox would seem attractive to Putin.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult. 2. Minimises Russian casualties. 3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response. 4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Yes. I like this thinking. Tanks? In 2022? Pah!
What the West glaringly did not promise Ukraine was a no fly zone or any air support. In fact all the “standing shoulder to shoulder with our democratic allies Ukraine blah blah” was utterly hollow in reality. Quite disgusting really how it was all such transparent spin - whilst our actual policy was to repeat 1945 all over again, stand short of any real or determining help? 😕
Actual NATO aircraft attacking actual Russian aircraft or troops? That would be WWIII in a can. Which no-one sane wants.
Also, even threatening that would have been pushing Putin very very hard. It would imply defecato membership of NATO. At that point he wouldn't be able to back down without serious risk to his position with the hardline Greater Russian Nationalists.
I totally agree with your post as being the reality. But I still totally agree with my own post, the rhetoric from Washington and London so detached from that reality, it must as sounded just as hollow in both Kiev and Moscow as it did in Paris and Berlin. Part of clever hard ball diplomacy by the West that achieved great outcome for us and Ukraine, or Orwellian distraction for UK and US citizens? Truth is we can never know the story here for years is that fair to say?
So is Ukraine receding now as a play in the Buy’s Boris Recovery Period leadership narrative?
I’ll ask my dad for his take and report back 🙂
The US made it quite clear that they would fire up a range of sanctions - pulling Russia from the SWFT payment network, would have made it virtually impossible for Europe to buy gas from Russia, for one.
The Russian economy is a resource sale economy. If they can't sell their resources, they don't have an economy.
That is a pretty hard threat.
If Putin pulls back with getting more Ukraine or substantial concessions he can sell to his err... associates, then he has lost this round. That won't sound hollow in Kyiv or Moscow.
EDIT: At no point did anyone talk about directly fighting the Russians. Just arming the Ukrainians and imposing sanctions on Russia if they invaded Ukraine.
My understanding (gleaned largely from undergrad physics and a lecturer who used to work at JET) is that it's a fairly big deal. Tests the kind of setup that will be at ITER (but on a much bigger scale there) and gets it to work*.
Not really a fishing expedition for JET funding as JET's set to close anyway. I guess ITER future could have been in doubt if it failed, but the initial build there is all funded, I believe.
*detail in the materials used for the plasma and the chamber wall, which were different to what JET originally used. Last few years at JET have been about solving some problems for ITER before ITER is completed.
Awesome, thanks.
If this and the Rolls-Royce SMR fission reactors can both turn out well, then the UK is set up to be at the forefront of world energy production for the next few decades.
I think a key thing for fusion, if it ever works at scale, will be the role of fission over the medium term. Fusion is still decades off commercially (it may be ever thus...). If the settlement to get us to 2040-2050 includes significiant fission nuclear then I can see fusion as the natural replacement for that. If it doesn't and we're meeting energy demands through renewables then I struggle to see fusion gaining popularity - first reactors will be huge investments and still with commercial risk. Much safer to fund more turbines, tidal schemes etc already proven by then.
Slam dunk replacement for fission though, on the face of it, if fission is still significant. For one thing (and it's big one) little and shortlived radioactive waste, which is the real big downside of fission with the long half lives for its waste, for which we still don't have a long term plan.
Edit: Also worth noting that JET is the Joint European Torus, so although located in the UK it's still an international effort. Still local expertise etc which is good.
Among other things, fussion with Tritium = free neutrons. As in all the neutrons you don't want. Great for breeding fissile material. - and more tritium....
And with neutrons comes nuclear waste. Trying to build the reactors out of stuff that won't neutron activate is virtually impossible.
And if you want Boron fusion - well, that's a whole bunch of Nobels away from here....
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Something akin to Operation Desert Fox would seem attractive to Putin.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult. 2. Minimises Russian casualties. 3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response. 4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Yes. I like this thinking. Tanks? In 2022? Pah!
