So typical of Starmer to come close to a good idea while absolutely missing the target.
We do not need to nationalise renewable energy production. We just need to set out the right fiscal and regulatory regime and the very kind private sector will build it for us.
Where there is an argument for state intervention is in the hydrocarbon market, which is still sorely needed during the energy transition but is being starved of investment and financing, as the private sector increasingly shies away from the sector. Nationalise the uk based oil refineries and get competent firms to run them. Setup a British Infrastructure bank to lend to junior oil and gas firms in the North Sea so they don’t have to pay double digit bond coupons. And use the same bank to guarantee the liabilities of sunrise industries like tidal lagoon power.
100% correct.
Too difficult for CHB to understand though.
I am going to laugh when Keir goes 20 points clear.
Prime Minister Ed Miliband went 20 points clear too.....
Good point Marq.
It needs to be more than 1 20 point poll, the average has to hit 20 over a sustained period to mean anything.
Government after government has failed to do nearly enough about the supply side of the British economy. Reams have been written, far more eloquently than I can manage, about how this inaction has trapped us, time and time again, into choices we don’t want to have to make, on public services and elsewhere. It has trapped us into falling ever further behind America in our living standards. And it has nudged us into accepting relative decline as the norm and the future of Britain.
Until now, nobody has truly dared tackle this head-on. But we have finally found a PM and chancellor willing to do so. And yet for whatever reason — perhaps simply because we cannot get our heads around the reorganisation they have in mind — we are risking making it politically impossible before they have even begun to try.
That, at least, is a load of waffle just because there were no supply side reforms, just a bunch of tax cuts which will push up demand.
I'm all in favour of supply side reforms and pushing up business investment, there's was very little in the Friday statement that actually achieves any supply side fix.
He does address that if you read the whole piece:
This is a long list, and even then it is only really a start on the work that the economy needs. It is also vague: it equivocates about the most important supply-side reform of all — housing reform — promising merely that more detail will be announced soon.
But it is a start. And if it is implemented properly (and followed up with more), it would allow Kwarteng’s plan to succeed, and with it, bring to end the awful bind that British policymaking has been stuck in since 2008.
The plan is therefore a do-or-die moment.
To commit to the Growth Plan’s tax-and-spend decisions without the structural reforms to go along with them would be a disaster. It would represent the worst of the status quo, but with a new layer of ‘bad’ added on top.
And there are lots of reasons for pessimism. Getting a supply-side reform through Parliament is much more difficult than doing new spending, especially with special interest groups doing their absolute utmost to block progress. Truss is already light on political capital, given how few MPs originally voted for her, and the response to our currency trouble will only have made that worse. Worst of all, there is very little time: it is less than two years until a general election.
Which is why it's waffle. The writer is just projecting onto Kwasi what he wants to happen. There's been no detail or moves to boost supply just vague ideas and ambitions. What we actually have is a series of tax cuts which are intended to boost demand. Rather than defending them based on something he hopes they will do in the future, they need to be chastised for not doing what is necessary to reform the economy by boosting supply (and investment).
The Friday event, when you take it for the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, is aimed at producing a short term gain in demand by borrowing loads of money. In a high inflation environment it's going to cause interest rates to shoot up and the currency to tank, unsurprisingly that's what has happened.
When you take in the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, almost all of what happened was pre-announced and the 45p changes "cost" £2 billion supposedly, but the real cost to the Exchequer will of course be far less than that and may even by negative.
So the hysteria that has followed is just ridiculous. Yes you are completely right that the vague ideas and ambitions need meat on the bones to follow through with, I totally agree with you on that, but at least they're targeting the right issues and saying the right things even if its not yet in action. They need to follow through with credible actions on reforms, but those are things that aren't simply announced in a statement.
If I were the Chancellor (and I am not), then I would have made two changes:
(1) I would have removed all the bonkers distortions around the removal of the tax free rate, childcare tax allowance, etc.
(2) I would have raised the thresholds at which people paid tax, benefitting those who are being most squeezed by rising energy prices.
I would not have abolished the 45% rate tax.
I agree with both of those, but I don't see an issue with abolishing the 45% as well. 40% was high enough for 100% of Gordon Brown's time as Chancellor, and all but one month of him being PM too, and since the difference is 'only' £2bn it seems an odd thing either way to be exercised over.
FUDHY is a very odd Tory. He has paeans of praise for General Franco, the Sweden Democrats, Meloni, Farage and Scottish Labour, but none for his own leader.
He's an authoritarian, bordering on what gets called "far right".
Truss is a dry as dust, socially liberal Conservative. Some people here used to say the believed in that, but not him.
It is you who are the hardline libertarian who has backed a strategy which has taken the Tories to 28% in the polls, not me
Yes it is, and your point is?
I would rather see the Tories lose with a libertarian time in office, than win with an authoritarian one.
Maybe but if this strategy sees the Tories face heave defeat at the next general election that will kill off libertarianism within the Tory party for a generation
Who among those who don't live in Scotland are Scots in the SNP's view? Do they see Tony Blair as a Scot, for example, by dint of having been born in Scotland?
I understand exactly what the SNP are saying. There is the wider Scottish diaspora - Scottish people who live outside Scotland. Then you have Scottish citizens - people from Scotland and other nations who live in Scotland.
So as an immigrant I am Scottish as a citizen but not Scottish as a nationality. Not that it matters, because nobody will grant Nippie the referendum she would lose, so she gets to fight on...
To be fair I think the SNP are right on “who gets to vote” (by residence, not by age) and someone born in Scotland but left as a child like me, shouldn’t, nor should long term New York residents like Alan Cumming who thought buying himself a flat would also buy himself a vote in 2014. He was disappointed.
I do wonder what the current market tribulations of sterling is doing to the “thinking” of those who fondly imagine setting up a new currency with significant current account and external deficits will be a doddle. Perhaps the Whisky export duty will come to the rescue? Pity they can no longer exploit the hidden oil fields.
I would be happy to receive part of my salary in single malt...
Eurovision song contest 2023 to be hosted in Liverpool or Glasgow
It was always going to be one of those two.
I felt Birmingham was more likely over Liverpool, but glad there's a Northern English city in the running. I feel the SNP in Glasgow will try to erase any element of Eurovision 2023 being a Ukraine-UK joint production which is what the BBC have specified it will be.
AZ gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake went on Tucker Carlson Tonight to talk about how “excited” she is over the recent election in Italy, praising and comparing herself to fascist Giorgia Meloni. “This is somebody I can relate to,” Lake says. https://twitter.com/az_rww/status/1574565703566340096
Somebody else who believes the great replacement theory.
I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
Kherson has proven to be something of a disappointment for Ukraine. The Russians there, which includes many of Russia's best units, are fighting hard and casualties on both sides seem heavy. The expectation was that the Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper would rapidly run out of supplies and amunition and then surrender but this hasn't happened in 2 or more weeks of heavy fighting. It is still possible that there will be a collapse as supplies run out but its not looking imminent.
I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
Illa Ponomarenko made a good point the other day. After the referendums, any Ukrainian adult male left in those territories will be Russian in the eyes of Russian law and liable to be drafted. Grim.
"Labour opposes junk food ban as living costs soar"
(Still think his social media history will get him fired at some point though).
Wes Streeting thinks Private Health care can help clear the NHS backlog and thinks Dr's can therefore be in 2 places at the same time.
Nothing yo do with the funding from Private Health company owners of course
Hospitals are over capacity. Even if the doctor and OT staff are available, Theatres are full as are wards.
So yes, the private sector can alleviate the pain and suffering of people by using their available facilities. Perhaps if it was you and yours in prolonged pain you may less of a zealot on the "private bad" thing. As a short term solution there is nothing wrong with contracting it out.
The floating voters of middle England AND the financial markets gagging for a Labour government! - I think we're in "carrying a ming vase across a slidy floor" territory.
Starmer better win.
Where does labour go if he doesn't....?
Left, I'd say. But not winning is unlikely - if we count minority govt in that.
Starmer announces a publicly-owned Great British Energy company. Hard one for SNP supporters who have seen Sturgeon fail to come up with her promised publicly-owned Scottish energy company and who allowed multinationals to buy up Scotland's offshore renewables industry. https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1574774738580283394
"Labour opposes junk food ban as living costs soar"
(Still think his social media history will get him fired at some point though).
