I had the misfortune of watching Suella Braverman's Conference speech. The response was ecstatic, as she railed against the ruling party's failure to curb immigration, stop the boat people, win the war on woke, make sure a copper attends every burglary and so on and on.
It's beyond belief; such an attack on a Tory government - a Tory government! - that has been in power for 12 years and failed so abysmally.
Truss Seeks 20-Year Gas Deal With Norway to Avoid Winter Blackouts. Discussions may lead to locking in gas price for two decades.
Sky’s Sam Coates was clearly on to something, Truss on the cusp of her big Norway deal - is she thinking of announcing it in her speech tomorrow as the conference saving rabbit from the hat?
What would PBs advice be on this?
At what length of contract and cost does Energy Security argument fall apart and it become a risk on Value For Money?
and political risk of a huge stick opponents will bludgeon Tory LOTO with for decades to come if this is signed in haste and repented at leisure?
As I noted upthread, this has the potential to be G Brown and the gold reserves, but an order of magnitude or two bigger.
Is it really the job of a temp PM to be taking two decade bets on the commodities market ?
In defence of Liz Truss, our current PM at this time should be exploring ways of keeping the lights on through the crisis (though industry would be turned off first before hitting households I suspect). Contracts to secure supply probably do make some sense, provided they don’t prove too long and too expensive?
Could there be an element of how UK smartly stole ahead on vaccine contracts here, all signed to UK before lumbering EU even booked a meeting room to have a discussion on vaccine’s. Are the Tories again leading the way, getting energy signed up early? Might Truss by replicating that success gave Boris Tories a huge bounce from the voters?
However, like you I do sense risk here, political risk to lock us in long contracts poor value for money.
Can we put some numbers on it before we hear the numbers Liz government have agreed? How many years at what cost is good, okay, or poor can we estimate?
One thing to consider - if there is a gas shortage in Europe this winter, there will be enormous pressure on Norway to “fairly share out” it’s gas. And ignore existing contracts.
It will be the vaccine story all over again.
We won the vaccine story. We had the contracts, the EU could only mope and cry into their Danish pastries.
Off topic, but possibly of interest: An American company is making a small contribution to the British economy: The company, "The Great Courses", sells classes in a wide variety of subjects. If you buy one of the courses, you get a small book and a DVD with a set of lectures on the subject -- or you can watch the lectures on line.
When their most recent catalog arrived in the mail yesterday, I noticed that one of the featured courses is "The Great Tours; England, Scotland and Wales", which they will sell you for 35 dollars. (Or you can buy it with a similar course on Ireland, for 60 dollars.)
Presumably, this will encourage Americans to visit Britain, perhaps even for a grand tour.
Off topic, but possibly of interest: An American company is making a small contribution to the British economy: The company, "The Great Courses", sells classes in a wide variety of subjects. If you buy one of the courses, you get a small book and a DVD with a set of lectures on the subject -- or you can watch the lectures on line.
When their most recent catalog arrived in the mail yesterday, I noticed that one of the featured courses is "The Great Tours; England, Scotland and Wales", which they will sell you for 35 dollars. (Or you can buy it with a similar course on Ireland, for 60 dollars.)
Presumably, this will encourage Americans to visit Britain, perhaps even for a grand tour.
(Will I be buying a copy? No. I am planning to buy a course on quantum mechanics, soon, which should keep me occupied for a while.)
There are a lot of Americans in the UK at the moment. Obviously mostly in London, but I've also noticed some of them in the sort of places tourists don't usually visit.
Yes, I was at a US vet this morning and she said they’ve had tons of people wanting to travel with their pets recently. For someone with $ the rest of the world is a bargain right now.
Off topic, but possibly of interest: An American company is making a small contribution to the British economy: The company, "The Great Courses", sells classes in a wide variety of subjects. If you buy one of the courses, you get a small book and a DVD with a set of lectures on the subject -- or you can watch the lectures on line.
When their most recent catalog arrived in the mail yesterday, I noticed that one of the featured courses is "The Great Tours; England, Scotland and Wales", which they will sell you for 35 dollars. (Or you can buy it with a similar course on Ireland, for 60 dollars.)
Presumably, this will encourage Americans to visit Britain, perhaps even for a grand tour.
This sentence is extremely misleading given that the UK announced a windfall tax in response to the Ukraine war several months ago:
"While the European Union approved emergency levies on energy firms' unusually high profits, the UK has chosen to borrow to fund consumer subsidies."