What the West glaringly did not promise Ukraine was a no fly zone or any air support. In fact all the “standing shoulder to shoulder with our democratic allies Ukraine blah blah” was utterly hollow in reality. Quite disgusting really how it was all such transparent spin - whilst our actual policy was to repeat 1945 all over again, stand short of any real or determining help? 😕
Surely not 1945? That would be a 'robust' response. More 1938?
@MoonRabbit is referring to letting the Russians take Eastern Europe in 1945, I think....
Then again, maybe she does mean 6th August '45, but that is certainly a touch on the strong side....
Aye, good point. I did think about the partition of Germany after posting that, which would be another parallel if partial occupation of Ukraine was tolerated (it already is, of course, wrt Crimea and the Eastern regions)
He who is a smartarse in haste gets to look a tit at leisure...
Happy to be corrected, but in 1945 I think historians largely agree, allies could have got to some capitals before soviets, were urged to do so by non communist resistance, but held back, let Russians get there first and back up Communist puppet regime’s 😕
Were they cleverly trying to avoid war with soviets? Or did they not really know what they were doing and outcome would be? But yes, please call me out if you feel you can, but what we done then to the all those non communist resistance requests and what we were doing to Ukraine now is much the same thinking isn’t it?
However. Interesting. When I was banned defence select committee chairman (another to have rediscovered a comb and a tidy suit with a leadership election offing) called for British boots on the ground in Ukraine. And he didn’t even subtly call for it.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Something akin to Operation Desert Fox would seem attractive to Putin.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult. 2. Minimises Russian casualties. 3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response. 4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Yes. I like this thinking. Tanks? In 2022? Pah!
What the West glaringly did not promise Ukraine was a no fly zone or any air support. In fact all the “standing shoulder to shoulder with our democratic allies Ukraine blah blah” was utterly hollow in reality. Quite disgusting really how it was all such transparent spin - whilst our actual policy was to repeat 1945 all over again, stand short of any real or determining help? 😕
Surely not 1945? That would be a 'robust' response. More 1938?
@MoonRabbit is referring to letting the Russians take Eastern Europe in 1945, I think....
Then again, maybe she does mean 6th August '45, but that is certainly a touch on the strong side....
Aye, good point. I did think about the partition of Germany after posting that, which would be another parallel if partial occupation of Ukraine was tolerated (it already is, of course, wrt Crimea and the Eastern regions)
He who is a smartarse in haste gets to look a tit at leisure...
Happy to be corrected, but in 1945 I think historians largely agree, allies could have got to some capitals before soviets, were urged to do so by non communist resistance, but held back, let Russians get there first and back up Communist puppet regime’s 😕 We’re they cleverly trying to avoid war with soviets? Or did they not really know what they were doing and outcome would be? But yes, please call me out if you feel you can, but what we done then to the all those non communist resistance requests and what we were doing to Ukraine now is much the same thinking isn’t it?
However. Interesting. When I was banned defence select committee chairman (another to have rediscovered a comb and a tidy suit with a leadership election offing) called for British boots on the ground in Ukraine. And he didn’t even subtly call for it.
On '45 - Churchill asked for preliminary planning for a war with Russia. And was told no dice. Then he was out. Quite simply no-one wanted to fight for Eastern Europe.
The difference with Ukraine is that we threatened to inflict actual pain on Russia if they invaded and actually armed the Ukraine. This seems (we hope) to have caused the Russians to actually pull back.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Something akin to Operation Desert Fox would seem attractive to Putin.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult. 2. Minimises Russian casualties. 3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response. 4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Yes. I like this thinking. Tanks? In 2022? Pah!
What the West glaringly did not promise Ukraine was a no fly zone or any air support. In fact all the “standing shoulder to shoulder with our democratic allies Ukraine blah blah” was utterly hollow in reality. Quite disgusting really how it was all such transparent spin - whilst our actual policy was to repeat 1945 all over again, stand short of any real or determining help? 😕
Actual NATO aircraft attacking actual Russian aircraft or troops? That would be WWIII in a can. Which no-one sane wants.