Wes Streeting thinks Private Health care can help clear the NHS backlog and thinks Dr's can therefore be in 2 places at the same time.
Nothing yo do with the funding from Private Health company owners of course
Hospitals are over capacity. Even if the doctor and OT staff are available, Theatres are full as are wards.
So yes, the private sector can alleviate the pain and suffering of people by using their available facilities. Perhaps if it was you and yours in prolonged pain you may less of a zealot on the "private bad" thing. As a short term solution there is nothing wrong with contracting it out.
Labour have banged on about any suggestion of doing this as "privatising the NHS" for the past 10 years. Personally, I never saw a problem when under Tony Blair it was also used to cut waiting lists.
So typical of Starmer to come close to a good idea while absolutely missing the target.
We do not need to nationalise renewable energy production. We just need to set out the right fiscal and regulatory regime and the very kind private sector will build it for us.
Where there is an argument for state intervention is in the hydrocarbon market, which is still sorely needed during the energy transition but is being starved of investment and financing, as the private sector increasingly shies away from the sector. Nationalise the uk based oil refineries and get competent firms to run them. Setup a British Infrastructure bank to lend to junior oil and gas firms in the North Sea so they don’t have to pay double digit bond coupons. And use the same bank to guarantee the liabilities of sunrise industries like tidal lagoon power.
If the private sector was going to make renewables work it would already have done so. Are any of the turbines that get erected made here? How about the solar panels? How are we doing on tidal?
So yes. A StateCo to compete with the private sector and do all the things they have failed to do.. As every other big western economy does successfully.
I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
Kherson has proven to be something of a disappointment for Ukraine. The Russians there, which includes many of Russia's best units, are fighting hard and casualties on both sides seem heavy. The expectation was that the Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper would rapidly run out of supplies and amunition and then surrender but this hasn't happened in 2 or more weeks of heavy fighting. It is still possible that there will be a collapse as supplies run out but its not looking imminent.
in telegraph today also said Russians massing and looking to attack Kharkiv again
I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
Kherson has proven to be something of a disappointment for Ukraine. The Russians there, which includes many of Russia's best units, are fighting hard and casualties on both sides seem heavy. The expectation was that the Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper would rapidly run out of supplies and amunition and then surrender but this hasn't happened in 2 or more weeks of heavy fighting. It is still possible that there will be a collapse as supplies run out but its not looking imminent.
Did we expect Russia’s best units to surrender? I see Kherson as a Medieval siege. Ukraine doesnt need to push too hard and take unnecessary risks, just keep the Russian troops there pinned down. Eventually they’ll crack.
Meanwhile the map is developing in an interesting way in northern Luhansk and the last remnants of russian occupied Kharkiv Oblast.
Long dated gilts are still ridiculously cheap. For them to be a buy you really would have to believe that the BoE is going to squeeze inflation out of the economy and keep it squeezed out for a long time. With the shorter dated gilts you at least get your capital back in a limited period of time.
So typical of Starmer to come close to a good idea while absolutely missing the target.
We do not need to nationalise renewable energy production. We just need to set out the right fiscal and regulatory regime and the very kind private sector will build it for us.
Where there is an argument for state intervention is in the hydrocarbon market, which is still sorely needed during the energy transition but is being starved of investment and financing, as the private sector increasingly shies away from the sector. Nationalise the uk based oil refineries and get competent firms to run them. Setup a British Infrastructure bank to lend to junior oil and gas firms in the North Sea so they don’t have to pay double digit bond coupons. And use the same bank to guarantee the liabilities of sunrise industries like tidal lagoon power.
100% correct.
Too difficult for CHB to understand though.
I am going to laugh when Keir goes 20 points clear.
I remember the good old days of Jezza when it took months, even years, to suspend people who publicly said something on the record that was racist / anti-semitic...due process and investigations required or something according to the rule book.
Have I got this wrong, or has the Beeb not repeated the comments?
(Not well up on the Beeb - only just caught up with how they self-trashed Question of Sport.)
I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
Kherson has proven to be something of a disappointment for Ukraine. The Russians there, which includes many of Russia's best units, are fighting hard and casualties on both sides seem heavy. The expectation was that the Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper would rapidly run out of supplies and amunition and then surrender but this hasn't happened in 2 or more weeks of heavy fighting. It is still possible that there will be a collapse as supplies run out but its not looking imminent.
in telegraph today also said Russians massing and looking to attack Kharkiv again
With troops some of whom were drafted less than 24 hrs ago.
So typical of Starmer to come close to a good idea while absolutely missing the target.
We do not need to nationalise renewable energy production. We just need to set out the right fiscal and regulatory regime and the very kind private sector will build it for us.
Where there is an argument for state intervention is in the hydrocarbon market, which is still sorely needed during the energy transition but is being starved of investment and financing, as the private sector increasingly shies away from the sector. Nationalise the uk based oil refineries and get competent firms to run them. Setup a British Infrastructure bank to lend to junior oil and gas firms in the North Sea so they don’t have to pay double digit bond coupons. And use the same bank to guarantee the liabilities of sunrise industries like tidal lagoon power.
If the private sector was going to make renewables work it would already have done so. Are any of the turbines that get erected made here? How about the solar panels? How are we doing on tidal?
So yes. A StateCo to compete with the private sector and do all the things they have failed to do.. As every other big western economy does successfully.
I didn’t watch the speech but was Starmer talking about the UK govt becoming a manufacturer of photovoltaics? Oh dear if so.
"He went to Eton, I think, he went to a very expensive prep school, all the way through, the top schools in the country.
"If you hear him on the Today programme, you wouldn't know he is black."
WFT is she saying? That black people can't go to good schools and be a success? I'm not sure that talking up the stereotype of black males being poorly educated and leaving a string of abandoned children behind them is one she should be promoting.
It would have been so easy to just bash him for going to Eton and thus out of touch. Why say the rest?
She went to private school herself.
Ah but you see she is left-wing so everything she criticise Kwarteng for magically becomes fine when you are in the Labour Party.
I notice Rachel Reeves has hired ex-Clean Bandit posho musician Neil Amin-Smith to her team as an economic advisor. Another ex-public school (Westminster) and Cambridge educated PAd.
I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
Kherson has proven to be something of a disappointment for Ukraine. The Russians there, which includes many of Russia's best units, are fighting hard and casualties on both sides seem heavy. The expectation was that the Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper would rapidly run out of supplies and amunition and then surrender but this hasn't happened in 2 or more weeks of heavy fighting. It is still possible that there will be a collapse as supplies run out but its not looking imminent.
I don't think many people expected it would be rapid. The commentary I read/heard was that it was a more favourable location for Ukraine to degrade Russians forces over a period of time. Reportedly the Russian generals have asked Putin to let them withdraw and been refused permission. That suggests the Ukrainian strategy is working.
The real surprise is that Ukraine were able to combine the Kherson offensive with an offensive on Kharkiv, and now Donetsk.
I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
Kherson has proven to be something of a disappointment for Ukraine. The Russians there, which includes many of Russia's best units, are fighting hard and casualties on both sides seem heavy. The expectation was that the Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper would rapidly run out of supplies and amunition and then surrender but this hasn't happened in 2 or more weeks of heavy fighting. It is still possible that there will be a collapse as supplies run out but its not looking imminent.
Did we expect Russia’s best units to surrender? I see Kherson as a Medieval siege. Ukraine doesnt need to push too hard and take unnecessary risks, just keep the Russian troops there pinned down. Eventually they’ll crack.
Meanwhile the map is developing in an interesting way in northern Luhansk and the last remnants of russian occupied Kharkiv Oblast.
I think the belief/hope was that the taking out of the bridges on the Dneiper meant those units were trapped. The expectation that they would not be able to supply them has not be borne out to date. I agree things look better around Kharkiv. Lyman may well fall before the end of the week.
"He went to Eton, I think, he went to a very expensive prep school, all the way through, the top schools in the country.
"If you hear him on the Today programme, you wouldn't know he is black."
