It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
The tax rises she's proposing reversing were put into place less than 12 months ago. So she's not looking at rolling back 12 years of policy.
Indeed amongst the first thing George Osborne did when becoming Chancellor at the point of there being "no money left" was to cut corporation tax and reverse an NI tax hike.
It amuses me those who held George Osborne in high esteem, some even calling him a "near perfect Chancellor" now chastising Truss for having the same policy of reversing the jobs tax hike and cutting corporation tax.
Osborne was awful, he implemented austerity and destroyed the economy.
But he was competent at that.
What austerity? Spending rose.
If you want to look at real austerity look on the continent at Greece etc where spending actually fell.
Yep - spending rose because Adult Social care costs an absolutely fortune and is getting more and more expensive (it's not a joke that many councils are now Adult Social Care Services with the bare minimum legally required over services on top).
But the Tories aren't cutting Adult Social Care just the tax that was introduced to pay for it...
Has Truss said that she will reverse the NI rate increase announced in September 2021 and the increase in thresholds announced in this year’s spring statement? Or just the former? I had assumed the threshold increases were in response to the political fall out of the rate rise and so the two are linked.
Cutting the latter is however a tax hike - so given that she wants to cut taxes she can only kill the former but will need to keep the thresholds in place..
Wow! 👉 “Even cabinet ministers are openly speculating about whether the party needs a period in opposition to regroup after becoming marred by scandal.”👇
Classic error: thinking that Opposition helps your party. Examples of the opposite are rife. Just ask Cathy Jamieson, Wendy Alexander, Iain Gray, Johann Lamont, Jim Murphy, Kezia Dugdale, Alex Rowley, Jackie Baillie, Richard Leonard and Anas Sarwar.
In this case you need clean skins; as in long enough that the next tory PM is from the 2019 or later intake.
One problem with that theory: by the 2030s PR will disallow single-party majorities. Without thuggery holding them together, the Tories will simply drift apart. The ones not frothing at the mouth will survive.
In Ireland FF and FG have often been able to govern in coalition with relatively minor parties, or Independents, despite the use of STV in Irish general elections. The same would be true in Britain, as there are often enough votes for the Tories in Britain.
On the other hand, Sweden has eight parliamentary parties, and in order to have a majority you generally require the support of four parties.
You are perfectly entitled to cite one example. Other examples exist.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Seems like Russia has pretty much gone all in on Ukraine.
"Russia has committed nearly 85% of its military to the war in Ukraine… It has removed military coverage from other areas on their border and around the world." So says a Senior US defence official.
It is only Russian nukes stopping China from grabbing everything east of the Urals. That - and the shitty Russian kit they bought. Which in Ukraine they have seen demonstrated to be really shitty...
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Are you saying they don't work?
Clearly they are not the only solution but then wind or tidal aren't the only solutions either. They work together.
For somebody who apparently takes net zero seriously, it's odd that you seem to reject solutions that will help
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
I have a bridge for sale.
To be fair, my firm (one of the Big 4) has said tax cuts could act as a stimulus.
Corporation tax was cut by Osbourne - I don't remember seeing it working as a stimulus during the austerity years - if it had tax revenue would have increased and austerity could have been stopped earlier...
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
But the only person on here who wants to bring it back seems to be a figment of your imagination...
For one thing, it prevents people moving from benefits into work at the lowest-end, because the benefit withdrawal rate is 60%+.
For regular average-Joe in the economy, it can be the difference between him deciding to take a risk to start-up a new business, work for a SME in a new technology field, or just that steady, predictable 9-5 in the local council.
Disgraceful little jibe at those who work in the public sector. Many thousands do so and many of the jobs are a long way from the "steady, predictable 9-5" you mention. Try being a social worker having to deal with familial abuse at 3am on a Sunday morning and see how "steady and predictable" that is.
I've worked in both the public and private sectors and they are remarkably similar - inefficient, appallingly badly managed and led with lower grade workers very badly paid for the work they undertake.
If I could change one thing, I would reduce the differential between the pay for those at the top and those at the bottom. I'm not saying there aren't some good managers and leaders but they are in my experience a rarity. Most managers and especially middle managers are too busy preening themselves, building their own empires and too concerned with their own "status" to play a role in developing and growing an organisation.
If you want to see why we fail economically, look at productivity, look at how much time people spend "being in the office" rather than doing anything useful as well as the time spent a) attending meetings and the cost of b) hiring half-wit consultants who command £1500 per day for stating the obvious.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Are you saying they don't work?
Clearly they are not the only solution but then wind or tidal aren't the only solutions either. They work together.
For somebody who apparently takes net zero seriously, it's odd that you seem to reject solutions that will help
No they don't work towards getting us to Net Zero.
Energy demand in this country peaks in the winter. It massively, massively, massively peaks in the winter. Solar power is not that useful in the winter, a little bit but not that much.
Solar power can be great economics so if there's a business case for it then great, go for it.
But as for taking climate change and net zero seriously? It is the homeopathic solution, it simply isn't credible. It is pure greenwashing, suggesting you're doing something cheap and easy rather than being serious.
I find this idea that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector very strange.
I've worked for two huge organisations in the private sector, one is that red company. I can tell you for a fact it was one of the most bloated, inefficient operations I've ever seen.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
Shame really, as we need a new roof soon and they would have helped.
What I'd find really helpful for my betting is a breakdown of Conservative Party membership demographics.
I'm assuming those still in work and paying off mortgages will go for Sunak, but will be outnumbered by those 55+ who do neither and rather fancy higher interest on their savings.
I’d love to see a breakdown of Con membership by country.
Guesstimate: England 90% Wales 5% Scotland 2% NI + overseas 3%
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Solar panels can be part of the answer, but the case is much weaker in the UK. They have an average of 50% built-in obsolescence (because it is dark) but that is much higher in winter when the power is needed for heating. Mostly when the sun has gone down.....
What I'd find really helpful for my betting is a breakdown of Conservative Party membership demographics.
I'm assuming those still in work and paying off mortgages will go for Sunak, but will be outnumbered by those 55+ who do neither and rather fancy higher interest on their savings.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Are you saying they don't work?
Clearly they are not the only solution but then wind or tidal aren't the only solutions either. They work together.
For somebody who apparently takes net zero seriously, it's odd that you seem to reject solutions that will help
No they don't work towards getting us to Net Zero.
Energy demand in this country peaks in the winter. It massively, massively, massively peaks in the winter. Solar power is not that useful in the winter, a little bit but not that much.
Solar power can be great economics so if there's a business case for it then great, go for it.
But as for taking climate change and net zero seriously? It is the homeopathic solution, it simply isn't credible. It is pure greenwashing, suggesting you're doing something cheap and easy rather than being serious.
I find this idea that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector very strange.
I've worked for two huge organisations in the private sector, one is that red company. I can tell you for a fact it was one of the most bloated, inefficient operations I've ever seen.
The private sector is more than large businesses though.
The larger the business the more like the public sector it gets. More Byzantine, more bureaucratic etc.
It is smaller businesses that are the most agile and that is what the public sector lacks.
I find this idea that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector very strange.
I've worked for two huge organisations in the private sector, one is that red company. I can tell you for a fact it was one of the most bloated, inefficient operations I've ever seen.
The private sector is more than large businesses though.
The larger the business the more like the public sector it gets. More Byzantine, more bureaucratic etc.
It is smaller businesses that are the most agile and that is what the public sector lacks.
No the ideology is that private sector = efficient, public sector = inefficient. That is not true in practice.
I find this idea that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector very strange.
I've worked for two huge organisations in the private sector, one is that red company. I can tell you for a fact it was one of the most bloated, inefficient operations I've ever seen.
Indeed. The private sector isn’t more efficient, it just doesn’t have to publicise its mistakes. Shareholder reporting is a joke, so failed programmes are easy to sweep under the carpet. And if you want to see bureaucracy, then look at the Blue Chips, not Whitehall where it’s usually clear who can agree to a thing (they might be too risk averse to do so, but that’s a different issue).
A lot of project fear-style material on Twitter today. The idea that there isn’t scope for reducing the burden of tax through both a new spending review and by putting our Covid debt on a longer-term footing as it rolls over is transparently false. (1/n)
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
"If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely. "
95% of people don't have that luxury of course.
Indeed. Casino gave us a fascinating glimpse into the (selfish) Tory mindset there.
Mr Jessop, that sounds extremely alarming not only for yourself but for Mrs J! I would endorse the good doctors question and add one of my own; was it the same restaurant on both occasions? I certainly think you should seek medical advice as soon as possible!
And can I add my welcome to Mr Vik.
Thanks. Different restaurants every time. I believe each one has won awards or been on lists, which makes it funny - I'm fine with a chocolate bombe from the Ivy in Cambridge, but have a chocolate fondant at a well-regarded gastropub and I become ill...
Mrs J had the same pudding last night and was fine. As I said, it's been three or four times in ten years or so, so it's not frequent - but we don't eat out as often as we used to, either.
@JosiasJessop Allergies can suddenly develop. I had an episode two years ago after eating scallops. I thought it was a bad scallop. Son in law also had the scallops, with no ill effects. A few months ago, I tried them again, at a different restaurant, with the same effect. I now know to avoid scallops. Did the issue with dark chocolate puddings suddenly develop?