Tell it to the CEO of Shell.
That would be the CEO of Shell who is just about to step down so honestly probably doesn't give a fuck.
The same CEO of Shell who decided to move their head office from the Netherlands to the UK after Brexit specifically to avoid higher taxes inside the EU.
The CEO of Shell who actually produce only 2.5% of their worldwide production from the UK.
If you are going to quote someone it is always as well to try and work out what their angle is.
Personally I think this is such a dire situation that we should get more from the oil companies producing from the North Sea. But Shell's contribution to that will be the square root of fuck all in the grand scheme of things so it is easy for Van Beurden to come over all holy.
I'm shocked anywhere near 2.5% of Shell's worldwide production is in the UK; I thought they'd sold off pretty much all their North Sea assets.
They still have Jackdaw - which does about 40,000 barrels a day and they are non op partners in a lot of fields - fingers in pies. Total BOE production worldwide for them is about 3.7 million barrels a day (in 2021) and UK is about 87,000.
One issue they have is they sold off a lot of fields but retained P&A liabilities. So they have some hefty costs coming down the line at them as well.
Oh yes, I forgot about the non-operating holdings - that's a very good point.
Being serious, for all the talk of Russia's myriad military problems, at present they still seem to be fighting stubbornly on, having been advancing (slowly) a few months ago. Presumably the Ukrainians are also constrained by supplies coming in so cannot go too rapidly even if they wanted to and the Russians looked weak in an area.
One hopes the general course of future events will be set come the winter, and that 2023 will be a far better year.
Is there one for the Chancellor? Just, you know, to make Liz feel a bit better....
Anyone else find the wordcloud responses a bit weird?
The question: “In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss”
Some people respond with;
“bit” or “time” or “bring” or just, “Liz”
I despair at the British public, sometimes.
Yes some of it is a bit odd.
“In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss” - BORIS “In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss” - COMPLETELY “In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss” - WOMAN
Is there one for the Chancellor? Just, you know, to make Liz feel a bit better....
Anyone else find the wordcloud responses a bit weird?
The question: “In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss”
Some people respond with;
“bit” or “time” or “bring” or just, “Liz”
I despair at the British public, sometimes.
Yes some of it is a bit odd.
“In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss” - BORIS “In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss” - COMPLETELY “In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss” - WOMAN
My general assumption is that most supposed wordclouds are nonsense or parodies, or nonsense parodies.
Being serious, for all the talk of Russia's myriad military problems, at present they still seem to be fighting stubbornly on, having been advancing (slowly) a few months ago. Presumably the Ukrainians are also constrained by supplies coming in so cannot go too rapidly even if they wanted to and the Russians looked weak in an area.
One hopes the general course of future events will be set come the winter, and that 2023 will be a far better year.
Slow but steady also allows for the benefits of salami slicing.
rcs - surely we wouldn't be entering into long term contracts at the current prices?
UK looking at long-term energy contracts with other countries - PM Prime Minister Liz Truss has said the government is looking at long-term energy contracts with other countries. Asked by reporters if she was considering buying Norwegian gas, Ms Truss said: "We will move forward on our own energy security... "Energy security is vitally important. We are looking at long-term energy contracts with other countries making sure we have got a good price,
The UK is far less reliant on Russian gas than European countries - in 2021 imports from Russia made up 4% of gas used here. However, as more countries shop around for gas due to the Ukraine conflict disrupting supply, global prices have risen - hence why Britons have not been shielded from energy price hikes this year.
This sentence is extremely misleading given that the UK announced a windfall tax in response to the Ukraine war several months ago:
"While the European Union approved emergency levies on energy firms' unusually high profits, the UK has chosen to borrow to fund consumer subsidies."
Tell it to the CEO of Shell.
That would be the CEO of Shell who is just about to step down so honestly probably doesn't give a fuck.
The same CEO of Shell who decided to move their head office from the Netherlands to the UK after Brexit specifically to avoid higher taxes inside the EU.
The CEO of Shell who actually produce only 2.5% of their worldwide production from the UK.
If you are going to quote someone it is always as well to try and work out what their angle is.
Personally I think this is such a dire situation that we should get more from the oil companies producing from the North Sea. But Shell's contribution to that will be the square root of fuck all in the grand scheme of things so it is easy for Van Beurden to come over all holy.