WFT is she saying? That black people can't go to good schools and be a success? I'm not sure that talking up the stereotype of black males being poorly educated and leaving a string of abandoned children behind them is one she should be promoting.
The mask slips of a certain form of racism. Something that TSE has talked about before. "Wrong" views especially with a certain background means can't possible be really a proper (insert ethnic) group.
I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
Illa Ponomarenko made a good point the other day. After the referendums, any Ukrainian adult male left in those territories will be Russian in the eyes of Russian law and liable to be drafted. Grim.
I wonder whether anyone has intervened to artificially bring down Italian and Greek yields? And whether there might be a big seller of uk gilts at the back end of the curve that was the market’s biggest buyer for the last 12 years. Hmmm… perhaps the chair of the treasury select committee is the sort of person who might know.
"He went to Eton, I think, he went to a very expensive prep school, all the way through, the top schools in the country.
"If you hear him on the Today programme, you wouldn't know he is black."
WFT is she saying? That black people can't go to good schools and be a success? I'm not sure that talking up the stereotype of black males being poorly educated and leaving a string of abandoned children behind them is one she should be promoting.
You could put those words alongside Nick Griffin's picture and people would believe Griffin said them and that it is explicitly racist.
The government will reject claims circulating in Whitehall that the meeting between Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng was "argumentative" and descended into a "shouting match".
TLDR, the argument boils down to this. Peoples have a right to self determination. We are a people. Hence we have that right. The Scotland Act 1998 should be construed in a way that does not interfere with that right. A referendum allows the views of the Scottish people to be determined. The reserved matters therefore cannot constrain this.
Skimming it, there seems to be two strands of thought to their argument, if I've understood it correctly. To summarise.
1: The proposed referendum is "non-self-executing"* referendum 2: As a non-self-executing referendum, the referendum and accompanying proposed legislation doesn't affect the constitution or Parliament or Union. 3: The Scotland Act "relates to" reservation could be read narrowly (only acts that affect the union are reserved), or broadly (anything broadly related even if it doesn't affect the union itself). 4: The people of Scotland should have the right to self-determination under international law. 5: Domestic UK law is typically interpreted in line with international law, unless it can't be. 6: A narrow reading of "relates to" would allow self-determination, while not affecting the constitution, so should be the interpretation the Court uses.
IANAL but it seems like a good argument to me. A narrow reading of what relates to means, would mean that both UK and International Law are in alignment, and would mean that the proposed legislation is legal. Any legislation that actually affects the union would be reserved, but a mere referendum doesn't actually do that, so shouldn't be reserved on that reading.
"He went to Eton, I think, he went to a very expensive prep school, all the way through, the top schools in the country.
"If you hear him on the Today programme, you wouldn't know he is black."
WFT is she saying? That black people can't go to good schools and be a success? I'm not sure that talking up the stereotype of black males being poorly educated and leaving a string of abandoned children behind them is one she should be promoting.
It is this lazy paternalistic attitude that does affect some on the left which seems to be - ethnic minorities belong to us. See Joe Biden - you’re not black if you’re not sure which way to vote.
Unfortunately this is the end result of pigeon holing and identity politics (see also assuming anyone LGBT+ must be a left winger).
"He went to Eton, I think, he went to a very expensive prep school, all the way through, the top schools in the country.
"If you hear him on the Today programme, you wouldn't know he is black."
WFT is she saying? That black people can't go to good schools and be a success? I'm not sure that talking up the stereotype of black males being poorly educated and leaving a string of abandoned children behind them is one she should be promoting.
The mask slips of a certain form of racism. Something that TSE has talked about before. "Wrong" views especially with a certain background means can't possible be really a proper (insert ethnic) group.
Uncle Tom, choc ice, etc. The left thought Thatcher was only superficially a woman.
Yellow card for sks btw:
Quoting former Labour leader Sir Tony Blair, Starmer says Labour is the "political wing of the British people".
Always thought that was peak Blair creepy unctuosity.
"He went to Eton, I think, he went to a very expensive prep school, all the way through, the top schools in the country.
"If you hear him on the Today programme, you wouldn't know he is black."
WFT is she saying? That black people can't go to good schools and be a success? I'm not sure that talking up the stereotype of black males being poorly educated and leaving a string of abandoned children behind them is one she should be promoting.
What a crass and stupid comment to make. Undermining Starmer's speech for all the news bulletins. What a moron!
Still, she can always claim a defence of "satire".
It would have been so easy to just bash him for going to Eton and thus out of touch. Why say the rest?
She went to private school herself.
Ah but you see she is left-wing so everything she criticise Kwarteng for magically becomes fine when you are in the Labour Party.
I notice Rachel Reeves has hired ex-Clean Bandit posho musician Neil Amin-Smith to her team as an economic advisor. Another ex-public school (Westminster) and Cambridge educated PAd.
At least he's Cambridge. Not that South Midlands place.
"He went to Eton, I think, he went to a very expensive prep school, all the way through, the top schools in the country.
"If you hear him on the Today programme, you wouldn't know he is black."
WFT is she saying? That black people can't go to good schools and be a success? I'm not sure that talking up the stereotype of black males being poorly educated and leaving a string of abandoned children behind them is one she should be promoting.
You could put those words alongside Nick Griffin's picture and people would believe Griffin said them and that it is explicitly racist.
I do feel sorry for Starmer. He’s bland, often deluded but well meaning. He’s also leader of a party overpopulated with ignorant bigots. Let’s have PR and get these parties to splinter.
"Labour opposes junk food ban as living costs soar"
(Still think his social media history will get him fired at some point though).
Wes Streeting thinks Private Health care can help clear the NHS backlog and thinks Dr's can therefore be in 2 places at the same time.
Nothing yo do with the funding from Private Health company owners of course
Hospitals are over capacity. Even if the doctor and OT staff are available, Theatres are full as are wards.
So yes, the private sector can alleviate the pain and suffering of people by using their available facilities. Perhaps if it was you and yours in prolonged pain you may less of a zealot on the "private bad" thing. As a short term solution there is nothing wrong with contracting it out.
Labour have banged on about any suggestion of doing this as "privatising the NHS" for the past 10 years. Personally, I never saw a problem when under Tony Blair it was also used to cut waiting lists.
It's a bit like using agency staff. As a short-term expedient it's fine, necessary even, but in the long-term it's better to have your own staff/facilities to do the work.
New Labour started off using it as a practical short-term measure, and then Blair fetishized it as the One True Solution to problems in the public sector.
The government will reject claims circulating in Whitehall that the meeting between Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng was "argumentative" and descended into a "shouting match".
Understand Kwasi Kwarteng and Chris Philp are currently on a big call briefing Tory MPs about the economic situation. They kicked off by stressing the need for calm heads and for the party to stay united
Understand Kwasi is not happy I'm living tweeting this
I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
Kherson has proven to be something of a disappointment for Ukraine. The Russians there, which includes many of Russia's best units, are fighting hard and casualties on both sides seem heavy. The expectation was that the Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper would rapidly run out of supplies and amunition and then surrender but this hasn't happened in 2 or more weeks of heavy fighting. It is still possible that there will be a collapse as supplies run out but its not looking imminent.
I don't think many people expected it would be rapid. The commentary I read/heard was that it was a more favourable location for Ukraine to degrade Russians forces over a period of time. Reportedly the Russian generals have asked Putin to let them withdraw and been refused permission. That suggests the Ukrainian strategy is working.
The real surprise is that Ukraine were able to combine the Kherson offensive with an offensive on Kharkiv, and now Donetsk.
Indeed there's a certain grim irony that longer the Russian forces bleed out in Kherson, the harder they make it for them to then be able to hold onto Crimea. If these forces now futilely holding Kherson were in Crimea they'd be much better entrenched and easier to reinforce, but in Kherson . . .
Once they're defeated, moving on to Crimea next will be easier than if the frontline was there already.
Sane Russian commanders can see that and know where to draw their defensive lines. Putin doesn't. Political leaders overruling military commanders isn't normally a sign things are going well.
I see Starmer has repeated the neo-fascistic language about Labour being the "political wing of the British people".
Hubris and the left and a winter of discontent could be enough to start the tide turning.