Well. Unless it's a straight line (and it isn't because the government does raise tax revenue) it must be some kind of curve. I presume you mean smooth? I have my doubts about the 100% too.
I mean we don't know if it rises and falls in a single smooth curve, or if there are peaks and valleys. There may in fact be step changes. Can it go below zero?
We know almost nothing about it, as it is only a theory.
We have lots of data from lots of countries and sub-national regions putting taxes up and down and then what happened subsequently. There are a small number of cases where a tax rise seemed not to increase tax income, but a larger number of cases where a tax rise increased income. There’s a large number of cases where tax cuts produced falls in tax income. The Laffer-approved Kansas experiment stands out here. Kansas slashed taxes and rapidly ran out of money.
Kansas had relatively low taxes already compared to many states and nations before they were cut even further.
The UK presently has the highest tax rates we've seen in 74 years.
Entirely reasonable to think Kansas could have been below the peak and the UK is presently past it.
The Laffer peak is clearly much higher in reality than it is in Laffer’s head. The tendency of the Right, particularly the Libertarian Right, to trot Laffer out to justify any and every tax cut is deluded. Truss hasn’t offered a detailed analysis of why her proposal will work, just the usual homilies.
The situation is complicated by the variety of different taxes. So, UK income taxes are much lower than they were in early 1979 (less than 74 years ago), but the total tax take is higher, with VAT being much higher, largely due to Conservative policies. Laffer arguments are usually presented in terms of a single tax at a time.
Most academic analyses of income tax rates argue the UK is below the peak. The total UK tax take is still lower than that in numerous successful economies around the world. Truss is offering fairy stories.
I find this idea that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector very strange.
I've worked for two huge organisations in the private sector, one is that red company. I can tell you for a fact it was one of the most bloated, inefficient operations I've ever seen.
The private sector is more than large businesses though.
The larger the business the more like the public sector it gets. More Byzantine, more bureaucratic etc.
It is smaller businesses that are the most agile and that is what the public sector lacks.
No the ideology is that private sector = efficient, public sector = inefficient. That is not true in practice.
Not true.
The ideology is that private sector = faces competition and allowed to fail, public sector = no real competition, not allowed to fail.
If the red company is inefficient the orange company can take it's customers. If the public sector is inefficient, it's "stakeholders" (I hate that term) have nowhere else to go typically.
Competition doesn't mean the private sector is automatically efficient, it encourages it by encouraging inefficient businesses to fail.
Failure in the private sector is the private sector working, not failing, which is why when the public sector stops the private firms from failing the free market is buggered.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
"If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely. "
95% of people don't have that luxury of course.
Oh, it exists at all levels.
For one thing, it prevents people moving from benefits into work at the lowest-end, because the benefit withdrawal rate is 60%+.
For regular average-Joe in the economy, it can be the difference between him deciding to take a risk to start-up a new business, work for a SME in a new technology field, or just that steady, predictable 9-5 in the local council.
I've looked in to this a lot from my own personal point of view. As far as I can see it there is a good incentive to earn up to about 90k per year, you can take home about 3k per month and put away 40k per year in to a private pension; you could also get a decent lease car etc.
Many people earning at that level however will have expensive lifestyles, won't pay that much in to a pension, and will be blowing the money they are earning and paying a lot of tax. So they won't really be building up much in the way of wealth.
The incentives this system creates is to prioritise minimising your overheads, ideally by working at home, not take on work that it is too demanding or involves too much travelling around, and pursue second income streams (ie through self employment).
I am not sure if this is the best situation economically, surely it would be better to have people earning more and spending more?
I find this idea that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector very strange.
I've worked for two huge organisations in the private sector, one is that red company. I can tell you for a fact it was one of the most bloated, inefficient operations I've ever seen.
The private sector is more than large businesses though.
The larger the business the more like the public sector it gets. More Byzantine, more bureaucratic etc.
It is smaller businesses that are the most agile and that is what the public sector lacks.
No the ideology is that private sector = efficient, public sector = inefficient. That is not true in practice.
Not true.
The ideology is that private sector = faces competition and allowed to fail, public sector = no real competition, not allowed to fail.
If the red company is inefficient the orange company can take it's customers. If the public sector is inefficient, it's "stakeholders" (I hate that term) have nowhere else to go typically.
Competition doesn't mean the private sector is automatically efficient, it encourages it by encouraging inefficient businesses to fail.
Failure in the private sector is the private sector working, not failing, which is why when the public sector stops the private firms from failing the free market is buggered.
I do not think you've actually ever worked for a large organisation. This does not happen.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
"If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely. "
95% of people don't have that luxury of course.
Indeed. Casino gave us a fascinating glimpse into the (selfish) Tory mindset there.
It is, of course, also a complete fallacy that high wages come from hard work. I do alright, but I don’t work anything like as hard as manual labourers or even more junior staff in my own organisation. For one thing I have the luxury of enjoying my job.
Higher salaries are linked to skills, not work ethic. Those who are convinced they are paid a lot because they work super hard are usually deluded.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
It definitely exists, the problem being that there are no units on either axis, so no one knows at what point we are on the curve, so it is not a useful tool in deciding whether higher or lower taxes would be better for government revenue.
The demographic aging, and need to fund decent pensions, health care and other services as a result means that state spending will have to go up in the next decade. Financing that gap is not easily matched with tax cuts.
All parties claim that economic growth because of their wise economic management will close that gap, but the evidence of that being possible is not well grounded in recent economic history. We have not grown enough, look like we are going to contract GDP on current trajectory, have failed on productivity, hence the combination of high taxes and threadbare public services.
As Mrs Thatcher might say, we have been living beyond our means, and must tighten our belts.
But, then it acts as a general drag on the economy.
If you increase tax to pay, say, for extra spending on pensions and the NHS, then you are taking resources away from the productive part of the economy to pay for the non-productive, which will lower growth.
Not nessecarily. Just because an economic activity takes place in the state sector doesn't mean it is unproductive. Much of the increase in GDP in recent figures were due to increased numbers of GP appointments for example.
Why should a private consultation with me be considered a productive task, but an NHS one not? Both are more economically useful than some private sector middleman taking financial benefit from a transaction while producing nothing but cost.
Pensions are effectively taxing working people to generate handouts to redistribute to people who are not working - a drag.
On the NHS, it depends if the health intervention is returning a productive member back to the economy (avoiding them becoming long-term sick, for example) or dealing with those who will never work again, but giving them palliative care for long-term conditions.
Now, there are good ethical cases for spending good money on both, but it's hard to argue they drive much growth.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Are you saying they don't work?
Clearly they are not the only solution but then wind or tidal aren't the only solutions either. They work together.
For somebody who apparently takes net zero seriously, it's odd that you seem to reject solutions that will help
No they don't work towards getting us to Net Zero.
Energy demand in this country peaks in the winter. It massively, massively, massively peaks in the winter. Solar power is not that useful in the winter, a little bit but not that much.
Solar power can be great economics so if there's a business case for it then great, go for it.
But as for taking climate change and net zero seriously? It is the homeopathic solution, it simply isn't credible. It is pure greenwashing, suggesting you're doing something cheap and easy rather than being serious.
This is literally nonsense. Clearly they work.
So what would you like to do?
No they don't work to get us to Net Zero any more than homeopathic solutions cure cancer.
What would I like to see us do? Major investment in technological change. Switch cars, heating, planes etc from burnable fuels to electricity (which will further spike our energy peak into the winter) or electricity-created fuel like hydrogen via electrolysis.
Invest in reliable, winter-friendly energy sources including wind, tidal, nuclear and storage. Solar can play a bit part where its economic.
The idea that wind doesn't work on non windy days isn't that big of a problem with reliable storage as lots of storage should last a few days or a week or more, with other reliable power providing a baseline. Storage for months on end, keeping solar energy from July to power February though isn't viable.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
I have a bridge for sale.
To be fair, my firm (one of the Big 4) has said tax cuts could act as a stimulus.
Corporation tax was cut by Osbourne - I don't remember seeing it working as a stimulus during the austerity years - if it had tax revenue would have increased and austerity could have been stopped earlier...
My recollection, and I confess I can't be arsed to look for the figures when the ODI is about to start, is that the take from CT did increase after Osborne's cuts but not in a tremendously exciting way. Part of this was because taxes were recovering from the offset of losses accrued during the GFC, particularly in banking, and partly because it made declaring profits in the UK rather than, say, Ireland, slightly more attractive.
As with most things in economics these examples show that the ceteris is almost never paribus and there are far too many intervening factors to be confident about cause and effect in the real world.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Solar panels can be part of the answer, but the case is much weaker in the UK. They have an average of 50% built-in obsolescence (because it is dark) but that is much higher in winter when the power is needed for heating. Mostly when the sun has gone down.....
OTOH when the sun is shining the wind is not usually blowing much so there is some offset here on the variability of wind. In the last few days we have been generating more solar than wind. According to gridwtch itis currently 14% solar and 10% wind.
Here's a fun video from the BBC Archives of Bob Hoskins talking to Barry Norman about Michael Heseltine's Docklands regeneration plan in 1982. Bob's not impressed.