That’s fine, but even your last para you concede there is political merit.
Yet we kept being told a few weeks ago that Labour’s policy was in some sense undeliverable.
Anything is deliverable. If you are the Government you just tell them what they have to pay. The problem with Labour's plan is that it will only deliver a fraction of the money they - and we - need. I am not saying that is an argument against doing it but anyone who looks at the billions of pounds profit the Majors are making and thinks they will get some of that is going to be very, very disappointed.
In the grand scheme of things the windfall taxes are just PR. They won't actually make much difference on their own. And I have yet to see any party come up with a solution that will actually deal with the issues without costing the country a fortune.
Labour will try to do what they always do - again, load a vast amount of public sector expenditure onto a private sector that, again, won't be able to bear it.
What is different this time is that they won't be able to borrow, so it will be an immediate cash grab from wherever they can get it.
That first Labour Budget is going to be a horror show for the private sector. Everyone in the public sector will have their begging bowls out, expecting them to be filled.
They will undoubtedly end their period of Government with unemployment far higher than they inherited. Again.
This sentence is extremely misleading given that the UK announced a windfall tax in response to the Ukraine war several months ago:
"While the European Union approved emergency levies on energy firms' unusually high profits, the UK has chosen to borrow to fund consumer subsidies."
Tell it to the CEO of Shell.
That would be the CEO of Shell who is just about to step down so honestly probably doesn't give a fuck.
The same CEO of Shell who decided to move their head office from the Netherlands to the UK after Brexit specifically to avoid higher taxes inside the EU.
The CEO of Shell who actually produce only 2.5% of their worldwide production from the UK.
If you are going to quote someone it is always as well to try and work out what their angle is.
Personally I think this is such a dire situation that we should get more from the oil companies producing from the North Sea. But Shell's contribution to that will be the square root of fuck all in the grand scheme of things so it is easy for Van Beurden to come over all holy.
That’s fine, but even your last para you concede there is political merit.
Yet we kept being told a few weeks ago that Labour’s policy was in some sense undeliverable.
Anything is deliverable. If you are the Government you just tell them what they have to pay. The problem with Labour's plan is that it will only deliver a fraction of the money they - and we - need. I am not saying that is an argument against doing it but anyone who looks at the billions of pounds profit the Majors are making and thinks they will get some of that is going to be very, very disappointed.
In the grand scheme of things the windfall taxes are just PR. They won't actually make much difference on their own. And I have yet to see any party come up with a solution that will actually deal with the issues without costing the country a fortune.
Labour will try to do what they always do - again, load a vast amount of public sector expenditure onto a private sector that, again, won't be able to bear it.
What is different this time is that they won't be able to borrow, so it will be an immediate cash grab from wherever they can get it.
That first Labour Budget is going to be a horror show for the private sector. Everyone in the public sector will have their begging bowls out, expecting them to be filled.
They will undoubtedly end their period of Government with unemployment far higher than they inherited. Again.
The Tories have managed to leverage the economy into recession.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way out of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
Crazy if true, as it blocks off that one bridge via which the Russians can bring supplies.
I've no idea how well they update it, but I the wikipedia map of the war is pretty remarkable in how practically every city and town in Ukraine gets a hyperlink to its own page. I may be wrong, but I'm not sure if English wikipedia had entries for Verkhnii Rochachyk before this invasion.
Being serious, for all the talk of Russia's myriad military problems, at present they still seem to be fighting stubbornly on, having been advancing (slowly) a few months ago. Presumably the Ukrainians are also constrained by supplies coming in so cannot go too rapidly even if they wanted to and the Russians looked weak in an area.
One hopes the general course of future events will be set come the winter, and that 2023 will be a far better year.
For a while, the Russians got a bit of their mass artillery thing going. Then they ran into a couple of problems -
- worn out barrels on the guns are not being replaced and are wearing out faster than spec. This is due to poor quality control and failed manufacturing. - HIMARS hitting the supply lines and depots.
The Russian forces have been steadily hollowed out, with the higher end weapons depleted and destroyed. This has a curious parallel in how the German Army in Russia was slowly reduced to infantry divisions with less and less heavy equipment as the war went on.
Off topic, but possibly of interest: An American company is making a small contribution to the British economy: The company, "The Great Courses", sells classes in a wide variety of subjects. If you buy one of the courses, you get a small book and a DVD with a set of lectures on the subject -- or you can watch the lectures on line.