Also, even threatening that would have been pushing Putin very very hard. It would imply defecato membership of NATO. At that point he wouldn't be able to back down without serious risk to his position with the hardline Greater Russian Nationalists.
I totally agree with your post as being the reality. But I still totally agree with my own post, the rhetoric from Washington and London so detached from that reality, it must as sounded just as hollow in both Kiev and Moscow as it did in Paris and Berlin. Part of clever hard ball diplomacy by the West that achieved great outcome for us and Ukraine, or Orwellian distraction for UK and US citizens? Truth is we can never know the story here for years is that fair to say?
So is Ukraine receding now as a play in the Buy’s Boris Recovery Period leadership narrative?
I’ll ask my dad for his take and report back 🙂
The US made it quite clear that they would fire up a range of sanctions - pulling Russia from the SWFT payment network, would have made it virtually impossible for Europe to buy gas from Russia, for one.
The Russian economy is a resource sale economy. If they can't sell their resources, they don't have an economy.
That is a pretty hard threat.
If Putin pulls back with getting more Ukraine or substantial concessions he can sell to his err... associates, then he has lost this round. That won't sound hollow in Kyiv or Moscow.
EDIT: At no point did anyone talk about directly fighting the Russians. Just arming the Ukrainians and imposing sanctions on Russia if they invaded Ukraine.
On the point of your edit. What about Tory chair of British Parliaments Defence Select Committee?
On the point of sanctions. If such sanctions were imposed on Trumps America, hurting economy, business, working people, would Trump have gone back to his billion dollar mansion crying into his silk pillows? Why do you think Putin would behave any different to sanctions than his demagogue chum Trump?
In Putins mind is something bigger than sanctions that will only melt away quicker than Siberian permafrost - he’s building his legacy for the history books.
My understanding (gleaned largely from undergrad physics and a lecturer who used to work at JET) is that it's a fairly big deal. Tests the kind of setup that will be at ITER (but on a much bigger scale there) and gets it to work*.
Not really a fishing expedition for JET funding as JET's set to close anyway. I guess ITER future could have been in doubt if it failed, but the initial build there is all funded, I believe.
*detail in the materials used for the plasma and the chamber wall, which were different to what JET originally used. Last few years at JET have been about solving some problems for ITER before ITER is completed.
Awesome, thanks.
If this and the Rolls-Royce SMR fission reactors can both turn out well, then the UK is set up to be at the forefront of world energy production for the next few decades.
I think a key thing for fusion, if it ever works at scale, will be the role of fission over the medium term. Fusion is still decades off commercially (it may be ever thus...). If the settlement to get us to 2040-2050 includes significiant fission nuclear then I can see fusion as the natural replacement for that. If it doesn't and we're meeting energy demands through renewables then I struggle to see fusion gaining popularity - first reactors will be huge investments and still with commercial risk. Much safer to fund more turbines, tidal schemes etc already proven by then.
Slam dunk replacement for fission though, on the face of it, if fission is still significant. For one thing (and it's big one) little and shortlived radioactive waste, which is the real big downside of fission with the long half lives for its waste, for which we still don't have a long term plan.
Edit: Also worth noting that JET is the Joint European Torus, so although located in the UK it's still an international effort. Still local expertise etc which is good.
I've sketched out a scifi story which has aneutronic fusion. However, the fuel (Boron) needs to be perfectly pure. This is expensive, and the pricepoint of renewables had got down low enough that fusion is not competitive for everyday use. It is useful for niche things like space, Antarctica, and emergency response.
But for everyday use, wind, wave, solar etc are cheaper.
I quite like the idea that renewable prices decrease to such an extent that when fusion finally does arrive, it is still not cost-competitive...
There is increasing consensus about what you need to “level up”:
1. Vision 2. Long-term horizon 3. Devolution 4. Local political and business engagement 5. Infrastructure 6. Skills 7. Govt R&D investment 8. Business investment
Britain’s over-centralised state has made 1, 2, 3 and 4 almost impossible, and Treasury thinking has tended to rule out 5, 6 and 7.