If/When Truss is made leader there will be a leadership election next summer imho.
She will be a disaster. Out of her depth. She the worst of Johnson's fantasy politics combined with robotic May Bot public skills and the likely popularity of IDS.
Truss will totally bomb with the public.
The membership must be mad to be even considering her let alone make her favourite.
Does it not depend in the end on whom she appoints to her cabinet? If she appoints competent ministers, who can discuss issues rationally and come to sound decisions round the table, then a Truss administration might work well enough.
The fact that Johnson brought together a gang of incompetent, self-serving tax-dodgers just underlines what a total loser the man was and still is.
So the key to choosing between Truss and Sunak is to know who is going to be in their cabinets. Surely they should inform the Conservative membership, and indeed the general public. If they do not, this surely means that they are promising cabinet posts to everybody, in order to win their short-term backing. And this means that neither Truss nor Sunak is to be trusted.
There has been much speculation about the various reasons why Boris can't make a return and frankly Boris loyalists both within the party and Conservative voters don't care about them. Indeed many in the wider electorate don't either. Indeed when Truss fails as night follows day, there might be a sentimental and nostalgic rewriting of history as Boris readies himself for a repeat performance. Except ....
The huge elephant in the room and complete disqualification is the straw that broke the camel's back - Hhhmmm ... Elephants and camels .... Now for the political stink of a skunk !!
As more detail emerges and criminal charges proceed the public will not tolerate a man who protected a sexual predator to save his own political skin. Care home scandals, grooming gangs, police corruption and rampant incompetence, Jimmy Savile and now a Prime Minister making light of sexual assault and covering for a government pervert.
Question - Would you trust Boris to safeguard your loved ones from a sexual predator if it meant Boris would remain or come back as Prime Minister? We know the answer to the first part .....
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
I have a bridge for sale.
To be fair, my firm (one of the Big 4) has said tax cuts could act as a stimulus.
Corporation tax was cut by Osbourne - I don't remember seeing it working as a stimulus during the austerity years - if it had tax revenue would have increased and austerity could have been stopped earlier...
My recollection, and I confess I can't be arsed to look for the figures when the ODI is about to start, is that the take from CT did increase after Osborne's cuts but not in a tremendously exciting way. Part of this was because taxes were recovering from the offset of losses accrued during the GFC, particularly in banking, and partly because it made declaring profits in the UK rather than, say, Ireland, slightly more attractive.
As with most things in economics these examples show that the ceteris is almost never paribus and there are far too many intervening factors to be confident about cause and effect in the real world.
Indeed CT revenues did rise after CT rates were cut, but as you say identifying cause and effect is tough.
However one issue is that people obsess only on one tax and forget the plethora of others that raise revenues.
If CT is cut and a business expands then the Exchequer can benefit not just from higher CT from a lower rate, but even if CT take itself is marginally lower it may be gaining from extra VAT, extra PAYE, lower welfare payments etc
Raise NI and people cut back on disposable expenditure leading to retrenchment then the Exchequer takes some NI but loses VAT, duties, PAYE etc
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I think the subsidies were eliminated because they'd done their job -- increased the incentive to early adopters, stimulate demand and helped get the panel-installation industry going so that we were ready for now that panel manufacturing costs are low and the sector is self-sustaining without subsidy. I agree we don't really need to reintroduce them, but that's not because panels don't work, it's because there are other fields more in need of the government investment to kick-start and backstop development that isn't yet viable as a purely commercial undertaking.
I find this idea that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector very strange.
I've worked for two huge organisations in the private sector, one is that red company. I can tell you for a fact it was one of the most bloated, inefficient operations I've ever seen.
The private sector is more than large businesses though.
The larger the business the more like the public sector it gets. More Byzantine, more bureaucratic etc.
It is smaller businesses that are the most agile and that is what the public sector lacks.
I know some small businesses that are very inefficient too…
I’m working on a project proposal in digital health where we’re looking at how the public sector, the private sector (which in digital health largely means SMEs) and the third sector can all work together better. I’m quite proud of the specific ideas we have, and I think it’s this sort of detailed work that can be beneficial to the economy at large (as well as to people’s health).
But it’s this sort of detailed work where top-down ideology from government rarely helps. In particular, populist “we’ve had enough of experts” nonsense is very detrimental. What we need is government sitting down with all relevant stakeholders. But then I’m a boring liberal centrist.
Off topic, can any of the Apple boys on here advise on an iPad problem? Auto fill passwords has never worked despite being switched on and off, so I tend to leave tabs open and logged in. However every so often it goes through a frenzy of kicking me out of sites and requiring me to log in again, 3 times so far this am. Any advice gratefully received.
The track record of the private sector when it takes over public sector functions isn't very impressive. Workers are paid less, bosses are paid more, and services deteriorate. Even the Tories had to admit that the private sector made a pig's ear of the Probation Service. And as for Capita.....
What I'd find really helpful for my betting is a breakdown of Conservative Party membership demographics.
I'm assuming those still in work and paying off mortgages will go for Sunak, but will be outnumbered by those 55+ who do neither and rather fancy higher interest on their savings.
I’d love to see a breakdown of Con membership by country.
Guesstimate: England 90% Wales 5% Scotland 2% NI + overseas 3%
Scotland has eight per cent of the population so let us take that as a baseline. Wales has about five per cent of the population which accords with your estimate. If wealth is a driver of Conservative membership, and Scotland one of the wealthier parts of Britain, then there might be a lot more Scottish Conservatives than you estimate, even into double figures. That said, Conservative Party membership increased by half in 2018 or 19, and perhaps Brexit was the driver there, which might not favour Scotland.
If/When Truss is made leader there will be a leadership election next summer imho.
She will be a disaster. Out of her depth. She the worst of Johnson's fantasy politics combined with robotic May Bot public skills and the likely popularity of IDS.
Truss will totally bomb with the public.
The membership must be mad to be even considering her let alone make her favourite.
Does it not depend in the end on whom she appoints to her cabinet? If she appoints competent ministers, who can discuss issues rationally and come to sound decisions round the table, then a Truss administration might work well enough.
The fact that Johnson brought together a gang of incompetent, self-serving tax-dodgers just underlines what a total loser the man was and still is.
So the key to choosing between Truss and Sunak is to know who is going to be in their cabinets. Surely they should inform the Conservative membership, and indeed the general public. If they do not, this surely means that they are promising cabinet posts to everybody, in order to win their short-term backing. And this means that neither Truss nor Sunak is to be trusted.
Mogg and Nadine are presumably only supporting her because they have been promised jobs.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Solar panels can be part of the answer, but the case is much weaker in the UK. They have an average of 50% built-in obsolescence (because it is dark) but that is much higher in winter when the power is needed for heating. Mostly when the sun has gone down.....
OTOH when the sun is shining the wind is not usually blowing much so there is some offset here on the variability of wind. In the last few days we have been generating more solar than wind. According to gridwtch itis currently 14% solar and 10% wind.
Aye it can be helpful in the Summer but even then conditions have been fairly optimal for solar and even then it's still a small fraction of our energy and only barely ahead of wind. And our energy demand is lower right now.
In December to February when our energy demand is at its peak, especially once we have electrical heating but it already peaks then, it isn't even close.
Invest in it if it's economic but not for "Green" reasons.
If/When Truss is made leader there will be a leadership election next summer imho.
She will be a disaster. Out of her depth. She the worst of Johnson's fantasy politics combined with robotic May Bot public skills and the likely popularity of IDS.
Truss will totally bomb with the public.
The membership must be mad to be even considering her let alone make her favourite.
Does it not depend in the end on whom she appoints to her cabinet? If she appoints competent ministers, who can discuss issues rationally and come to sound decisions round the table, then a Truss administration might work well enough.
The fact that Johnson brought together a gang of incompetent, self-serving tax-dodgers just underlines what a total loser the man was and still is.
So the key to choosing between Truss and Sunak is to know who is going to be in their cabinets. Surely they should inform the Conservative membership, and indeed the general public. If they do not, this surely means that they are promising cabinet posts to everybody, in order to win their short-term backing. And this means that neither Truss nor Sunak is to be trusted.
Mogg and Nadine are presumably only supporting her because they have been promised jobs.
Mogg and Nadine are only supporting her because they know anyone else would have them out of Government 30 seconds after the announcement that xyz was leader...
What I'd find really helpful for my betting is a breakdown of Conservative Party membership demographics.
I'm assuming those still in work and paying off mortgages will go for Sunak, but will be outnumbered by those 55+ who do neither and rather fancy higher interest on their savings.
The average is 57 apparently.
Ta. Source?
Sorry can't remember. I think it was mentioned in New Statesman, possibly by Andrew Marr recently. It was an academic study, so maybe Tim Bale?
What I'd find really helpful for my betting is a breakdown of Conservative Party membership demographics.
I'm assuming those still in work and paying off mortgages will go for Sunak, but will be outnumbered by those 55+ who do neither and rather fancy higher interest on their savings.
I’d love to see a breakdown of Con membership by country.
Guesstimate: England 90% Wales 5% Scotland 2% NI + overseas 3%
There are plenty of figures here:
Scotland membership is a chart, so not sure exactly, although I think I remember 5-6% which does look to match.