When their most recent catalog arrived in the mail yesterday, I noticed that one of the featured courses is "The Great Tours; England, Scotland and Wales", which they will sell you for 35 dollars. (Or you can buy it with a similar course on Ireland, for 60 dollars.)
Presumably, this will encourage Americans to visit Britain, perhaps even for a grand tour.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Perhaps the public don’t want to be part of Truss’s experiment ! After covid and the cost of living crisis a period of calm is what they might be looking for .
She seems to think this disruption is a badge of honour but so far the disruption has led to increased mortgage rates , a run on the pound and the BOE stepping in to shore up the pension markets .
The public might want a hug and some re-assurance not forced to take on an assault course !
This sentence is extremely misleading given that the UK announced a windfall tax in response to the Ukraine war several months ago:
"While the European Union approved emergency levies on energy firms' unusually high profits, the UK has chosen to borrow to fund consumer subsidies."
Tell it to the CEO of Shell.
That would be the CEO of Shell who is just about to step down so honestly probably doesn't give a fuck.
The same CEO of Shell who decided to move their head office from the Netherlands to the UK after Brexit specifically to avoid higher taxes inside the EU.
The CEO of Shell who actually produce only 2.5% of their worldwide production from the UK.
If you are going to quote someone it is always as well to try and work out what their angle is.
Personally I think this is such a dire situation that we should get more from the oil companies producing from the North Sea. But Shell's contribution to that will be the square root of fuck all in the grand scheme of things so it is easy for Van Beurden to come over all holy.
That’s fine, but even your last para you concede there is political merit.
Yet we kept being told a few weeks ago that Labour’s policy was in some sense undeliverable.
Anything is deliverable. If you are the Government you just tell them what they have to pay. The problem with Labour's plan is that it will only deliver a fraction of the money they - and we - need. I am not saying that is an argument against doing it but anyone who looks at the billions of pounds profit the Majors are making and thinks they will get some of that is going to be very, very disappointed.
In the grand scheme of things the windfall taxes are just PR. They won't actually make much difference on their own. And I have yet to see any party come up with a solution that will actually deal with the issues without costing the country a fortune.
Labour will try to do what they always do - again, load a vast amount of public sector expenditure onto a private sector that, again, won't be able to bear it.
What is different this time is that they won't be able to borrow, so it will be an immediate cash grab from wherever they can get it.
That first Labour Budget is going to be a horror show for the private sector. Everyone in the public sector will have their begging bowls out, expecting them to be filled.
They will undoubtedly end their period of Government with unemployment far higher than they inherited. Again.
The Tories have managed to leverage the economy into recession.
Labour (97-10) now looks like a golden period.
No way Labour 97 -10 could have funded the furlough scheme. Especially the economy towards the end that the Conservatives inherited.
This sentence is extremely misleading given that the UK announced a windfall tax in response to the Ukraine war several months ago:
"While the European Union approved emergency levies on energy firms' unusually high profits, the UK has chosen to borrow to fund consumer subsidies."
Tell it to the CEO of Shell.
That would be the CEO of Shell who is just about to step down so honestly probably doesn't give a fuck.
The same CEO of Shell who decided to move their head office from the Netherlands to the UK after Brexit specifically to avoid higher taxes inside the EU.
The CEO of Shell who actually produce only 2.5% of their worldwide production from the UK.
If you are going to quote someone it is always as well to try and work out what their angle is.
Personally I think this is such a dire situation that we should get more from the oil companies producing from the North Sea. But Shell's contribution to that will be the square root of fuck all in the grand scheme of things so it is easy for Van Beurden to come over all holy.
That’s fine, but even your last para you concede there is political merit.
Yet we kept being told a few weeks ago that Labour’s policy was in some sense undeliverable.
Anything is deliverable. If you are the Government you just tell them what they have to pay. The problem with Labour's plan is that it will only deliver a fraction of the money they - and we - need. I am not saying that is an argument against doing it but anyone who looks at the billions of pounds profit the Majors are making and thinks they will get some of that is going to be very, very disappointed.
In the grand scheme of things the windfall taxes are just PR. They won't actually make much difference on their own. And I have yet to see any party come up with a solution that will actually deal with the issues without costing the country a fortune.