A decent speech, but both a bit OTT on sunlit uplands as well as being slightly OTT on difficult promises to bank.
There isn't, yet, quite the ruthlessness and competence of Labour pre 1997.
Clearly the odds are shifting towards Labour led govt post next GE, and a Labour majority is not impossible.
Personally I think in the last 10-12 months the chance of a Labour majority has gone from about 5% to about 30%. Quite shift, but nowhere near sealing the deal.
And the Tories in the last few weeks have closed off a number of routes to recovery.
Interesting times still. Don't bet the farm on any outcome.
I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
Kherson has proven to be something of a disappointment for Ukraine. The Russians there, which includes many of Russia's best units, are fighting hard and casualties on both sides seem heavy. The expectation was that the Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper would rapidly run out of supplies and amunition and then surrender but this hasn't happened in 2 or more weeks of heavy fighting. It is still possible that there will be a collapse as supplies run out but its not looking imminent.
in telegraph today also said Russians massing and looking to attack Kharkiv again
I wonder who will take the blame for that when it all goes horribly wrong?
TLDR, the argument boils down to this. Peoples have a right to self determination. We are a people. Hence we have that right. The Scotland Act 1998 should be construed in a way that does not interfere with that right. A referendum allows the views of the Scottish people to be determined. The reserved matters therefore cannot constrain this.
Skimming it, there seems to be two strands of thought to their argument, if I've understood it correctly. To summarise.
1: The proposed referendum is "non-self-executing"* referendum 2: As a non-self-executing referendum, the referendum and accompanying proposed legislation doesn't affect the constitution or Parliament or Union. 3: The Scotland Act "relates to" reservation could be read narrowly (only acts that affect the union are reserved), or broadly (anything broadly related even if it doesn't affect the union itself). 4: The people of Scotland should have the right to self-determination under international law. 5: Domestic UK law is typically interpreted in line with international law, unless it can't be. 6: A narrow reading of "relates to" would allow self-determination, while not affecting the constitution, so should be the interpretation the Court uses.
IANAL but it seems like a good argument to me. A narrow reading of what relates to means, would mean that both UK and International Law are in alignment, and would mean that the proposed legislation is legal. Any legislation that actually affects the union would be reserved, but a mere referendum doesn't actually do that, so shouldn't be reserved on that reading.
Do you see a legal objection to this logic?
* Legal speak for "advisory" I assume
An advisory referendum would be widely boycotted. "Whats the point when the English would just say no" / "Its a waste of money, a Sturgeon ego trip. Don't waste your time"
So typical of Starmer to come close to a good idea while absolutely missing the target.
We do not need to nationalise renewable energy production. We just need to set out the right fiscal and regulatory regime and the very kind private sector will build it for us.
Where there is an argument for state intervention is in the hydrocarbon market, which is still sorely needed during the energy transition but is being starved of investment and financing, as the private sector increasingly shies away from the sector. Nationalise the uk based oil refineries and get competent firms to run them. Setup a British Infrastructure bank to lend to junior oil and gas firms in the North Sea so they don’t have to pay double digit bond coupons. And use the same bank to guarantee the liabilities of sunrise industries like tidal lagoon power.
100% correct.
Too difficult for CHB to understand though.
I am going to laugh when Keir goes 20 points clear.
How are we going to measure “20 points ahead” Horse? It can only be fine on averaging, not being selective of polls?
If we choose this as a source, average for all September probably still less than 10?*
Or will it only have to average above 20 for the last fortnight for you to be proved right? Still a very long way off claiming 20 points ahead.
*and without Opinion in it - which is just as well because it’s a swing back bastardised poll and will always drag the average down, and reason why I glance away disinterested in gibberish whenever TV or paper do a “poll of polls”. Then again Kantor will trot in any moment with near identical to Opinium 4 or 5 % gap.
I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
Kherson has proven to be something of a disappointment for Ukraine. The Russians there, which includes many of Russia's best units, are fighting hard and casualties on both sides seem heavy. The expectation was that the Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper would rapidly run out of supplies and amunition and then surrender but this hasn't happened in 2 or more weeks of heavy fighting. It is still possible that there will be a collapse as supplies run out but its not looking imminent.
Getting the best Russian troops into Kherson was vital for the success of the Kharkiv break out. They can't go anywhere and can't assist in winning any territory back elsewhere.
Kherson has been a brutal meat grinder for both sides. But at least the Russians there are exactly where the Ukrainian high command want them. The noose is tightening. Meanwhile, large areas are being won back to the NE, where Russian defensive and supply lines are repeatedly being broken. Lyman looks to be in a poor way for the Russians - there's several more battle groups worth of POWs and equipment going to be lost there.
It will also then allow Ukraine to surge through the area to the NE of there and take another great swathe of acreage off the Russians- and further imperil their supply lines to the south. It is hard not to be impressed at what the Ukrainains are achieving against the world's second largest collection of cripples, geriatrics, kids, musicians army.
TLDR, the argument boils down to this. Peoples have a right to self determination. We are a people. Hence we have that right. The Scotland Act 1998 should be construed in a way that does not interfere with that right. A referendum allows the views of the Scottish people to be determined. The reserved matters therefore cannot constrain this.
Skimming it, there seems to be two strands of thought to their argument, if I've understood it correctly. To summarise.
1: The proposed referendum is "non-self-executing"* referendum 2: As a non-self-executing referendum, the referendum and accompanying proposed legislation doesn't affect the constitution or Parliament or Union. 3: The Scotland Act "relates to" reservation could be read narrowly (only acts that affect the union are reserved), or broadly (anything broadly related even if it doesn't affect the union itself). 4: The people of Scotland should have the right to self-determination under international law. 5: Domestic UK law is typically interpreted in line with international law, unless it can't be. 6: A narrow reading of "relates to" would allow self-determination, while not affecting the constitution, so should be the interpretation the Court uses.
IANAL but it seems like a good argument to me. A narrow reading of what relates to means, would mean that both UK and International Law are in alignment, and would mean that the proposed legislation is legal. Any legislation that actually affects the union would be reserved, but a mere referendum doesn't actually do that, so shouldn't be reserved on that reading.
Do you see a legal objection to this logic?
* Legal speak for "advisory" I assume
An advisory referendum would be widely boycotted. "Whats the point when the English would just say no" / "Its a waste of money, a Sturgeon ego trip. Don't waste your time"
But all referenda are advisory pretty much, this certainly has to be just as the EU Referendum was, and their entire legal argument seems to be that it is advisory. Or using their language "non-self-executing".
It seems to me to be a sound legal argument that the power to hold an advisory-only referendum is not reserved, since its only advisory, and if the Supreme Court rules that a proposed referendum is legal then it will be legal and anyone proposing at that point that its only advisory would be as ridiculous as those Remoaners saying it post-Brexit Referendum.
I have to say, Sturgeon may have played this very, very well. If she gets a Supreme Court stamp of approval on any proposed referendum, even on the basis that its only advisory, sorry non-self-executing, then it seems to me to be hard for it to then be boycotted afterwards having been approved by the Supreme Court.
whatever the length of bond/ number of years lending, rates are now up to 4.6ish% up even on yesterday, cancelling out the recovery this morning… this is a wild ride for gilts, that only normally move tiny amounts a day… this is the 5 year… up 50bps, down 30 and now back up 40 https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1574781261855576066/photo/1
I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
Kherson has proven to be something of a disappointment for Ukraine. The Russians there, which includes many of Russia's best units, are fighting hard and casualties on both sides seem heavy. The expectation was that the Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper would rapidly run out of supplies and amunition and then surrender but this hasn't happened in 2 or more weeks of heavy fighting. It is still possible that there will be a collapse as supplies run out but its not looking imminent.
Did we expect Russia’s best units to surrender? I see Kherson as a Medieval siege. Ukraine doesnt need to push too hard and take unnecessary risks, just keep the Russian troops there pinned down. Eventually they’ll crack.
Meanwhile the map is developing in an interesting way in northern Luhansk and the last remnants of russian occupied Kharkiv Oblast.
I think the belief/hope was that the taking out of the bridges on the Dneiper meant those units were trapped. The expectation that they would not be able to supply them has not be borne out to date. I agree things look better around Kharkiv. Lyman may well fall before the end of the week.