"Former President Trump’s top allies are preparing to radically reshape the federal government if he is re-elected, purging potentially thousands of civil servants and filling career posts with loyalists to him and his "America First” ideology, people involved in the discussions tell Axios."
"He remains fixated on the “stolen” 2020 election. He cannot stop talking about it, no matter how many allies advise him it would serve his political interests to move on. Most have stopped trying."
What I'd find really helpful for my betting is a breakdown of Conservative Party membership demographics.
I'm assuming those still in work and paying off mortgages will go for Sunak, but will be outnumbered by those 55+ who do neither and rather fancy higher interest on their savings.
I’d love to see a breakdown of Con membership by country.
Guesstimate: England 90% Wales 5% Scotland 2% NI + overseas 3%
Scotland has eight per cent of the population so let us take that as a baseline. Wales has about five per cent of the population which accords with your estimate. If wealth is a driver of Conservative membership, and Scotland one of the wealthier parts of Britain, then there might be a lot more Scottish Conservatives than you estimate, even into double figures. That said, Conservative Party membership increased by half in 2018 or 19, and perhaps Brexit was the driver there, which might not favour Scotland.
Didn’t someone recently post a newspaper headline that SCon membership was 6% of total? Not sure how they calculated that mind as the SCons are afaicr extremely chary about revealing numbers.
Hang on - so we’ve taken back control of our borders cos we no longer want to be part of the EU, but Grant Shapps still expects the French to let us come and go as we please across their border. Have I got that right? As they say somewhere, quel culot ce mec https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1551113091580059653/photo/1
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Solar panels can be part of the answer, but the case is much weaker in the UK. They have an average of 50% built-in obsolescence (because it is dark) but that is much higher in winter when the power is needed for heating. Mostly when the sun has gone down.....
OTOH when the sun is shining the wind is not usually blowing much so there is some offset here on the variability of wind. In the last few days we have been generating more solar than wind. According to gridwtch itis currently 14% solar and 10% wind.
Aye it can be helpful in the Summer but even then conditions have been fairly optimal for solar and even then it's still a small fraction of our energy and only barely ahead of wind. And our energy demand is lower right now.
In December to February when our energy demand is at its peak, especially once we have electrical heating but it already peaks then, it isn't even close.
Invest in it if it's economic but not for "Green" reasons.
The UK is not SoCal.
Wind, Tide, Solar. All must play a part in UK renewables.
Emergent technologies to produce hydrocarbons from water and CO2 using electricity will be the game-changer, allowing effective storage of surplus electricity produced when the sun shines or the wind blows.
The ideal would be a rapturous return of Tory allegiance to Boris after election defeat in 2024, followed by a generation out of office with Koko the Clown as leader of the opposition. Is there any chance he could actually do it in costume, I wonder? I suppose not even the Tories are that crazy.
My biggest issue with things like rebates for electric cars and solar panels is that they benefit the rich, as only the rich can afford them at the moment. If you're not rich there's no way you can take advantage of these subsidies, but you still pay for the richer people to have them.
I think this has been particularly pernicious wrt electric cars.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Solar panels can be part of the answer, but the case is much weaker in the UK. They have an average of 50% built-in obsolescence (because it is dark) but that is much higher in winter when the power is needed for heating. Mostly when the sun has gone down.....
OTOH when the sun is shining the wind is not usually blowing much so there is some offset here on the variability of wind. In the last few days we have been generating more solar than wind. According to gridwtch itis currently 14% solar and 10% wind.
Aye it can be helpful in the Summer but even then conditions have been fairly optimal for solar and even then it's still a small fraction of our energy and only barely ahead of wind. And our energy demand is lower right now.
In December to February when our energy demand is at its peak, especially once we have electrical heating but it already peaks then, it isn't even close.
Invest in it if it's economic but not for "Green" reasons.
The UK is not SoCal.
Wind, Tide, Solar. All must play a part in UK renewables.
Emergent technologies to produce hydrocarbons from water and CO2 using electricity will be the game-changer, allowing effective storage of surplus electricity produced when the sun shines or the wind blows.
We cannot rely on emergent technologies, as all too often they don't actually emerge. We have to research and develop the sh*t out of things, but also go full-steam ahead on what we know works today.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Solar panels can be part of the answer, but the case is much weaker in the UK. They have an average of 50% built-in obsolescence (because it is dark) but that is much higher in winter when the power is needed for heating. Mostly when the sun has gone down.....
OTOH when the sun is shining the wind is not usually blowing much so there is some offset here on the variability of wind. In the last few days we have been generating more solar than wind. According to gridwtch itis currently 14% solar and 10% wind.
Aye it can be helpful in the Summer but even then conditions have been fairly optimal for solar and even then it's still a small fraction of our energy and only barely ahead of wind. And our energy demand is lower right now.
In December to February when our energy demand is at its peak, especially once we have electrical heating but it already peaks then, it isn't even close.
Invest in it if it's economic but not for "Green" reasons.
The UK is not SoCal.
Wind, Tide, Solar. All must play a part in UK renewables.
Emergent technologies to produce hydrocarbons from water and CO2 using electricity will be the game-changer, allowing effective storage of surplus electricity produced when the sun shines or the wind blows.
I agree with almost all of that, but I believe that solar is the placebo of the lot of them.
It is "green" energy for people who aren't taking Net Zero seriously and want to do something for the sake of doing something.
Surplus wind going into electrolysis is my view of the end state and we are surely not far from that. Once we get that, it's a game changer. And that's why we should be going hell for leather for offshore wind especially.
The track record of the private sector when it takes over public sector functions isn't very impressive. Workers are paid less, bosses are paid more, and services deteriorate. Even the Tories had to admit that the private sector made a pig's ear of the Probation Service. And as for Capita.....
This rarely works. Most of the time you just pay for another layer of management, introduce further complexity through contractural disputes, and have to make profit where you didn't before. The people that get squeezed are those that actually have to do the job, and the companies involved find that they cannot hire anyone competent to do the work on the appauling terms they offer. The whole thing regularly ends up in disaster.
To give you an idea of the farce, I have knowledge of a Council where the members got fed up with its planning officers and sacked the manager, with the senior officers resigning shortly afterwards. Members threw money at the situation by bringing in a well known outsourcing firm to take over the function. It has ended up with a situation whereby the planning officers present the cases by video link from hundreds of miles away, having only looked at the site on streetview. Looking at their linkedin profiles, they have about 1 years experience, they have little or no authority and are very poor at answering questions.
I saw another outsourcing experiment where a company required officers to undertake 12 planning decisions per week to meet targets, paying them £25k per year. The performance expectation in a similar permanent role would normally be 3-5. Of course, this was a complete fantasy and a complete failure.
My overall opinion is that ideology on private vs public is a load of rubbish.
There are good private sector organisations - and bad ones. And there are good public sector organisations - and bad ones.
I don't think anyone seriously thinks the Tube would be any more efficient or less efficient if it were privatised.
My own rough rule of thumb is that things that are natural monopolies, key strategic industries or sectors where a profit motive could create perverse incentives should all have an element of national ownership to at least some degree (whether that be Government stake, or outright ownership). Everything else can be left to the market. Not to say the market can't be involved in areas of the above, just that the Government should ensure those areas run properly.
I suspect this is an overly simplistic way of looking at things, but it seems sensible to me.
If/When Truss is made leader there will be a leadership election next summer imho.
She will be a disaster. Out of her depth. She the worst of Johnson's fantasy politics combined with robotic May Bot public skills and the likely popularity of IDS.
Truss will totally bomb with the public.
The membership must be mad to be even considering her let alone make her favourite.
Does it not depend in the end on whom she appoints to her cabinet? If she appoints competent ministers, who can discuss issues rationally and come to sound decisions round the table, then a Truss administration might work well enough.
The fact that Johnson brought together a gang of incompetent, self-serving tax-dodgers just underlines what a total loser the man was and still is.
So the key to choosing between Truss and Sunak is to know who is going to be in their cabinets. Surely they should inform the Conservative membership, and indeed the general public. If they do not, this surely means that they are promising cabinet posts to everybody, in order to win their short-term backing. And this means that neither Truss nor Sunak is to be trusted.
Mogg and Nadine are presumably only supporting her because they have been promised jobs.
Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dorries are Team Big Dog, which hates Rishi Sunak. That might be enough to explain their support for his opponent, without promises of jobs. It has also been speculated that one or both might be in line for ermine in Boris's resignation honours list. Dorries is old enough, and Rees-Mogg rich enough, to retire from active politics.
My biggest issue with things like rebates for electric cars and solar panels is that they benefit the rich, as only the rich can afford them at the moment. If you're not rich there's no way you can take advantage of these subsidies, but you still pay for the richer people to have them.
I think this has been particularly pernicious wrt electric cars.
Rebates for new technologies can make sense as it allows the new technology to be developed to the point that it's then economic without the rebate. It's pump priming a new tech.
The only viable way to reach Net Zero is emergent technologies so we need to do what it takes to make those emergent techs get here.
Even Boris Johnson was not an adept enough storyteller to sell “levelling up” to the British public. Opinion polls of “red-wall” voters find that the Conservative Party is distrusted on his signature policy https://econ.st/3ySFHec
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Are you saying they don't work?