Labour will try to do what they always do - again, load a vast amount of public sector expenditure onto a private sector that, again, won't be able to bear it.
What is different this time is that they won't be able to borrow, so it will be an immediate cash grab from wherever they can get it.
That first Labour Budget is going to be a horror show for the private sector. Everyone in the public sector will have their begging bowls out, expecting them to be filled.
They will undoubtedly end their period of Government with unemployment far higher than they inherited. Again.
The Tories have managed to leverage the economy into recession.
Labour (97-10) now looks like a golden period.
No way Labour 97 -10 could have funded the furlough scheme. Especially the economy towards the end that the Conservatives inherited.
"There is no money". That golden period?
Most certainly.
Good growth, investment in public services, reducing inequality.
As for your last comment, compare debt to GDP compared with now.
Truss Seeks 20-Year Gas Deal With Norway to Avoid Winter Blackouts. Discussions may lead to locking in gas price for two decades.
Sky’s Sam Coates was clearly on to something, Truss on the cusp of her big Norway deal - is she thinking of announcing it in her speech tomorrow as the conference saving rabbit from the hat?
What would PBs advice be on this?
At what length of contract and cost does Energy Security argument fall apart and it become a risk on Value For Money?
and political risk of a huge stick opponents will bludgeon Tory LOTO with for decades to come if this is signed in haste and repented at leisure?
As I noted upthread, this has the potential to be G Brown and the gold reserves, but an order of magnitude or two bigger.
Is it really the job of a temp PM to be taking two decade bets on the commodities market ?
In defence of Liz Truss, our current PM at this time should be exploring ways of keeping the lights on through the crisis (though industry would be turned off first before hitting households I suspect). Contracts to secure supply probably do make some sense, provided they don’t prove too long and too expensive?
Could there be an element of how UK smartly stole ahead on vaccine contracts here, all signed to UK before lumbering EU even booked a meeting room to have a discussion on vaccine’s. Are the Tories again leading the way, getting energy signed up early? Might Truss by replicating that success gave Boris Tories a huge bounce from the voters?
However, like you I do sense risk here, political risk to lock us in long contracts poor value for money.
Can we put some numbers on it before we hear the numbers Liz government have agreed? How many years at what cost is good, okay, or poor can we estimate?
One thing to consider - if there is a gas shortage in Europe this winter, there will be enormous pressure on Norway to “fairly share out” it’s gas. And ignore existing contracts.
It will be the vaccine story all over again.
Errr.
It's a bit more complex than that, because there are only a limited number of gas pipelines, and they are (mostly) fed by individual fields.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
Perhaps the public don’t want to be part of Truss’s experiment ! After covid and the cost of living crisis a period of calm is what they might be looking for .
She seems to think this disruption is a badge of honour but so far the disruption has led to increased mortgage rates , a run on the pound and the BOE stepping in to shore up the pension markets .
The public might want a hug and some re-assurance not forced to take on an assault course !
Perhaps the public don’t want to be part of Truss’s experiment ! After covid and the cost of living crisis a period of calm is what they might be looking for .
She seems to think this disruption is a badge of honour but so far the disruption has led to increased mortgage rates , a run on the pound and the BOE stepping in to shore up the pension markets .
The public might want a hug and some re-assurance not forced to take on an assault course !
Crazy if true, as it blocks off that one bridge via which the Russians can bring supplies.
They mean Beryslav Raion not the town.
It's about 50km from Dudchany / the NE corner of Beryslav Raion to the bridge. If the Ukranian Army keep advancing at the current rate they should be close enough to interdict the bridge in a couple of days.
Perhaps the public don’t want to be part of Truss’s experiment ! After covid and the cost of living crisis a period of calm is what they might be looking for .
She seems to think this disruption is a badge of honour but so far the disruption has led to increased mortgage rates , a run on the pound and the BOE stepping in to shore up the pension markets .
The public might want a hug and some re-assurance not forced to take on an assault course !
The public wants to be nannied by the government.
Well, sometimes children might need to be taken away from nanny, it is true (otherwise you become JRM, probably), but even so I wouldn't advise doing so by tossing them naked into the path of an oncoming car.
If the problem is the public wants to be nannied, the solution is probably not a sharp transition from being nannied to getting no support.
The people who want the most nannying are old age pensioners, ie the Tory client vote.