They’re being resupplied by barge which is a trickle compared to what they need to win the battle. But it’s just enough that Putin thinks they should be able to hold it. As others have said, Putin has overruled the generals and forbidden retreat. I guess there won’t be many more miserable places to be on earth this winter than the West Bank of the dnipro in Kherson.
I see Starmer has repeated the neo-fascistic language about Labour being the "political wing of the British people".
Has he? Starmer may be useless, and his speech a disaster, but your assertion is a stretch.
Sir Keir Starmer finishes his speech by echoing Tony Blair, saying "we are the party of the centre ground - once again the political wing of the British people"
It would have been so easy to just bash him for going to Eton and thus out of touch. Why say the rest?
Because Huq likes seeing her name in the papers, blogs, etc?
I was just getting used to this classic Tory bashing on all sides with a black man at the centre and not a hint of the bashing being anything to do with race or dog whistles or anything. Just the usual about being toff, Eton, top hat, speaks posh, bonkers, Pitt Club, Trinity, Classics, arrogant, same old Tory etc etc. It was quite refreshing. Rupa plainly didn't get the message.
This is an illustration of Sweden’s self-sufficiency in various common foodstuffs.
This has crept up the political agenda in many countries. Free markets are not as smart as many long thought. Especially when it comes to life’s essentials like food, energy and housing.
"He went to Eton, I think, he went to a very expensive prep school, all the way through, the top schools in the country.
"If you hear him on the Today programme, you wouldn't know he is black."
WFT is she saying? That black people can't go to good schools and be a success? I'm not sure that talking up the stereotype of black males being poorly educated and leaving a string of abandoned children behind them is one she should be promoting.
The mask slips of a certain form of racism. Something that TSE has talked about before. "Wrong" views especially with a certain background means can't possible be really a proper (insert ethnic) group.
Uncle Tom, choc ice, etc. The left thought Thatcher was only superficially a woman.
Yellow card for sks btw:
Quoting former Labour leader Sir Tony Blair, Starmer says Labour is the "political wing of the British people".
Always thought that was peak Blair creepy unctuosity.
It also leads to no grammatical sense. If you are not in the political wing of the British People, what are you in?
It’s gibberish.
If you speak gibberish, and someone wants to paint it as fascist, fair enough in my book. If you don’t like them doing that then don’t talk gibberish.
I see Starmer has repeated the neo-fascistic language about Labour being the "political wing of the British people".
Has he? Starmer may be useless, and his speech a disaster, but your assertion is a stretch.
Sir Keir Starmer finishes his speech by echoing Tony Blair, saying "we are the party of the centre ground - once again the political wing of the British people"
This is an illustration of Sweden’s self-sufficiency in various common foodstuffs.
This has crept up the political agenda in many countries. Free markets are not as smart as many long thought. Especially when it comes to life’s essentials like food, energy and housing.
Surely recent events mean Truss and co will have to be careful at next weeks conference. To have a run on the pound during that would be pretty disastrous !
I see Starmer has repeated the neo-fascistic language about Labour being the "political wing of the British people".
Has he? Starmer may be useless, and his speech a disaster, but your assertion is a stretch.
Quoted by the beeb as saying that. Pleased to see its not just me that hates it.
Oh he did say it, and it is unfortunate flag of St George waving nonsense. But neo-fascist?
Nonetheless the speech has gone down like a pair of lead underpants on PB for all sorts of other reasons too, and by both Conservatives and Labourites, although Andy Burnham seemed to like it.
I see Starmer has repeated the neo-fascistic language about Labour being the "political wing of the British people".
Has he? Starmer may be useless, and his speech a disaster, but your assertion is a stretch.
Quoted by the beeb as saying that. Pleased to see its not just me that hates it.
Oh he did say it, and it is unfortunate flag of St George waving nonsense. But neo-fascist?
Nonetheless the speech has gone down like a pair of lead underpants on PB for all sorts of other reasons too, and by both Conservatives and Labourites, although Andy Burnham seemed to like it.
The implication is that those who vote Tory are "Enemies of the People".
This is an illustration of Sweden’s self-sufficiency in various common foodstuffs.
This has crept up the political agenda in many countries. Free markets are not as smart as many long thought. Especially when it comes to life’s essentials like food, energy and housing.
Intderesting that the terms grice and neat are visible here for pig and cow meat ...
This is an illustration of Sweden’s self-sufficiency in various common foodstuffs.
This has crept up the political agenda in many countries. Free markets are not as smart as many long thought. Especially when it comes to life’s essentials like food, energy and housing.
impressed on the sugar. but they should let their chickens grow up.
TLDR, the argument boils down to this. Peoples have a right to self determination. We are a people. Hence we have that right. The Scotland Act 1998 should be construed in a way that does not interfere with that right. A referendum allows the views of the Scottish people to be determined. The reserved matters therefore cannot constrain this.
Skimming it, there seems to be two strands of thought to their argument, if I've understood it correctly. To summarise.
1: The proposed referendum is "non-self-executing"* referendum 2: As a non-self-executing referendum, the referendum and accompanying proposed legislation doesn't affect the constitution or Parliament or Union. 3: The Scotland Act "relates to" reservation could be read narrowly (only acts that affect the union are reserved), or broadly (anything broadly related even if it doesn't affect the union itself). 4: The people of Scotland should have the right to self-determination under international law. 5: Domestic UK law is typically interpreted in line with international law, unless it can't be. 6: A narrow reading of "relates to" would allow self-determination, while not affecting the constitution, so should be the interpretation the Court uses.
IANAL but it seems like a good argument to me. A narrow reading of what relates to means, would mean that both UK and International Law are in alignment, and would mean that the proposed legislation is legal. Any legislation that actually affects the union would be reserved, but a mere referendum doesn't actually do that, so shouldn't be reserved on that reading.
Do you see a legal objection to this logic?
* Legal speak for "advisory" I assume
An advisory referendum would be widely boycotted. "Whats the point when the English would just say no" / "Its a waste of money, a Sturgeon ego trip. Don't waste your time"
But all referenda are advisory pretty much, this certainly has to be just as the EU Referendum was, and their entire legal argument seems to be that it is advisory. Or using their language "non-self-executing".
It seems to me to be a sound legal argument that the power to hold an advisory-only referendum is not reserved, since its only advisory, and if the Supreme Court rules that a proposed referendum is legal then it will be legal and anyone proposing at that point that its only advisory would be as ridiculous as those Remoaners saying it post-Brexit Referendum.
I have to say, Sturgeon may have played this very, very well. If she gets a Supreme Court stamp of approval on any proposed referendum, even on the basis that its only advisory, sorry non-self-executing, then it seems to me to be hard for it to then be boycotted afterwards having been approved by the Supreme Court.
Why not? The UK government would say it would refuse to implement the result as the Union is reserved to it and tell Unionists to boycott it
"If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the ... border of Ukraine again, then there will be ... no longer a Nord Stream 2. We, we will bring an end to it," Biden said. Asked how, given the project is in German control, Biden said: "I promise you, we'll be able to do it."
Scholz said the United States and Germany had the same approach to Ukraine, to Russia and to sanctions, but did not directly confirm the Nord Stream 2 plans or mention the pipeline publicly by name over the course of his day-long visit.
Government after government has failed to do nearly enough about the supply side of the British economy. Reams have been written, far more eloquently than I can manage, about how this inaction has trapped us, time and time again, into choices we don’t want to have to make, on public services and elsewhere. It has trapped us into falling ever further behind America in our living standards. And it has nudged us into accepting relative decline as the norm and the future of Britain.
Until now, nobody has truly dared tackle this head-on. But we have finally found a PM and chancellor willing to do so. And yet for whatever reason — perhaps simply because we cannot get our heads around the reorganisation they have in mind — we are risking making it politically impossible before they have even begun to try.
That, at least, is a load of waffle just because there were no supply side reforms, just a bunch of tax cuts which will push up demand.
I'm all in favour of supply side reforms and pushing up business investment, there's was very little in the Friday statement that actually achieves any supply side fix.