Clearly they are not the only solution but then wind or tidal aren't the only solutions either. They work together.
For somebody who apparently takes net zero seriously, it's odd that you seem to reject solutions that will help
No they don't work towards getting us to Net Zero.
Energy demand in this country peaks in the winter. It massively, massively, massively peaks in the winter. Solar power is not that useful in the winter, a little bit but not that much.
Solar power can be great economics so if there's a business case for it then great, go for it.
But as for taking climate change and net zero seriously? It is the homeopathic solution, it simply isn't credible. It is pure greenwashing, suggesting you're doing something cheap and easy rather than being serious.
I agree, unless there is an unforeseen revolutionary technical breakthrough in energy storage or a new source of green energy the only workable solution towards net zero is a lot (and I mean a lot) of nuclear power generation.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Solar panels can be part of the answer, but the case is much weaker in the UK. They have an average of 50% built-in obsolescence (because it is dark) but that is much higher in winter when the power is needed for heating. Mostly when the sun has gone down.....
OTOH when the sun is shining the wind is not usually blowing much so there is some offset here on the variability of wind. In the last few days we have been generating more solar than wind. According to gridwtch itis currently 14% solar and 10% wind.
Aye it can be helpful in the Summer but even then conditions have been fairly optimal for solar and even then it's still a small fraction of our energy and only barely ahead of wind. And our energy demand is lower right now.
In December to February when our energy demand is at its peak, especially once we have electrical heating but it already peaks then, it isn't even close.
Invest in it if it's economic but not for "Green" reasons.
The UK is not SoCal.
Wind, Tide, Solar. All must play a part in UK renewables.
Emergent technologies to produce hydrocarbons from water and CO2 using electricity will be the game-changer, allowing effective storage of surplus electricity produced when the sun shines or the wind blows.
I agree with almost all of that, but I believe that solar is the placebo of the lot of them.
It is "green" energy for people who aren't taking Net Zero seriously and want to do something for the sake of doing something.
Surplus wind going into electrolysis is my view of the end state and we are surely not far from that. Once we get that, it's a game changer. And that's why we should be going hell for leather for offshore wind especially.
I disagree, at current electricity rates our PV panels would be cost effective without the tariffs. We are all electric though, as no mains gas in our village.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Solar panels can be part of the answer, but the case is much weaker in the UK. They have an average of 50% built-in obsolescence (because it is dark) but that is much higher in winter when the power is needed for heating. Mostly when the sun has gone down.....
OTOH when the sun is shining the wind is not usually blowing much so there is some offset here on the variability of wind. In the last few days we have been generating more solar than wind. According to gridwtch itis currently 14% solar and 10% wind.
Aye it can be helpful in the Summer but even then conditions have been fairly optimal for solar and even then it's still a small fraction of our energy and only barely ahead of wind. And our energy demand is lower right now.
In December to February when our energy demand is at its peak, especially once we have electrical heating but it already peaks then, it isn't even close.
Invest in it if it's economic but not for "Green" reasons.
The UK is not SoCal.
Wind, Tide, Solar. All must play a part in UK renewables.
Emergent technologies to produce hydrocarbons from water and CO2 using electricity will be the game-changer, allowing effective storage of surplus electricity produced when the sun shines or the wind blows.
We cannot rely on emergent technologies, as all too often they don't actually emerge. We have to research and develop the sh*t out of things, but also go full-steam ahead on what we know works today.
How do you produce full-steam from not burning things? Nuclear!!
If/When Truss is made leader there will be a leadership election next summer imho.
She will be a disaster. Out of her depth. She the worst of Johnson's fantasy politics combined with robotic May Bot public skills and the likely popularity of IDS.
Truss will totally bomb with the public.
The membership must be mad to be even considering her let alone make her favourite.
Does it not depend in the end on whom she appoints to her cabinet? If she appoints competent ministers, who can discuss issues rationally and come to sound decisions round the table, then a Truss administration might work well enough.
The fact that Johnson brought together a gang of incompetent, self-serving tax-dodgers just underlines what a total loser the man was and still is.
So the key to choosing between Truss and Sunak is to know who is going to be in their cabinets. Surely they should inform the Conservative membership, and indeed the general public. If they do not, this surely means that they are promising cabinet posts to everybody, in order to win their short-term backing. And this means that neither Truss nor Sunak is to be trusted.
Mogg and Nadine are presumably only supporting her because they have been promised jobs.
On that basis, everybody should vote against Truss. Her only hope is to deny it, and state clearly who would be in her cabinet.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Solar panels can be part of the answer, but the case is much weaker in the UK. They have an average of 50% built-in obsolescence (because it is dark) but that is much higher in winter when the power is needed for heating. Mostly when the sun has gone down.....
OTOH when the sun is shining the wind is not usually blowing much so there is some offset here on the variability of wind. In the last few days we have been generating more solar than wind. According to gridwtch itis currently 14% solar and 10% wind.
Aye it can be helpful in the Summer but even then conditions have been fairly optimal for solar and even then it's still a small fraction of our energy and only barely ahead of wind. And our energy demand is lower right now.
In December to February when our energy demand is at its peak, especially once we have electrical heating but it already peaks then, it isn't even close.
Invest in it if it's economic but not for "Green" reasons.
The UK is not SoCal.
Wind, Tide, Solar. All must play a part in UK renewables.
Emergent technologies to produce hydrocarbons from water and CO2 using electricity will be the game-changer, allowing effective storage of surplus electricity produced when the sun shines or the wind blows.
I agree with almost all of that, but I believe that solar is the placebo of the lot of them.
It is "green" energy for people who aren't taking Net Zero seriously and want to do something for the sake of doing something.
Surplus wind going into electrolysis is my view of the end state and we are surely not far from that. Once we get that, it's a game changer. And that's why we should be going hell for leather for offshore wind especially.
If you can do surplus wind going into electrolysis, why can't you do surplus solar going into electrolysis?
It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
She is just a massive opportunist who will say whatever is needed at a particular time.
Rawnsley in today's Observer lays out all the twists and u-turns she has taken in her political life.
The Tories seem to have concluded that the problem wasn't the lies, the hypocrisy, the fantasy politics, but merely the individual liar, and so are going to try us out on fantasy politics mark two
Has Truss said that she will reverse the NI rate increase announced in September 2021 and the increase in thresholds announced in this year’s spring statement? Or just the former? I had assumed the threshold increases were in response to the political fall out of the rate rise and so the two are linked.
The track record of the private sector when it takes over public sector functions isn't very impressive. Workers are paid less, bosses are paid more, and services deteriorate. Even the Tories had to admit that the private sector made a pig's ear of the Probation Service. And as for Capita.....
The critical factor isn't private sector versus public sector.
Its where the revenue comes from.
When it comes from the government inefficiencies increase and service is bad because the supplier can get away with it.
When it comes from the private sector then anyone providing bad service or operating inefficiently will ultimately lose out to a better competitor.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
It definitely exists, the problem being that there are no units on either axis, so no one knows at what point we are on the curve, so it is not a useful tool in deciding whether higher or lower taxes would be better for government revenue.
The demographic aging, and need to fund decent pensions, health care and other services as a result means that state spending will have to go up in the next decade. Financing that gap is not easily matched with tax cuts.
All parties claim that economic growth because of their wise economic management will close that gap, but the evidence of that being possible is not well grounded in recent economic history. We have not grown enough, look like we are going to contract GDP on current trajectory, have failed on productivity, hence the combination of high taxes and threadbare public services.
As Mrs Thatcher might say, we have been living beyond our means, and must tighten our belts.
But, then it acts as a general drag on the economy.
If you increase tax to pay, say, for extra spending on pensions and the NHS, then you are taking resources away from the productive part of the economy to pay for the non-productive, which will lower growth.
Not nessecarily. Just because an economic activity takes place in the state sector doesn't mean it is unproductive. Much of the increase in GDP in recent figures were due to increased numbers of GP appointments for example.
Why should a private consultation with me be considered a productive task, but an NHS one not? Both are more economically useful than some private sector middleman taking financial benefit from a transaction while producing nothing but cost.
Pensions are effectively taxing working people to generate handouts to redistribute to people who are not working - a drag.
On the NHS, it depends if the health intervention is returning a productive member back to the economy (avoiding them becoming long-term sick, for example) or dealing with those who will never work again, but giving them palliative care for long-term conditions.
Now, there are good ethical cases for spending good money on both, but it's hard to argue they drive much growth.
How we measure growth is tricky. If I, through some clever marketing, convince people to buy some average headphones at a higher price because branding, then I have contributed to an increase in GDP, even though I've not done anything to increase growth.
If I improve a bunch of Wikipedia pages on statistics in my own time... well, lots of people use Wikipedia, so better, clearer pages means increased efficiency. But that isn't recorded in GDP.
Pensioners may contribute to growth in many ways, passing on their wisdom, doing childcare, spending their money on goods and services. Working people may not contribute to growth when their work is counterproductive to the economy.
It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
She is just a massive opportunist who will say whatever is needed at a particular time.
Rawnsley in today's Observer lays out all the twists and u-turns she has taken in her political life.