Which is why I think the solution here lies with Labour - Nixon to China and all that. Sadly, I don't think they are interested. They will bumble along without actually dealing with the fundamental issues. Because they want the Tory client vote to become their client vote.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The paradigm shift will be when the childless, homeless, life stunted Millennials finally organise as a class like their parents did, and elect a government that inverts policy by fucking over the old to enrich the young.
The people who want the most nannying are old age pensioners, ie the Tory client vote.
Which is why I think the solution here lies with Labour - Nixon to China and all that. Sadly, I don't think they are interested. They will bumble along without actually dealing with the fundamental issues. Because they want the Tory client vote to become their client vote.
Surely it is for the Tories to deal with the pensioner problem, that really would be Nixon going to China.
It’s not that difficult.
Get rid of the triple lock. Charge national insurance on pensioner earnings.
Personally I would get rid of the winter fuel allowance too. I wouldn’t have a license fee, so no need to discount that. I would keep subsidised low fares for public transport.
Liz has created a crisis, and to be fair the situation has indeed worsened via exogenous factors. No time like now.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The paradigm shift will be when the childless, homeless, life stunted Millennials finally organise as a class like their parents did, and elect a government that inverts policy by fucking over the old to enrich the young.
Sadly, these bastards just keep going on. I don’t think the demographic balance is due to tilt in the way you mention until the mid 2040s.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The paradigm shift will be when the childless, homeless, life stunted Millennials finally organise as a class like their parents did, and elect a government that inverts policy by fucking over the old to enrich the young.
Except, the "young" have an eye to being the fucked-over old themselves. Time's arrow really only works one way on this.
Perhaps the public don’t want to be part of Truss’s experiment ! After covid and the cost of living crisis a period of calm is what they might be looking for .
She seems to think this disruption is a badge of honour but so far the disruption has led to increased mortgage rates , a run on the pound and the BOE stepping in to shore up the pension markets .
The public might want a hug and some re-assurance not forced to take on an assault course !
The public wants to be nannied by the government.
The public aren’t in the mood for politicians espousing short term pain for long term gain . What if the short term isn’t so short. Truss seems unable to understand that the public might be at the end of their tether and simply don’t want any more drama inflicted on them by their own government .
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The paradigm shift will be when the childless, homeless, life stunted Millennials finally organise as a class like their parents did, and elect a government that inverts policy by fucking over the old to enrich the young.
Except, the "young" have an eye to being the fucked-over old themselves. Time's arrow really only works one way on this.
Nah, they've learnt from their nation-ruining Boomer ancestors and will continue to vote in their age class interest as they get older.
Sucks for the country - but what else can they do?
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The paradigm shift will be when the childless, homeless, life stunted Millennials finally organise as a class like their parents did, and elect a government that inverts policy by fucking over the old to enrich the young.
Something that will never happen. Because those Millennials will never organise until they reach an age where they start to take their situation seriously. And that is when they have become the very people you think they should be fucking over.
The people who want the most nannying are old age pensioners, ie the Tory client vote.
Which is why I think the solution here lies with Labour - Nixon to China and all that. Sadly, I don't think they are interested. They will bumble along without actually dealing with the fundamental issues. Because they want the Tory client vote to become their client vote.
Surely it is for the Tories to deal with the pensioner problem, that really would be Nixon going to China.
It’s not that difficult.
Get rid of the triple lock. Charge national insurance on pensioner earnings.
Personally I would get rid of the winter fuel allowance too. I wouldn’t have a license fee, so no need to discount that. I would keep subsidised low fares for public transport.
Liz has created a crisis, and to be fair the situation has indeed worsened via exogenous factors. No time like now.
Can't argue with any of that. But neither side look like doing that.
Being reported that the Russians are abandoning Snihurivka, NNE of Kherson. Important if so, as it is on the left bank of the Inhulets River, the same side as Kherson itself. Bad news for those Russians on the right bank - they risk being cut off from retreating to Kherson.
The collapse of this front in 48 hours is astonishing.
I keep trying to figure out what my strategy from here would be, if I was Truss.
And I just can’t.
Clinging on and hoping the storm will blow over is basically her only option.
Firstly announce benefits going up online with inflation. Then hunker down, nothing controversial, help Ukraine. Have two years and see where you are. If you lose then, it’s been 14 years in power anyway.
And if 2024 brings UK the best growth in the G7, Labour are struggling in that autumn election?