He does address that if you read the whole piece:
This is a long list, and even then it is only really a start on the work that the economy needs. It is also vague: it equivocates about the most important supply-side reform of all — housing reform — promising merely that more detail will be announced soon.
But it is a start. And if it is implemented properly (and followed up with more), it would allow Kwarteng’s plan to succeed, and with it, bring to end the awful bind that British policymaking has been stuck in since 2008.
The plan is therefore a do-or-die moment.
To commit to the Growth Plan’s tax-and-spend decisions without the structural reforms to go along with them would be a disaster. It would represent the worst of the status quo, but with a new layer of ‘bad’ added on top.
And there are lots of reasons for pessimism. Getting a supply-side reform through Parliament is much more difficult than doing new spending, especially with special interest groups doing their absolute utmost to block progress. Truss is already light on political capital, given how few MPs originally voted for her, and the response to our currency trouble will only have made that worse. Worst of all, there is very little time: it is less than two years until a general election.
Which is why it's waffle. The writer is just projecting onto Kwasi what he wants to happen. There's been no detail or moves to boost supply just vague ideas and ambitions. What we actually have is a series of tax cuts which are intended to boost demand. Rather than defending them based on something he hopes they will do in the future, they need to be chastised for not doing what is necessary to reform the economy by boosting supply (and investment).
The Friday event, when you take it for the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, is aimed at producing a short term gain in demand by borrowing loads of money. In a high inflation environment it's going to cause interest rates to shoot up and the currency to tank, unsurprisingly that's what has happened.
When you take in the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, almost all of what happened was pre-announced and the 45p changes "cost" £2 billion supposedly, but the real cost to the Exchequer will of course be far less than that and may even by negative.
So the hysteria that has followed is just ridiculous. Yes you are completely right that the vague ideas and ambitions need meat on the bones to follow through with, I totally agree with you on that, but at least they're targeting the right issues and saying the right things even if its not yet in action. They need to follow through with credible actions on reforms, but those are things that aren't simply announced in a statement.
No, they aren't targeting the right issues because they haven't done anything. What they have done is borrow £45bn to increase demand which is targeting the wrong issues.
They might be saying the right things but then they're doing the exact opposite and you're falling for it.
TLDR, the argument boils down to this. Peoples have a right to self determination. We are a people. Hence we have that right. The Scotland Act 1998 should be construed in a way that does not interfere with that right. A referendum allows the views of the Scottish people to be determined. The reserved matters therefore cannot constrain this.
Skimming it, there seems to be two strands of thought to their argument, if I've understood it correctly. To summarise.
1: The proposed referendum is "non-self-executing"* referendum 2: As a non-self-executing referendum, the referendum and accompanying proposed legislation doesn't affect the constitution or Parliament or Union. 3: The Scotland Act "relates to" reservation could be read narrowly (only acts that affect the union are reserved), or broadly (anything broadly related even if it doesn't affect the union itself). 4: The people of Scotland should have the right to self-determination under international law. 5: Domestic UK law is typically interpreted in line with international law, unless it can't be. 6: A narrow reading of "relates to" would allow self-determination, while not affecting the constitution, so should be the interpretation the Court uses.
IANAL but it seems like a good argument to me. A narrow reading of what relates to means, would mean that both UK and International Law are in alignment, and would mean that the proposed legislation is legal. Any legislation that actually affects the union would be reserved, but a mere referendum doesn't actually do that, so shouldn't be reserved on that reading.
Do you see a legal objection to this logic?
* Legal speak for "advisory" I assume
An advisory referendum would be widely boycotted. "Whats the point when the English would just say no" / "Its a waste of money, a Sturgeon ego trip. Don't waste your time"
But all referenda are advisory pretty much, this certainly has to be just as the EU Referendum was, and their entire legal argument seems to be that it is advisory. Or using their language "non-self-executing".
It seems to me to be a sound legal argument that the power to hold an advisory-only referendum is not reserved, since its only advisory, and if the Supreme Court rules that a proposed referendum is legal then it will be legal and anyone proposing at that point that its only advisory would be as ridiculous as those Remoaners saying it post-Brexit Referendum.
I have to say, Sturgeon may have played this very, very well. If she gets a Supreme Court stamp of approval on any proposed referendum, even on the basis that its only advisory, sorry non-self-executing, then it seems to me to be hard for it to then be boycotted afterwards having been approved by the Supreme Court.
Why not? The UK government would say it would refuse to implement the result as the Union is reserved to it and tell Unionists to boycott it
Saying now is not the time is one thing.
Refusing to consider the result of a legal referendum, even if not a legally binding one, is quite ugly on the other hand.
If the Supreme Court OK's this legislation, then it becomes a legal referendum.
TLDR, the argument boils down to this. Peoples have a right to self determination. We are a people. Hence we have that right. The Scotland Act 1998 should be construed in a way that does not interfere with that right. A referendum allows the views of the Scottish people to be determined. The reserved matters therefore cannot constrain this.
Skimming it, there seems to be two strands of thought to their argument, if I've understood it correctly. To summarise.
1: The proposed referendum is "non-self-executing"* referendum 2: As a non-self-executing referendum, the referendum and accompanying proposed legislation doesn't affect the constitution or Parliament or Union. 3: The Scotland Act "relates to" reservation could be read narrowly (only acts that affect the union are reserved), or broadly (anything broadly related even if it doesn't affect the union itself). 4: The people of Scotland should have the right to self-determination under international law. 5: Domestic UK law is typically interpreted in line with international law, unless it can't be. 6: A narrow reading of "relates to" would allow self-determination, while not affecting the constitution, so should be the interpretation the Court uses.
IANAL but it seems like a good argument to me. A narrow reading of what relates to means, would mean that both UK and International Law are in alignment, and would mean that the proposed legislation is legal. Any legislation that actually affects the union would be reserved, but a mere referendum doesn't actually do that, so shouldn't be reserved on that reading.
Do you see a legal objection to this logic?
* Legal speak for "advisory" I assume
An advisory referendum would be widely boycotted. "Whats the point when the English would just say no" / "Its a waste of money, a Sturgeon ego trip. Don't waste your time"
But all referenda are advisory pretty much, this certainly has to be just as the EU Referendum was, and their entire legal argument seems to be that it is advisory. Or using their language "non-self-executing".
It seems to me to be a sound legal argument that the power to hold an advisory-only referendum is not reserved, since its only advisory, and if the Supreme Court rules that a proposed referendum is legal then it will be legal and anyone proposing at that point that its only advisory would be as ridiculous as those Remoaners saying it post-Brexit Referendum.
I have to say, Sturgeon may have played this very, very well. If she gets a Supreme Court stamp of approval on any proposed referendum, even on the basis that its only advisory, sorry non-self-executing, then it seems to me to be hard for it to then be boycotted afterwards having been approved by the Supreme Court.
Why not? The UK government would say it would refuse to implement the result as the Union is reserved to it and tell Unionists to boycott it
In that case, Yes wins a legal referendum massively. Despite what you like to pretend, DNV does not count.
Government after government has failed to do nearly enough about the supply side of the British economy. Reams have been written, far more eloquently than I can manage, about how this inaction has trapped us, time and time again, into choices we don’t want to have to make, on public services and elsewhere. It has trapped us into falling ever further behind America in our living standards. And it has nudged us into accepting relative decline as the norm and the future of Britain.
Until now, nobody has truly dared tackle this head-on. But we have finally found a PM and chancellor willing to do so. And yet for whatever reason — perhaps simply because we cannot get our heads around the reorganisation they have in mind — we are risking making it politically impossible before they have even begun to try.
That, at least, is a load of waffle just because there were no supply side reforms, just a bunch of tax cuts which will push up demand.
I'm all in favour of supply side reforms and pushing up business investment, there's was very little in the Friday statement that actually achieves any supply side fix.
He does address that if you read the whole piece:
This is a long list, and even then it is only really a start on the work that the economy needs. It is also vague: it equivocates about the most important supply-side reform of all — housing reform — promising merely that more detail will be announced soon.
But it is a start. And if it is implemented properly (and followed up with more), it would allow Kwarteng’s plan to succeed, and with it, bring to end the awful bind that British policymaking has been stuck in since 2008.
The plan is therefore a do-or-die moment.