The Tories seem to have concluded that the problem wasn't the lies, the hypocrisy, the fantasy politics, but merely the individual liar, and so are going to try us out on fantasy politics mark two
Tory party members prefer the days of Jelly and Ice Cream to continue rather than face the actual reality.
The track record of the private sector when it takes over public sector functions isn't very impressive. Workers are paid less, bosses are paid more, and services deteriorate. Even the Tories had to admit that the private sector made a pig's ear of the Probation Service. And as for Capita.....
The problem of outsourcing in the public sector is that the customer is not the user, it is the government. This is done on price rather than quality, with minimal lip service to quality measures.
We therefore create a system that fails in consumer responsiveness, while incentivises the contractor to skimp on services and screw the workers pay and conditions in order to profit and pay themselves bonuses.
I have seen this in the NHS but it is a feature of outsourcing in other sectors too. It is a system combining the worst of the public and private sectors rather than the best of each.
It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
She is just a massive opportunist who will say whatever is needed at a particular time.
Rawnsley in today's Observer lays out all the twists and u-turns she has taken in her political life.
The Tories seem to have concluded that the problem wasn't the lies, the hypocrisy, the fantasy politics, but merely the individual liar, and so are going to try us out on fantasy politics mark two
What brought Boris down was his 'one rule for you and another rule for me' mentality.
And his unwillingness to even keep quiet about it.
Liars and fantasists are expected in politics - it only becomes damaging when it leads to a betrayal of their own voters.
I find this idea that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector very strange.
I've worked for two huge organisations in the private sector, one is that red company. I can tell you for a fact it was one of the most bloated, inefficient operations I've ever seen.
The private sector is more than large businesses though.
The larger the business the more like the public sector it gets. More Byzantine, more bureaucratic etc.
It is smaller businesses that are the most agile and that is what the public sector lacks.
No the ideology is that private sector = efficient, public sector = inefficient. That is not true in practice.
Not true.
The ideology is that private sector = faces competition and allowed to fail, public sector = no real competition, not allowed to fail.
If the red company is inefficient the orange company can take it's customers. If the public sector is inefficient, it's "stakeholders" (I hate that term) have nowhere else to go typically.
Competition doesn't mean the private sector is automatically efficient, it encourages it by encouraging inefficient businesses to fail.
Failure in the private sector is the private sector working, not failing, which is why when the public sector stops the private firms from failing the free market is buggered.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
It definitely exists, the problem being that there are no units on either axis, so no one knows at what point we are on the curve, so it is not a useful tool in deciding whether higher or lower taxes would be better for government revenue.
The demographic aging, and need to fund decent pensions, health care and other services as a result means that state spending will have to go up in the next decade. Financing that gap is not easily matched with tax cuts.
All parties claim that economic growth because of their wise economic management will close that gap, but the evidence of that being possible is not well grounded in recent economic history. We have not grown enough, look like we are going to contract GDP on current trajectory, have failed on productivity, hence the combination of high taxes and threadbare public services.
As Mrs Thatcher might say, we have been living beyond our means, and must tighten our belts.
But, then it acts as a general drag on the economy.
If you increase tax to pay, say, for extra spending on pensions and the NHS, then you are taking resources away from the productive part of the economy to pay for the non-productive, which will lower growth.
Not nessecarily. Just because an economic activity takes place in the state sector doesn't mean it is unproductive. Much of the increase in GDP in recent figures were due to increased numbers of GP appointments for example.
Why should a private consultation with me be considered a productive task, but an NHS one not? Both are more economically useful than some private sector middleman taking financial benefit from a transaction while producing nothing but cost.
Pensions are effectively taxing working people to generate handouts to redistribute to people who are not working - a drag.
On the NHS, it depends if the health intervention is returning a productive member back to the economy (avoiding them becoming long-term sick, for example) or dealing with those who will never work again, but giving them palliative care for long-term conditions.
Now, there are good ethical cases for spending good money on both, but it's hard to argue they drive much growth.
I appreciate that in the ideal capitalist world that people would die immediately after retiring, but the real world people are less obliging.
Treating the retired is an economic benefit to the country because it reduces either the cost of other disability benefits or frees up informal carers to return to economically useful work, depending on the amount of welfare state.
You do miss my point though. Why is a private medical consultation economically productive and a state one not? Why is an accountant economically productive in a bank, but not in a council while doing the same job?
The idea that state expenditure is economically unproductive and private is productive is just wrong.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
It definitely exists, the problem being that there are no units on either axis, so no one knows at what point we are on the curve, so it is not a useful tool in deciding whether higher or lower taxes would be better for government revenue.
The demographic aging, and need to fund decent pensions, health care and other services as a result means that state spending will have to go up in the next decade. Financing that gap is not easily matched with tax cuts.
All parties claim that economic growth because of their wise economic management will close that gap, but the evidence of that being possible is not well grounded in recent economic history. We have not grown enough, look like we are going to contract GDP on current trajectory, have failed on productivity, hence the combination of high taxes and threadbare public services.
As Mrs Thatcher might say, we have been living beyond our means, and must tighten our belts.
But, then it acts as a general drag on the economy.
If you increase tax to pay, say, for extra spending on pensions and the NHS, then you are taking resources away from the productive part of the economy to pay for the non-productive, which will lower growth.
Not nessecarily. Just because an economic activity takes place in the state sector doesn't mean it is unproductive. Much of the increase in GDP in recent figures were due to increased numbers of GP appointments for example.
Why should a private consultation with me be considered a productive task, but an NHS one not? Both are more economically useful than some private sector middleman taking financial benefit from a transaction while producing nothing but cost.
Pensions are effectively taxing working people to generate handouts to redistribute to people who are not working - a drag.
On the NHS, it depends if the health intervention is returning a productive member back to the economy (avoiding them becoming long-term sick, for example) or dealing with those who will never work again, but giving them palliative care for long-term conditions.
Now, there are good ethical cases for spending good money on both, but it's hard to argue they drive much growth.
How we measure growth is tricky. If I, through some clever marketing, convince people to buy some average headphones at a higher price because branding, then I have contributed to an increase in GDP, even though I've not done anything to increase growth.
If I improve a bunch of Wikipedia pages on statistics in my own time... well, lots of people use Wikipedia, so better, clearer pages means increased efficiency. But that isn't recorded in GDP.
Pensioners may contribute to growth in many ways, passing on their wisdom, doing childcare, spending their money on goods and services. Working people may not contribute to growth when their work is counterproductive to the economy.
Working age people do more of the passing on wisdom and doing childcare than the retired, and also spend a far higher proportion of their money each year.
My overall opinion is that ideology on private vs public is a load of rubbish.
There are good private sector organisations - and bad ones. And there are good public sector organisations - and bad ones.
I don't think anyone seriously thinks the Tube would be any more efficient or less efficient if it were privatised.
I agree, I don't think the division is between private and public - I think it's between private or public demand, as opposed to private or public supply.
In a utility where the Government remains the client, where 'demand' is still public, outsourcing to the private sector has few inherent virtues. Like cleaning in the NHS.
In a utility where the Government stops being the client, and instead the public start being the customers, so demand flows from them, that has an inherent virtue, because the utility then has to adjust to public demand and compete on price etc. Like telecoms etc.
Debates about privatisation tend to miss this obvious distinction for some reason.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
It definitely exists, the problem being that there are no units on either axis, so no one knows at what point we are on the curve, so it is not a useful tool in deciding whether higher or lower taxes would be better for government revenue.
The demographic aging, and need to fund decent pensions, health care and other services as a result means that state spending will have to go up in the next decade. Financing that gap is not easily matched with tax cuts.
All parties claim that economic growth because of their wise economic management will close that gap, but the evidence of that being possible is not well grounded in recent economic history. We have not grown enough, look like we are going to contract GDP on current trajectory, have failed on productivity, hence the combination of high taxes and threadbare public services.
As Mrs Thatcher might say, we have been living beyond our means, and must tighten our belts.
But, then it acts as a general drag on the economy.
If you increase tax to pay, say, for extra spending on pensions and the NHS, then you are taking resources away from the productive part of the economy to pay for the non-productive, which will lower growth.
Not nessecarily. Just because an economic activity takes place in the state sector doesn't mean it is unproductive. Much of the increase in GDP in recent figures were due to increased numbers of GP appointments for example.
Why should a private consultation with me be considered a productive task, but an NHS one not? Both are more economically useful than some private sector middleman taking financial benefit from a transaction while producing nothing but cost.
Pensions are effectively taxing working people to generate handouts to redistribute to people who are not working - a drag.
On the NHS, it depends if the health intervention is returning a productive member back to the economy (avoiding them becoming long-term sick, for example) or dealing with those who will never work again, but giving them palliative care for long-term conditions.
Now, there are good ethical cases for spending good money on both, but it's hard to argue they drive much growth.
How we measure growth is tricky. If I, through some clever marketing, convince people to buy some average headphones at a higher price because branding, then I have contributed to an increase in GDP, even though I've not done anything to increase growth.
If I improve a bunch of Wikipedia pages on statistics in my own time... well, lots of people use Wikipedia, so better, clearer pages means increased efficiency. But that isn't recorded in GDP.
Pensioners may contribute to growth in many ways, passing on their wisdom, doing childcare, spending their money on goods and services. Working people may not contribute to growth when their work is counterproductive to the economy.