Business investment is heavily influenced by the previous factors.
Inequality between London and the rest has got worse and worse over the last 100 years as Britain (and the global economy) has moved from resource (like coal) to knowledge industries (like finance).
But it’s possible to do it. Successful examples include Bilbao, Pittsburgh, Dresden, Leipzig, and Groningen.
Someone suggested to me the other day that Shanghai GDP per person is now higher than Manchester’s.
If Britain could fix this, reform its weird housing/planning regime, fix its serial trade deficits, and tax rentiers rather than workers - the future would look sunny.
As it is, I think the 2020s can largely be written off already.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Something akin to Operation Desert Fox would seem attractive to Putin.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult. 2. Minimises Russian casualties. 3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response. 4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Yes. I like this thinking. Tanks? In 2022? Pah!
What the West glaringly did not promise Ukraine was a no fly zone or any air support. In fact all the “standing shoulder to shoulder with our democratic allies Ukraine blah blah” was utterly hollow in reality. Quite disgusting really how it was all such transparent spin - whilst our actual policy was to repeat 1945 all over again, stand short of any real or determining help? 😕
Surely not 1945? That would be a 'robust' response. More 1938?
@MoonRabbit is referring to letting the Russians take Eastern Europe in 1945, I think....
Then again, maybe she does mean 6th August '45, but that is certainly a touch on the strong side....
Aye, good point. I did think about the partition of Germany after posting that, which would be another parallel if partial occupation of Ukraine was tolerated (it already is, of course, wrt Crimea and the Eastern regions)
He who is a smartarse in haste gets to look a tit at leisure...
Happy to be corrected, but in 1945 I think historians largely agree, allies could have got to some capitals before soviets, were urged to do so by non communist resistance, but held back, let Russians get there first and back up Communist puppet regime’s 😕 We’re they cleverly trying to avoid war with soviets? Or did they not really know what they were doing and outcome would be? But yes, please call me out if you feel you can, but what we done then to the all those non communist resistance requests and what we were doing to Ukraine now is much the same thinking isn’t it?
However. Interesting. When I was banned defence select committee chairman (another to have rediscovered a comb and a tidy suit with a leadership election offing) called for British boots on the ground in Ukraine. And he didn’t even subtly call for it.
On '45 - Churchill asked for preliminary planning for a war with Russia. And was told no dice. Then he was out. Quite simply no-one wanted to fight for Eastern Europe.
The difference with Ukraine is that we threatened to inflict actual pain on Russia if they invaded and actually armed the Ukraine. This seems (we hope) to have caused the Russians to actually pull back.
Tobias Ellwood isn't making government policy.
Yes to your last sentence. Let’s leave it on a happy note 🙂
I don’t want to delay you from todays monoliths. It’s time for a gin. 🍹
Right. But 'size of cake' is largely outside UK government control. If the answer to "How can we maximize wealth creation?" were mainly a matter of domestic political choices it'd be the end of politics.
Sure if we discover oil in the Irish sea that's a bit random... and the economy goes through cycles and shocks (and pandemics), but in the long run the strength of our economy is strongly influenced by the various choices the UK govt makes.
I don't think so. I think government's influence is marginal.
I agree with DavidL, Leon et al that yet another Rare Intervention Into Politics by Sir John Major is not going to be the deciding factor in whether a VONC happens and whether Johnson wins it. Major never wanted Johnson in the job in the first place and hasn't changed his mind since. That may be an opinion that many of us agree with but it's not news, and it puts him in the same category as Alastair Campbell and James O'Brien (only on this particular issue Sir John, no offence meant).
The only electorate that matters consists of Tory MPs who are, unlike Sir John, largely pro-Brexit (or didn't mind about Brexit either way), and who credit Johnson with at least part of the 2019 GE majority. Interventions from Mark Harper (on the Saville slur) and Sir Bernard Jenkin (on general government competence) are therefore probably more significant.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but we're talking here about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or is £1 not directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. New spending is funded by real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices we must make within our parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's seductive to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's deleterious to the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it is just a slogan.