To commit to the Growth Plan’s tax-and-spend decisions without the structural reforms to go along with them would be a disaster. It would represent the worst of the status quo, but with a new layer of ‘bad’ added on top.
And there are lots of reasons for pessimism. Getting a supply-side reform through Parliament is much more difficult than doing new spending, especially with special interest groups doing their absolute utmost to block progress. Truss is already light on political capital, given how few MPs originally voted for her, and the response to our currency trouble will only have made that worse. Worst of all, there is very little time: it is less than two years until a general election.
Which is why it's waffle. The writer is just projecting onto Kwasi what he wants to happen. There's been no detail or moves to boost supply just vague ideas and ambitions. What we actually have is a series of tax cuts which are intended to boost demand. Rather than defending them based on something he hopes they will do in the future, they need to be chastised for not doing what is necessary to reform the economy by boosting supply (and investment).
The Friday event, when you take it for the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, is aimed at producing a short term gain in demand by borrowing loads of money. In a high inflation environment it's going to cause interest rates to shoot up and the currency to tank, unsurprisingly that's what has happened.
When you take in the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, almost all of what happened was pre-announced and the 45p changes "cost" £2 billion supposedly, but the real cost to the Exchequer will of course be far less than that and may even by negative.
So the hysteria that has followed is just ridiculous. Yes you are completely right that the vague ideas and ambitions need meat on the bones to follow through with, I totally agree with you on that, but at least they're targeting the right issues and saying the right things even if its not yet in action. They need to follow through with credible actions on reforms, but those are things that aren't simply announced in a statement.
No, they aren't targeting the right issues because they haven't done anything. What they have done is borrow £45bn to increase demand which is targeting the wrong issues.
They might be saying the right things but then they're doing the exact opposite and you're falling for it.
But that £45bn is predominantly to reverse the NI Tax Rise and the Corporation Tax rise, both of which you and I both vehemently disagreed with at the time they were announced. Only £2bn, if that, relates to the 45p tax change but you're acting as if the entire £45bn has gone on that.
I see Starmer has repeated the neo-fascistic language about Labour being the "political wing of the British people".
Has he? Starmer may be useless, and his speech a disaster, but your assertion is a stretch.
Sir Keir Starmer finishes his speech by echoing Tony Blair, saying "we are the party of the centre ground - once again the political wing of the British people"
I see Starmer has repeated the neo-fascistic language about Labour being the "political wing of the British people".
Hubris and the left and a winter of discontent could be enough to start the tide turning.
A decent speech, but both a bit OTT on sunlit uplands as well as being slightly OTT on difficult promises to bank.
There isn't, yet, quite the ruthlessness and competence of Labour pre 1997.
Clearly the odds are shifting towards Labour led govt post next GE, and a Labour majority is not impossible.
Personally I think in the last 10-12 months the chance of a Labour majority has gone from about 5% to about 30%. Quite shift, but nowhere near sealing the deal.
And the Tories in the last few weeks have closed off a number of routes to recovery.
Interesting times still. Don't bet the farm on any outcome.
he has to be careful on sunlit uplands...more likely a long slough through mud first
TLDR, the argument boils down to this. Peoples have a right to self determination. We are a people. Hence we have that right. The Scotland Act 1998 should be construed in a way that does not interfere with that right. A referendum allows the views of the Scottish people to be determined. The reserved matters therefore cannot constrain this.
Skimming it, there seems to be two strands of thought to their argument, if I've understood it correctly. To summarise.
1: The proposed referendum is "non-self-executing"* referendum 2: As a non-self-executing referendum, the referendum and accompanying proposed legislation doesn't affect the constitution or Parliament or Union. 3: The Scotland Act "relates to" reservation could be read narrowly (only acts that affect the union are reserved), or broadly (anything broadly related even if it doesn't affect the union itself). 4: The people of Scotland should have the right to self-determination under international law. 5: Domestic UK law is typically interpreted in line with international law, unless it can't be. 6: A narrow reading of "relates to" would allow self-determination, while not affecting the constitution, so should be the interpretation the Court uses.
IANAL but it seems like a good argument to me. A narrow reading of what relates to means, would mean that both UK and International Law are in alignment, and would mean that the proposed legislation is legal. Any legislation that actually affects the union would be reserved, but a mere referendum doesn't actually do that, so shouldn't be reserved on that reading.
Do you see a legal objection to this logic?
* Legal speak for "advisory" I assume
An advisory referendum would be widely boycotted. "Whats the point when the English would just say no" / "Its a waste of money, a Sturgeon ego trip. Don't waste your time"
But all referenda are advisory pretty much, this certainly has to be just as the EU Referendum was, and their entire legal argument seems to be that it is advisory. Or using their language "non-self-executing".
It seems to me to be a sound legal argument that the power to hold an advisory-only referendum is not reserved, since its only advisory, and if the Supreme Court rules that a proposed referendum is legal then it will be legal and anyone proposing at that point that its only advisory would be as ridiculous as those Remoaners saying it post-Brexit Referendum.
I have to say, Sturgeon may have played this very, very well. If she gets a Supreme Court stamp of approval on any proposed referendum, even on the basis that its only advisory, sorry non-self-executing, then it seems to me to be hard for it to then be boycotted afterwards having been approved by the Supreme Court.
Why not? The UK government would say it would refuse to implement the result as the Union is reserved to it and tell Unionists to boycott it
Saying now is not the time is one thing.
Refusing to consider the result of a legal referendum, even if not a legally binding one, is quite ugly on the other hand.
If the Supreme Court OK's this legislation, then it becomes a legal referendum.
And, crucially, one on which it is illegal for, fori nstance, Labour-Tory local authorities to refuse to implement.
I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
Kherson has proven to be something of a disappointment for Ukraine. The Russians there, which includes many of Russia's best units, are fighting hard and casualties on both sides seem heavy. The expectation was that the Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper would rapidly run out of supplies and amunition and then surrender but this hasn't happened in 2 or more weeks of heavy fighting. It is still possible that there will be a collapse as supplies run out but its not looking imminent.
I don't think many people expected it would be rapid. The commentary I read/heard was that it was a more favourable location for Ukraine to degrade Russians forces over a period of time. Reportedly the Russian generals have asked Putin to let them withdraw and been refused permission. That suggests the Ukrainian strategy is working.
The real surprise is that Ukraine were able to combine the Kherson offensive with an offensive on Kharkiv, and now Donetsk.
Indeed there's a certain grim irony that longer the Russian forces bleed out in Kherson, the harder they make it for them to then be able to hold onto Crimea. If these forces now futilely holding Kherson were in Crimea they'd be much better entrenched and easier to reinforce, but in Kherson . . .
Once they're defeated, moving on to Crimea next will be easier than if the frontline was there already.
Sane Russian commanders can see that and know where to draw their defensive lines. Putin doesn't. Political leaders overruling military commanders isn't normally a sign things are going well.
That's all true, and yet prosecution of a war is always governed by political objectives as well as operational expediency, because the political objectives are why you're fighting. So it's not that surprising that there would be a political imperative to hang on to the right bank of the Dnipro.
What's more surprising is the suggestion of a renewed Russian offensive towards Kharkiv. Concentration of force is a basic military principle, and I would have thought that the overriding political and strategic objectives for Russia was securing the Black Sea coast - so an attack on Kharkiv makes no political, strategic or military sense.
I see Starmer has repeated the neo-fascistic language about Labour being the "political wing of the British people".
Has he? Starmer may be useless, and his speech a disaster, but your assertion is a stretch.
Sir Keir Starmer finishes his speech by echoing Tony Blair, saying "we are the party of the centre ground - once again the political wing of the British people"
I see Starmer has repeated the neo-fascistic language about Labour being the "political wing of the British people".
Has he? Starmer may be useless, and his speech a disaster, but your assertion is a stretch.
Sir Keir Starmer finishes his speech by echoing Tony Blair, saying "we are the party of the centre ground - once again the political wing of the British people"
This is an illustration of Sweden’s self-sufficiency in various common foodstuffs.
This has crept up the political agenda in many countries. Free markets are not as smart as many long thought. Especially when it comes to life’s essentials like food, energy and housing.
impressed on the sugar. but they should let their chickens grow up.