Working age people do more of the passing on wisdom and doing childcare than the retired, and also spend a far higher proportion of their money each year.
People of working age do more childcare, but people in work do less childcare than the unpaid (or part-time). Unpaid childcare is another example of something GDP doesn't capture.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
I have a bridge for sale.
To be fair, my firm (one of the Big 4) has said tax cuts could act as a stimulus.
They will. But there's a supply demand mismatch already, along with a very tight labour market. The stimulus is very likely to promote more inflation than growth. And worsen the fiscal deficit
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
It definitely exists, the problem being that there are no units on either axis, so no one knows at what point we are on the curve, so it is not a useful tool in deciding whether higher or lower taxes would be better for government revenue.
The demographic aging, and need to fund decent pensions, health care and other services as a result means that state spending will have to go up in the next decade. Financing that gap is not easily matched with tax cuts.
All parties claim that economic growth because of their wise economic management will close that gap, but the evidence of that being possible is not well grounded in recent economic history. We have not grown enough, look like we are going to contract GDP on current trajectory, have failed on productivity, hence the combination of high taxes and threadbare public services.
As Mrs Thatcher might say, we have been living beyond our means, and must tighten our belts.
But, then it acts as a general drag on the economy.
If you increase tax to pay, say, for extra spending on pensions and the NHS, then you are taking resources away from the productive part of the economy to pay for the non-productive, which will lower growth.
Not nessecarily. Just because an economic activity takes place in the state sector doesn't mean it is unproductive. Much of the increase in GDP in recent figures were due to increased numbers of GP appointments for example.
Why should a private consultation with me be considered a productive task, but an NHS one not? Both are more economically useful than some private sector middleman taking financial benefit from a transaction while producing nothing but cost.
Pensions are effectively taxing working people to generate handouts to redistribute to people who are not working - a drag.
On the NHS, it depends if the health intervention is returning a productive member back to the economy (avoiding them becoming long-term sick, for example) or dealing with those who will never work again, but giving them palliative care for long-term conditions.
Now, there are good ethical cases for spending good money on both, but it's hard to argue they drive much growth.
I appreciate that in the ideal capitalist world that people would die immediately after retiring, but the real world people are less obliging.
Treating the retired is an economic benefit to the country because it reduces either the cost of other disability benefits or frees up informal carers to return to economically useful work, depending on the amount of welfare state.
You do miss my point though. Why is a private medical consultation economically productive and a state one not? Why is an accountant economically productive in a bank, but not in a council while doing the same job?
The idea that state expenditure is economically unproductive and private is productive is just wrong.
It does rather ignore the fact that private businesses require security, educated staff, healthy staff, infrastructure, and staff who see the less well off looked after efficiently without the need for firms to invest in family healthcare schemes.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
Not in the UK they're not which is why the subsidies were rightly eliminated.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
The subsidies for solar panels went a while ago.
I know but some people want to bring them back.
Solar panels can be part of the answer, but the case is much weaker in the UK. They have an average of 50% built-in obsolescence (because it is dark) but that is much higher in winter when the power is needed for heating. Mostly when the sun has gone down.....
OTOH when the sun is shining the wind is not usually blowing much so there is some offset here on the variability of wind. In the last few days we have been generating more solar than wind. According to gridwtch itis currently 14% solar and 10% wind.
Aye it can be helpful in the Summer but even then conditions have been fairly optimal for solar and even then it's still a small fraction of our energy and only barely ahead of wind. And our energy demand is lower right now.
In December to February when our energy demand is at its peak, especially once we have electrical heating but it already peaks then, it isn't even close.
Invest in it if it's economic but not for "Green" reasons.
The UK is not SoCal.
Wind, Tide, Solar. All must play a part in UK renewables.
Emergent technologies to produce hydrocarbons from water and CO2 using electricity will be the game-changer, allowing effective storage of surplus electricity produced when the sun shines or the wind blows.
I agree with almost all of that, but I believe that solar is the placebo of the lot of them.
It is "green" energy for people who aren't taking Net Zero seriously and want to do something for the sake of doing something.
Surplus wind going into electrolysis is my view of the end state and we are surely not far from that. Once we get that, it's a game changer. And that's why we should be going hell for leather for offshore wind especially.
I disagree, at current electricity rates our PV panels would be cost effective without the tariffs. We are all electric though, as no mains gas in our village.
That isn't a disagreement. Solar can be great economics in which case invest in it because it's a good investment NOT because it's "green".
It won't help us reach Net Zero, but it doesn't need to if the economics adds up.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
It definitely exists, the problem being that there are no units on either axis, so no one knows at what point we are on the curve, so it is not a useful tool in deciding whether higher or lower taxes would be better for government revenue.
The demographic aging, and need to fund decent pensions, health care and other services as a result means that state spending will have to go up in the next decade. Financing that gap is not easily matched with tax cuts.
All parties claim that economic growth because of their wise economic management will close that gap, but the evidence of that being possible is not well grounded in recent economic history. We have not grown enough, look like we are going to contract GDP on current trajectory, have failed on productivity, hence the combination of high taxes and threadbare public services.
As Mrs Thatcher might say, we have been living beyond our means, and must tighten our belts.
But, then it acts as a general drag on the economy.
If you increase tax to pay, say, for extra spending on pensions and the NHS, then you are taking resources away from the productive part of the economy to pay for the non-productive, which will lower growth.
Not nessecarily. Just because an economic activity takes place in the state sector doesn't mean it is unproductive. Much of the increase in GDP in recent figures were due to increased numbers of GP appointments for example.
Why should a private consultation with me be considered a productive task, but an NHS one not? Both are more economically useful than some private sector middleman taking financial benefit from a transaction while producing nothing but cost.
Pensions are effectively taxing working people to generate handouts to redistribute to people who are not working - a drag.
On the NHS, it depends if the health intervention is returning a productive member back to the economy (avoiding them becoming long-term sick, for example) or dealing with those who will never work again, but giving them palliative care for long-term conditions.
Now, there are good ethical cases for spending good money on both, but it's hard to argue they drive much growth.
How we measure growth is tricky. If I, through some clever marketing, convince people to buy some average headphones at a higher price because branding, then I have contributed to an increase in GDP, even though I've not done anything to increase growth.
If I improve a bunch of Wikipedia pages on statistics in my own time... well, lots of people use Wikipedia, so better, clearer pages means increased efficiency. But that isn't recorded in GDP.
Pensioners may contribute to growth in many ways, passing on their wisdom, doing childcare, spending their money on goods and services. Working people may not contribute to growth when their work is counterproductive to the economy.
Working age people do more of the passing on wisdom and doing childcare than the retired, and also spend a far higher proportion of their money each year.
People of working age do more childcare, but people in work do less childcare than the unpaid (or part-time). Unpaid childcare is another example of something GDP doesn't capture.
Not that it matters much, but I would expect on average the part time do the most childcare, followed by full time workers followed by the not working, purely based on the not working being dominated by the retired with students another big part of the group.
Comments
But the Tories aren't cutting Adult Social Care just the tax that was introduced to pay for it...
You are perfectly entitled to cite one example. Other examples exist.
"Russia has committed nearly 85% of its military to the war in Ukraine… It has removed military coverage from other areas on their border and around the world." So says a Senior US defence official.
It is only Russian nukes stopping China from grabbing everything east of the Urals. That - and the shitty Russian kit they bought. Which in Ukraine they have seen demonstrated to be really shitty...
Clearly they are not the only solution but then wind or tidal aren't the only solutions either. They work together.
For somebody who apparently takes net zero seriously, it's odd that you seem to reject solutions that will help
I've worked in both the public and private sectors and they are remarkably similar - inefficient, appallingly badly managed and led with lower grade workers very badly paid for the work they undertake.
If I could change one thing, I would reduce the differential between the pay for those at the top and those at the bottom. I'm not saying there aren't some good managers and leaders but they are in my experience a rarity. Most managers and especially middle managers are too busy preening themselves, building their own empires and too concerned with their own "status" to play a role in developing and growing an organisation.
If you want to see why we fail economically, look at productivity, look at how much time people spend "being in the office" rather than doing anything useful as well as the time spent a) attending meetings and the cost of b) hiring half-wit consultants who command £1500 per day for stating the obvious.
Energy demand in this country peaks in the winter. It massively, massively, massively peaks in the winter. Solar power is not that useful in the winter, a little bit but not that much.
Solar power can be great economics so if there's a business case for it then great, go for it.
But as for taking climate change and net zero seriously? It is the homeopathic solution, it simply isn't credible. It is pure greenwashing, suggesting you're doing something cheap and easy rather than being serious.
I've worked for two huge organisations in the private sector, one is that red company. I can tell you for a fact it was one of the most bloated, inefficient operations I've ever seen.
Guesstimate:
England 90%
Wales 5%
Scotland 2%
NI + overseas 3%
So what would you like to do?
The larger the business the more like the public sector it gets. More Byzantine, more bureaucratic etc.
It is smaller businesses that are the most agile and that is what the public sector lacks.
https://twitter.com/SimonClarkeMP/status/1550840213076860930
The situation is complicated by the variety of different taxes. So, UK income taxes are much lower than they were in early 1979 (less than 74 years ago), but the total tax take is higher, with VAT being much higher, largely due to Conservative policies. Laffer arguments are usually presented in terms of a single tax at a time.