'Levelling up' could be meaningful in one way Kinabalu overlooks. His analysis, generally sound, ignores the issue of the size of the cake.
It is feasible to level up thus:
A nation manages to get incrementally wealthier in terms of disposable wealth per head
and
uses social policies/redistribution/tax policies to ensure that the poorer you are the more you gain from this additional resource
and that there is maximally great equality of opportunity.
Contemplating the way some of the academies/free schools are doing in London some of this is possible. But don't hold your breath about other aspects of wealth distribution.
Right. But 'size of cake' is largely outside UK government control. If the answer to "How can we maximize wealth creation?" were mainly a matter of domestic political choices it'd be the end of politics.
No, size of cake is massively in the control of government. They need to create the right conditions for entrepreneurship and investment into their country.
Look at Ireland for a great example, they cut their corporation tax to be lowest rate in the Western world, and earn billions in taxes by hosting regional offices and revenue centres for the likes of Apple and Microsoft. Ireland grew themselves a massively bigger cake.
Can't all do that though. It's ultimately self defeating.
No it isn’t. Look to where the next generation of technology-based companies are coming from, and make sure they’ll all base themselves in the UK.
Bioscience, nuclear energy and battery manufacturing are three obvious examples, look at the worldwide regulatory structures for these industries and make sure the UK is competitive.
If countries all slash regs & tax to attract business all this does is establish a new base whereby businesses engage in activities which are detrimental to the common good and contribute less tax while doing it. That's not the way. Much better - although I admit more difficult - is to upgrade the skills and aptitude and morale and ambition and energy levels of your population. This will lead both to more organic 'bottom up' growth and to more investment from overseas.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Something akin to Operation Desert Fox would seem attractive to Putin.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult. 2. Minimises Russian casualties. 3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response. 4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Yes. I like this thinking. Tanks? In 2022? Pah!
What the West glaringly did not promise Ukraine was a no fly zone or any air support. In fact all the “standing shoulder to shoulder with our democratic allies Ukraine blah blah” was utterly hollow in reality. Quite disgusting really how it was all such transparent spin - whilst our actual policy was to repeat 1945 all over again, stand short of any real or determining help? 😕
Surely not 1945? That would be a 'robust' response. More 1938?
@MoonRabbit is referring to letting the Russians take Eastern Europe in 1945, I think....
Then again, maybe she does mean 6th August '45, but that is certainly a touch on the strong side....
Aye, good point. I did think about the partition of Germany after posting that, which would be another parallel if partial occupation of Ukraine was tolerated (it already is, of course, wrt Crimea and the Eastern regions)
He who is a smartarse in haste gets to look a tit at leisure...
Happy to be corrected, but in 1945 I think historians largely agree, allies could have got to some capitals before soviets, were urged to do so by non communist resistance, but held back, let Russians get there first and back up Communist puppet regime’s 😕
Were they cleverly trying to avoid war with soviets? Or did they not really know what they were doing and outcome would be? But yes, please call me out if you feel you can, but what we done then to the all those non communist resistance requests and what we were doing to Ukraine now is much the same thinking isn’t it?
However. Interesting. When I was banned defence select committee chairman (another to have rediscovered a comb and a tidy suit with a leadership election offing) called for British boots on the ground in Ukraine. And he didn’t even subtly call for it.
Right. But 'size of cake' is largely outside UK government control. If the answer to "How can we maximize wealth creation?" were mainly a matter of domestic political choices it'd be the end of politics.
Sure if we discover oil in the Irish sea that's a bit random... and the economy goes through cycles and shocks (and pandemics), but in the long run the strength of our economy is strongly influenced by the various choices the UK govt makes.
I don't think so. I think government's influence is marginal.
Surprised to read this.
Sounds a bit Corbynist; wealth just “happens” and the governments job is to move it around.
Right. But 'size of cake' is largely outside UK government control. If the answer to "How can we maximize wealth creation?" were mainly a matter of domestic political choices it'd be the end of politics.