For some reason I had always thought they wouldn't be importing huge amounts of viltkott from Pakistan or Paraguay.
I see Starmer has repeated the neo-fascistic language about Labour being the "political wing of the British people".
Has he? Starmer may be useless, and his speech a disaster, but your assertion is a stretch.
Sir Keir Starmer finishes his speech by echoing Tony Blair, saying "we are the party of the centre ground - once again the political wing of the British people"
Comments
It needs to be more than 1 20 point poll, the average has to hit 20 over a sustained period to mean anything.
UK-German 10-year spread blows out to highest since 1991 https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1574754516184047617/photo/1
So yes, the private sector can alleviate the pain and suffering of people by using their available facilities. Perhaps if it was you and yours in prolonged pain you may less of a zealot on the "private bad" thing. As a short term solution there is nothing wrong with contracting it out.
https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1574774738580283394
So yes. A StateCo to compete with the private sector and do all the things they have failed to do.. As every other big western economy does successfully.
Meanwhile the map is developing in an interesting way in northern Luhansk and the last remnants of russian occupied Kharkiv Oblast.
(Not well up on the Beeb - only just caught up with how they self-trashed Question of Sport.)
NOM 2.04
Lab Maj 3.5
Con Maj 4.53
Mel Stride, Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, tells @Sarah_Montague the Conservative party's reputation on the economy is ‘in jeopardy’.
https://bbc.in/3foohA2 https://twitter.com/BBCWorldatOne/status/1574775191900721153/video/1
"He went to Eton, I think, he went to a very expensive prep school, all the way through, the top schools in the country.
"If you hear him on the Today programme, you wouldn't know he is black."
WFT is she saying? That black people can't go to good schools and be a success? I'm not sure that talking up the stereotype of black males being poorly educated and leaving a string of abandoned children behind them is one she should be promoting.
The real surprise is that Ukraine were able to combine the Kherson offensive with an offensive on Kharkiv, and now Donetsk.
@ABC
Pres. Biden: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"
Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662
1: The proposed referendum is "non-self-executing"* referendum
2: As a non-self-executing referendum, the referendum and accompanying proposed legislation doesn't affect the constitution or Parliament or Union.
3: The Scotland Act "relates to" reservation could be read narrowly (only acts that affect the union are reserved), or broadly (anything broadly related even if it doesn't affect the union itself).
4: The people of Scotland should have the right to self-determination under international law.
5: Domestic UK law is typically interpreted in line with international law, unless it can't be.
6: A narrow reading of "relates to" would allow self-determination, while not affecting the constitution, so should be the interpretation the Court uses.
IANAL but it seems like a good argument to me. A narrow reading of what relates to means, would mean that both UK and International Law are in alignment, and would mean that the proposed legislation is legal. Any legislation that actually affects the union would be reserved, but a mere referendum doesn't actually do that, so shouldn't be reserved on that reading.
Do you see a legal objection to this logic?
* Legal speak for "advisory" I assume
Unfortunately this is the end result of pigeon holing and identity politics (see also assuming anyone LGBT+ must be a left winger).
Yellow card for sks btw:
Quoting former Labour leader Sir Tony Blair, Starmer says Labour is the "political wing of the British people".
Always thought that was peak Blair creepy unctuosity.
Still, she can always claim a defence of "satire".
Absolutely dire for the Scottish and Welsh Tories.
SNP 46%
SLab 30%
SCon 15%
SLD 8%
Grn 1%
Ref -
oth -
WLab 53%
WCon 16%
PC 13%
WLD 10%
Grn 4%
Ref 2%
oth 1%
Labour leads in England:
London 30 points
Rest of South 17 points (!!)
Midlands Even Stevens
North 16 points
New Labour started off using it as a practical short-term measure, and then Blair fetishized it as the One True Solution to problems in the public sector.
Understand Kwasi is not happy I'm living tweeting this
https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1574778178958131201
Once they're defeated, moving on to Crimea next will be easier than if the frontline was there already.
Sane Russian commanders can see that and know where to draw their defensive lines. Putin doesn't. Political leaders overruling military commanders isn't normally a sign things are going well.
A decent speech, but both a bit OTT on sunlit uplands as well as being slightly OTT on difficult promises to bank.
There isn't, yet, quite the ruthlessness and competence of Labour pre 1997.
Clearly the odds are shifting towards Labour led govt post next GE, and a Labour majority is not impossible.
Personally I think in the last 10-12 months the chance of a Labour majority has gone from about 5% to about 30%. Quite shift, but nowhere near sealing the deal.
And the Tories in the last few weeks have closed off a number of routes to recovery.
Interesting times still. Don't bet the farm on any outcome.
So, I guess it's true. But it's true to the extent that the US pressured Germany not to get more dependent on Russian gas.
If we choose this as a source, average for all September probably still less than 10?*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Or will it only have to average above 20 for the last fortnight for you to be proved right? Still a very long way off claiming 20 points ahead.
*and without Opinion in it - which is just as well because it’s a swing back bastardised poll and will always drag the average down, and reason why I glance away disinterested in gibberish whenever TV or paper do a “poll of polls”. Then again Kantor will trot in any moment with near identical to Opinium 4 or 5 % gap.
Kherson has been a brutal meat grinder for both sides. But at least the Russians there are exactly where the Ukrainian high command want them. The noose is tightening. Meanwhile, large areas are being won back to the NE, where Russian defensive and supply lines are repeatedly being broken. Lyman looks to be in a poor way for the Russians - there's several more battle groups worth of POWs and equipment going to be lost there.
https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1574478065396244480/photo/1
It will also then allow Ukraine to surge through the area to the NE of there and take another great swathe of acreage off the Russians- and further imperil their supply lines to the south. It is hard not to be impressed at what the Ukrainains are achieving against the world's second largest
collection of cripples, geriatrics, kids, musiciansarmy.It seems to me to be a sound legal argument that the power to hold an advisory-only referendum is not reserved, since its only advisory, and if the Supreme Court rules that a proposed referendum is legal then it will be legal and anyone proposing at that point that its only advisory would be as ridiculous as those Remoaners saying it post-Brexit Referendum.
I have to say, Sturgeon may have played this very, very well. If she gets a Supreme Court stamp of approval on any proposed referendum, even on the basis that its only advisory, sorry non-self-executing, then it seems to me to be hard for it to then be boycotted afterwards having been approved by the Supreme Court.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1574764614470062086
This is an illustration of Sweden’s self-sufficiency in various common foodstuffs.
This has crept up the political agenda in many countries. Free markets are not as smart as many long thought. Especially when it comes to life’s essentials like food, energy and housing.
It’s gibberish.
If you speak gibberish, and someone wants to paint it as fascist, fair enough in my book. If you don’t like them doing that then don’t talk gibberish.
Nonetheless the speech has gone down like a pair of lead underpants on PB for all sorts of other reasons too, and by both Conservatives and Labourites, although Andy Burnham seemed to like it.
When what the President REALLY meant by "we" was "US and Germany".
https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-germanys-scholz-stress-unified-front-against-any-russian-aggression-toward-2022-02-07/
"If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the ... border of Ukraine again, then there will be ... no longer a Nord Stream 2. We, we will bring an end to it," Biden said. Asked how, given the project is in German control, Biden said: "I promise you, we'll be able to do it."
Scholz said the United States and Germany had the same approach to Ukraine, to Russia and to sanctions, but did not directly confirm the Nord Stream 2 plans or mention the pipeline publicly by name over the course of his day-long visit.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/23/statement-by-president-biden-on-nord-stream-2/
They might be saying the right things but then they're doing the exact opposite and you're falling for it.
Refusing to consider the result of a legal referendum, even if not a legally binding one, is quite ugly on the other hand.
If the Supreme Court OK's this legislation, then it becomes a legal referendum.
What's more surprising is the suggestion of a renewed Russian offensive towards Kharkiv. Concentration of force is a basic military principle, and I would have thought that the overriding political and strategic objectives for Russia was securing the Black Sea coast - so an attack on Kharkiv makes no political, strategic or military sense.
intra day low
Still zero reason to label EITHER remark as "fascist".