Most academic analyses of income tax rates argue the UK is below the peak. The total UK tax take is still lower than that in numerous successful economies around the world. Truss is offering fairy stories.
@JohnRentoul
·
3m
If there is free money to be had, it is surprising that the Treasury hasn’t already claimed it
The ideology is that private sector = faces competition and allowed to fail, public sector = no real competition, not allowed to fail.
If the red company is inefficient the orange company can take it's customers. If the public sector is inefficient, it's "stakeholders" (I hate that term) have nowhere else to go typically.
Competition doesn't mean the private sector is automatically efficient, it encourages it by encouraging inefficient businesses to fail.
Failure in the private sector is the private sector working, not failing, which is why when the public sector stops the private firms from failing the free market is buggered.
Higher salaries are linked to skills, not work ethic. Those who are convinced they are paid a lot because they work super hard are usually deluded.
On the NHS, it depends if the health intervention is returning a productive member back to the economy (avoiding them becoming long-term sick, for example) or dealing with those who will never work again, but giving them palliative care for long-term conditions.
Now, there are good ethical cases for spending good money on both, but it's hard to argue they drive much growth.
What would I like to see us do? Major investment in technological change. Switch cars, heating, planes etc from burnable fuels to electricity (which will further spike our energy peak into the winter) or electricity-created fuel like hydrogen via electrolysis.
Invest in reliable, winter-friendly energy sources including wind, tidal, nuclear and storage. Solar can play a bit part where its economic.
The idea that wind doesn't work on non windy days isn't that big of a problem with reliable storage as lots of storage should last a few days or a week or more, with other reliable power providing a baseline. Storage for months on end, keeping solar energy from July to power February though isn't viable.
As with most things in economics these examples show that the ceteris is almost never paribus and there are far too many intervening factors to be confident about cause and effect in the real world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTgqHsJ4410
The fact that Johnson brought together a gang of incompetent, self-serving tax-dodgers just underlines what a total loser the man was and still is.
So the key to choosing between Truss and Sunak is to know who is going to be in their cabinets. Surely they should inform the Conservative membership, and indeed the general public. If they do not, this surely means that they are promising cabinet posts to everybody, in order to win their short-term backing. And this means that neither Truss nor Sunak is to be trusted.
The huge elephant in the room and complete disqualification is the straw that broke the camel's back - Hhhmmm ... Elephants and camels .... Now for the political stink of a skunk !!
As more detail emerges and criminal charges proceed the public will not tolerate a man who protected a sexual predator to save his own political skin. Care home scandals, grooming gangs, police corruption and rampant incompetence, Jimmy Savile and now a Prime Minister making light of sexual assault and covering for a government pervert.
Question - Would you trust Boris to safeguard your loved ones from a sexual predator if it meant Boris would remain or come back as Prime Minister? We know the answer to the first part .....
However one issue is that people obsess only on one tax and forget the plethora of others that raise revenues.
If CT is cut and a business expands then the Exchequer can benefit not just from higher CT from a lower rate, but even if CT take itself is marginally lower it may be gaining from extra VAT, extra PAYE, lower welfare payments etc
Raise NI and people cut back on disposable expenditure leading to retrenchment then the Exchequer takes some NI but loses VAT, duties, PAYE etc
I’m working on a project proposal in digital health where we’re looking at how the public sector, the private sector (which in digital health largely means SMEs) and the third sector can all work together better. I’m quite proud of the specific ideas we have, and I think it’s this sort of detailed work that can be beneficial to the economy at large (as well as to people’s health).
But it’s this sort of detailed work where top-down ideology from government rarely helps. In particular, populist “we’ve had enough of experts” nonsense is very detrimental. What we need is government sitting down with all relevant stakeholders. But then I’m a boring liberal centrist.
ETA the locations planned for Conservative leadership elections may be a strong indicator. Of the 12 hustings planned, nine are in England with one in each of the other home nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Conservative_Party_leadership_election_(UK)#Public_hustings
In December to February when our energy demand is at its peak, especially once we have electrical heating but it already peaks then, it isn't even close.
Invest in it if it's economic but not for "Green" reasons.
The UK is not SoCal.
There are good private sector organisations - and bad ones. And there are good public sector organisations - and bad ones.
I don't think anyone seriously thinks the Tube would be any more efficient or less efficient if it were privatised.
https://twitter.com/dglaucomflecken/status/1550850133150969856?s=21&t=6DDNJ2doXrTGs7MJ2BH9dA
Travel journalist @SimonCalder says digital fingerprinting and biometrics, meant to start in May and delayed to September, will add to congestion at the EU-UK border. https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1551143553090322432/video/1
Competition works by allowing the good to thrive and allowing the bad to fail.
If there's no competition then it's not a proper private sector.
Scotland membership is a chart, so not sure exactly, although I think I remember 5-6% which does look to match.
https://www.ft.com/content/1454fe21-5b2e-459c-966c-65fd48d52f8f
"Former President Trump’s top allies are preparing to radically reshape the federal government if he is re-elected, purging potentially thousands of civil servants and filling career posts with loyalists to him and his "America First” ideology, people involved in the discussions tell Axios."
"He remains fixated on the “stolen” 2020 election. He cannot stop talking about it, no matter how many allies advise him it would serve his political interests to move on. Most have stopped trying."
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/22/trump-2025-radical-plan-second-term?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial
Emergent technologies to produce hydrocarbons from water and CO2 using electricity will be the game-changer, allowing effective storage of surplus electricity produced when the sun shines or the wind blows.
I think this has been particularly pernicious wrt electric cars.
It is "green" energy for people who aren't taking Net Zero seriously and want to do something for the sake of doing something.
Surplus wind going into electrolysis is my view of the end state and we are surely not far from that. Once we get that, it's a game changer. And that's why we should be going hell for leather for offshore wind especially.
To give you an idea of the farce, I have knowledge of a Council where the members got fed up with its planning officers and sacked the manager, with the senior officers resigning shortly afterwards. Members threw money at the situation by bringing in a well known outsourcing firm to take over the function. It has ended up with a situation whereby the planning officers present the cases by video link from hundreds of miles away, having only looked at the site on streetview. Looking at their linkedin profiles, they have about 1 years experience, they have little or no authority and are very poor at answering questions.
I saw another outsourcing experiment where a company required officers to undertake 12 planning decisions per week to meet targets, paying them £25k per year. The performance expectation in a similar permanent role would normally be 3-5. Of course, this was a complete fantasy and a complete failure.
I suspect this is an overly simplistic way of looking at things, but it seems sensible to me.
Just off George Square in Glasgow in case anyone is wondering.
https://twitter.com/stromo_/status/1550827864739782656?s=21&t=6DDNJ2doXrTGs7MJ2BH9dA
The only viable way to reach Net Zero is emergent technologies so we need to do what it takes to make those emergent techs get here.
April 20, 2009
https://conservativehome.com/2009/04/20/elizabeth-truss-combating-the-triffid-state/
The quietly exasperated way she answers "sadly I do" is as eloquent as any rant.
Likewise Sunek.
Its where the revenue comes from.
When it comes from the government inefficiencies increase and service is bad because the supplier can get away with it.
When it comes from the private sector then anyone providing bad service or operating inefficiently will ultimately lose out to a better competitor.
If I improve a bunch of Wikipedia pages on statistics in my own time... well, lots of people use Wikipedia, so better, clearer pages means increased efficiency. But that isn't recorded in GDP.
Pensioners may contribute to growth in many ways, passing on their wisdom, doing childcare, spending their money on goods and services. Working people may not contribute to growth when their work is counterproductive to the economy.
That Boris doesn't realise this is yet another example of his being unable to learn from his mistakes.
We therefore create a system that fails in consumer responsiveness, while incentivises the contractor to skimp on services and screw the workers pay and conditions in order to profit and pay themselves bonuses.
I have seen this in the NHS but it is a feature of outsourcing in other sectors too. It is a system combining the worst of the public and private sectors rather than the best of each.
And his unwillingness to even keep quiet about it.
Liars and fantasists are expected in politics - it only becomes damaging when it leads to a betrayal of their own voters.
Treating the retired is an economic benefit to the country because it reduces either the cost of other disability benefits or frees up informal carers to return to economically useful work, depending on the amount of welfare state.
You do miss my point though. Why is a private medical consultation economically productive and a state one not? Why is an accountant economically productive in a bank, but not in a council while doing the same job?
The idea that state expenditure is economically unproductive and private is productive is just wrong.
In a utility where the Government remains the client, where 'demand' is still public, outsourcing to the private sector has few inherent virtues. Like cleaning in the NHS.
In a utility where the Government stops being the client, and instead the public start being the customers, so demand flows from them, that has an inherent virtue, because the utility then has to adjust to public demand and compete on price etc. Like telecoms etc.
Debates about privatisation tend to miss this obvious distinction for some reason.
But there's a supply demand mismatch already, along with a very tight labour market.
The stimulus is very likely to promote more inflation than growth. And worsen the fiscal deficit
It won't help us reach Net Zero, but it doesn't need to if the economics adds up.