Sure if we discover oil in the Irish sea that's a bit random... and the economy goes through cycles and shocks (and pandemics), but in the long run the strength of our economy is strongly influenced by the various choices the UK govt makes.
I don't think so. I think government's influence is marginal.
Surprised to read this.
Sounds a bit Corbynist; wealth just “happens” and the governments job is to move it around.
I see it as a recognition of reality. Governments have more ability to do stupid things (eg Brexit) which damage the economy than smart things which help the economy. The latter is possible - and does happen - but it tends to be on the margins. If it were realistic for governments to enact clever policies that have a serious positive effect on the economy (GDP per head) they'd have been doing it for years and there'd be little debate since everyone would agree what needs to be done. In practice probably the most impactful way governments can help the economy is by refraining from doing anything stupid. So, yes, I think it's in the allocation of the 'cake' where governments can come into their own. That's their USP and what they should concentrate on. But to finish on a positive, what I most want from government - the creation of a high quality egalitarian education system - would imo hit both targets. It would make the cake bigger *and* share it more fairly.
Comments
The Russian military is better than it was under Yeltsin but it never had the high speed logistics the American shad, and they couldn't get the army required into place in less than days.
So strategic surprise was not possible.
So the only game possible is the slow build up, a few provocations. then go for it. If you can.
The assumption is that Putin is playing 5D chess - way ahead of everyone else. Possibly - but even in a dictatorships, the dictator has to keep the Barons and the Populace happy to an extent. And they aren't very happy with Putin at the moment.
So Putin may have been trying either for a nice war to make everything cosy at home, or he may have been trying to see what concession he could get and what splits he could create in the West.
Qatar Airways, in my favoured two hops via Doha.
Business Class, obvs. You can tell I'm a leftie
I wouldn’t honestly class it as one of the world’s greatest railway journeys. It is definitely worth doing tho
which gave us this immortal scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFNBUs7O-h4
This was indeed all part of a longer 5D chess game. I'm not suggesting that at some stage in the future he might not go for it, but I don't believe the build up this time was about that.
It's amazing how many people didn't listen to various Ukrainians.
Also incredibly varied within that smallness. From Singapore-to-be Colombo to ancient Galle to vast national parks with proper leopards and elephants and hunter gathering tribes, then the tea country, the hill towns, royal Kandy, then the whole northern Tamil bit, which is a different kettle of Handallo altogether
It is also safe, despite having a brutally bloody history
And the weather is benign and my one complaint from my last visit - the food - has been utterly confounded by this visit, the food is epically good, possibly better than Thailand, definitely better on bangs-for-bucks. Sri Lanka is CHEAP
If you go, take this book. It is a masterpiece
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Elephant-Complex-John-Gimlette/dp/1782067965
I think he was trying for another bite out of Ukraine, on the basis of look-at-me-Im-only-taking-a-bite-not-half-the-cake, but (hopefully) Western solidarity has convinced him that even a bite would be too expensive.
- A clear specialism, and clustering in that specialism (hence Oxford and Cambridge with biotech and wider life sciences, and the West Midlands with automotive)
- Not trying to be all things to all people: stick to your strengths
- Non-business reasons for people to want to live there, and the ability market these. In warm areas, the weather. In large cities, the bright lights. In colder areas, the great outdoors.
- Proper devolution that allows local government to prioritise tax and spending, and to offer tax incentives that help balance out other disadvantages.
I have a think tank dinner this evening focused entirely on this issue and plan on making similar points. I've met many regional development agencies over the years trying the tout their area and the ones that have most success are those where you can immediately understand what they stand for and what kind of businesses operate there.
But your first bit, about the nature of this conflict, we disagree. Before any invasion I would have destabilised the country first. It would have been a long period of black ops and 5th column insurgency first before I went in. My premise for going in would then have been as peacekeeper and protector of the ones still looking east.
1. Destroys Ukrainian military hardware, thereby leaving open the option of taking more forceful military action in the future, and delaying the point at which that becomes too difficult.
2. Minimises Russian casualties.
3. No Russian boots cross the border, thereby likely minimising retaliatory Western sanctions and maximising the likelihood of splitting the West in terms of its response.
4. Shows the Ukrainian people the impotence of their leadership, and the lack of meaningful help from the West, potentially weakening their resolve to support a continued turn away from Russia.
Of course he *could*.
He could also not face one for months or years. Or indeed, he could step down at some point in the future, and not face one at all.
I don't know any sole traders that incorporated as PLCs.
Arguably the electorate is further to the left, which is why some of Johnson's populist stuff goes down well. I can imagine Johnson suddenly nationalising rail companies or slashing council tax in half, but I can't imagine Strarmer doing either because "it wouldn't be sound government". The issue at the GE is not going to be whether the voters like leftism but whether they're ready for a period of dull, worthy consolidation.
How can we win elections? Borrow to fudge the present
What the West glaringly did not promise Ukraine was a no fly zone or any air support. In fact all the “standing shoulder to shoulder with our democratic allies Ukraine blah blah” was utterly hollow in reality. Quite disgusting really how it was all such transparent spin - whilst our actual policy was to repeat 1945 all over again, stand short of any real or determining help? 😕
Look at Ireland for a great example, they cut their corporation tax to be lowest rate in the Western world, and earn billions in taxes by hosting regional offices and revenue centres for the likes of Apple and Microsoft. Ireland grew themselves a massively bigger cake.
Also, even threatening that would have been pushing Putin very very hard. It would imply defecato membership of NATO. At that point he wouldn't be able to back down without serious risk to his position with the hardline Greater Russian Nationalists.
He could do with garnering some of the change vote. At the moment the Tory reinvention machine is such that it's they who seem the agents of change (albeit for the worst in many cases) despite having been in power for over a decade.
I dunno the precise lingo. It’s too dull. But you know what I mean. Becoming a company paying yourself dividends or whatever
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/09/britain-takes-huge-step-towards-nuclear-fusion-power/
59 megajoules of energy produced in five seconds.
Then again, maybe she does mean 6th August '45, but that is certainly a touch on the strong side....
Not really a fishing expedition for JET funding as JET's set to close anyway. I guess ITER future could have been in doubt if it failed, but the initial build there is all funded, I believe.
*detail in the materials used for the plasma and the chamber wall, which were different to what JET originally used. Last few years at JET have been about solving some problems for ITER before ITER is completed.
Edit: ITER being the much bigger doughnut in France
Further edit. I visited JET once, courtesy of said lecturer. Kinda cool, looked ery futuristic in places. As it should, of course, given that fusion is forever in the future (as said lecturer ruefully remarked - he'd decided it was never going to happen so changed jobs)
He who is a smartarse in haste gets to look a tit at leisure...
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Timeline_and_status - which should be in initial operation in a couple of years.
If this and the Rolls-Royce SMR fission reactors can both turn out well, then the UK is set up to be at the forefront of world energy production for the next few decades.
By contrast the mini-nukes are essentially a warmed over version of nuclear submarine reactors which we have been building for years....
“Like a modern day Knights of the Round Table these extraordinary scientists have demonstrated that fusion is not just legitimate but is now within grasp as a serious offer in the long-term energy mix.”
??? Eh ???
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fusion-power-breakthrough-smashes-world-record-mfngd28mq (£)
Tax havens are surely parasitical to the nations whose productivity created the wealth. Apple's effective tax rate was 0.05% in Ireland![1]. letting them invest? Maybe in brass name plates
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/07/15/891383815/apple-does-not-owe-ireland-nearly-15-billion-in-back-taxes-court-rules#:~:text=Authorities said Apple's tax maneuvering,years, from 2003 to 2014.
Slam dunk replacement for fission though, on the face of it, if fission is still significant. For one thing (and it's big one) little and shortlived radioactive waste, which is the real big downside of fission with the long half lives for its waste, for which we still don't have a long term plan.
Edit: Also worth noting that JET is the Joint European Torus, so although located in the UK it's still an international effort. Still local expertise etc which is good.
Those mini-nukes could be working in 10 years once Rolls Royce kicks off building them.
So is Ukraine receding now as a play in the Buy’s Boris Recovery Period leadership narrative?
I’ll ask my dad for his take and report back 🙂
Bioscience, nuclear energy and battery manufacturing are three obvious examples, look at the worldwide regulatory structures for these industries and make sure the UK is competitive.
The Russian economy is a resource sale economy. If they can't sell their resources, they don't have an economy.
That is a pretty hard threat.
If Putin pulls back with getting more Ukraine or substantial concessions he can sell to his err... associates, then he has lost this round. That won't sound hollow in Kyiv or Moscow.
EDIT: At no point did anyone talk about directly fighting the Russians. Just arming the Ukrainians and imposing sanctions on Russia if they invaded Ukraine.
And with neutrons comes nuclear waste. Trying to build the reactors out of stuff that won't neutron activate is virtually impossible.
And if you want Boron fusion - well, that's a whole bunch of Nobels away from here....
Were they cleverly trying to avoid war with soviets? Or did they not really know what they were doing and outcome would be? But yes, please call me out if you feel you can, but what we done then to the all those non communist resistance requests and what we were doing to Ukraine now is much the same thinking isn’t it?
However. Interesting. When I was banned defence select committee chairman (another to have rediscovered a comb and a tidy suit with a leadership election offing) called for British boots on the ground in Ukraine. And he didn’t even subtly call for it.
https://www.channel4.com/news/we-need-a-churchillian-approach-to-russian-threat-conservative-mp-tobias-ellwood
NEW THREAD
The difference with Ukraine is that we threatened to inflict actual pain on Russia if they invaded and actually armed the Ukraine. This seems (we hope) to have caused the Russians to actually pull back.
Tobias Ellwood isn't making government policy.
https://www.channel4.com/news/we-need-a-churchillian-approach-to-russian-threat-conservative-mp-tobias-ellwood
On the point of sanctions. If such sanctions were imposed on Trumps America, hurting economy, business, working people, would Trump have gone back to his billion dollar mansion crying into his silk pillows? Why do you think Putin would behave any different to sanctions than his demagogue chum Trump?
In Putins mind is something bigger than sanctions that will only melt away quicker than Siberian permafrost - he’s building his legacy for the history books.
But for everyday use, wind, wave, solar etc are cheaper.
I quite like the idea that renewable prices decrease to such an extent that when fusion finally does arrive, it is still not cost-competitive...
1. Vision
2. Long-term horizon
3. Devolution
4. Local political and business engagement
5. Infrastructure
6. Skills
7. Govt R&D investment
8. Business investment
Britain’s over-centralised state has made 1, 2, 3 and 4 almost impossible, and Treasury thinking has tended to rule out 5, 6 and 7.
Business investment is heavily influenced by the previous factors.
Inequality between London and the rest has got worse and worse over the last 100 years as Britain (and the global economy) has moved from resource (like coal) to knowledge industries (like finance).
But it’s possible to do it.
Successful examples include Bilbao, Pittsburgh, Dresden, Leipzig, and Groningen.
Someone suggested to me the other day that Shanghai GDP per person is now higher than Manchester’s.
If Britain could fix this, reform its weird housing/planning regime, fix its serial trade deficits, and tax rentiers rather than workers - the future would look sunny.
As it is, I think the 2020s can largely be written off already.
I don’t want to delay you from todays monoliths. It’s time for a gin. 🍹
The only electorate that matters consists of Tory MPs who are, unlike Sir John, largely pro-Brexit (or didn't mind about Brexit either way), and who credit Johnson with at least part of the 2019 GE majority. Interventions from Mark Harper (on the Saville slur) and Sir Bernard Jenkin (on general government competence) are therefore probably more significant.
Sounds a bit Corbynist; wealth just “happens” and the governments job is to move it around.