Not if 1997 is anything to go by. Awful economy from 1990 to 1994, then much improved. And a labour landslide.
No, 1993 was a good year (GDP growth of 2.5%) and 1994 was a mini-boom (nearly 4%).
Per capita growth under Blair and Brown never reached the level it was at under John Major.
Is that true?
Major took over in 1990, pretty much immediately before a recession. In 1991, the economy actually contracted, and even in 1992, it was pretty aneamic (0.4%) growth. 1993 (2.5%) and 1994 (3.8%) were good years, and then Major gets 2.5% growth in 1995 and 1996. According to Macrotrends (https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-growth-rate) this comes out to just under 10% over seven years, which is 1.2% per year.
During that period, the UK population grew only a little (57.25m to 58.38m - or 2%), so you're looking at a 8% increase in GDP per capita over seven years, or 1%.
I suspect - and I could be wrong - that the numbers for the Blair period (which does not include the GFC) probably beat that, while for the Brown period, I would expect them to lag it.
I didn't check the cumulative numbers, but according to the ONS, per capita growth was 4.3% in 1997 and below that every year since until 2021 when we had the anomaly of the covid rebound.
rcs - surely we wouldn't be entering into long term contracts at the current prices?
I'm sure we wouldn't.
But I'm also sure that we wouldn't be paying the $8-10/mmcf that was common for LNG projects for the last 15 years either. We're going to market to tie up gas at the same time that Germany (and others) are, so I would imagine we'd have to pay $15 or more on a fixed price contract.
The people who want the most nannying are old age pensioners, ie the Tory client vote.
Which is why I think the solution here lies with Labour - Nixon to China and all that. Sadly, I don't think they are interested. They will bumble along without actually dealing with the fundamental issues. Because they want the Tory client vote to become their client vote.
Surely it is for the Tories to deal with the pensioner problem, that really would be Nixon going to China.
It’s not that difficult.
Get rid of the triple lock. Charge national insurance on pensioner earnings.
Personally I would get rid of the winter fuel allowance too. I wouldn’t have a license fee, so no need to discount that. I would keep subsidised low fares for public transport.
Liz has created a crisis, and to be fair the situation has indeed worsened via exogenous factors. No time like now.
Keep the triple lock. There are an awful lot of poor pensioners out there. The state pension is a bit under £200 a week.
The trouble with charging NIC on pensioner earnings is that NICs are paid to qualify for the state pension, which pensioners, by definition, already have. The government could do it anyway but it would be philosophically neater if NI were merged into income tax which would be charged at the same rate regardless of age. Of course, then you would lose employers' NICs so nothing is straightforward.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The biggest single issue facing governments of all shades and hues is the issue of an ageing population, because that puts pressure on government spending (pensions and health care), diverting workers into looking after the elderly, while at the same time meaning a smaller proportion of people are of working age.
The first step to solving this is to make sure that *everyone* is saving for their own retirement all the time - which probably means a system like the Australian compulsory saving scheme.
The issue is that - while this is absolutely the right thing in the long-term - it means one generation of workers will simultaneously be paying for yesterday's unfunded promises, and saving for their own retirement. And that is a very hard sell.
This sentence is extremely misleading given that the UK announced a windfall tax in response to the Ukraine war several months ago:
"While the European Union approved emergency levies on energy firms' unusually high profits, the UK has chosen to borrow to fund consumer subsidies."
Tell it to the CEO of Shell.
That would be the CEO of Shell who is just about to step down so honestly probably doesn't give a fuck.
The same CEO of Shell who decided to move their head office from the Netherlands to the UK after Brexit specifically to avoid higher taxes inside the EU.
The CEO of Shell who actually produce only 2.5% of their worldwide production from the UK.
If you are going to quote someone it is always as well to try and work out what their angle is.
Personally I think this is such a dire situation that we should get more from the oil companies producing from the North Sea. But Shell's contribution to that will be the square root of fuck all in the grand scheme of things so it is easy for Van Beurden to come over all holy.
That’s fine, but even your last para you concede there is political merit.
Yet we kept being told a few weeks ago that Labour’s policy was in some sense undeliverable.
Anything is deliverable. If you are the Government you just tell them what they have to pay. The problem with Labour's plan is that it will only deliver a fraction of the money they - and we - need. I am not saying that is an argument against doing it but anyone who looks at the billions of pounds profit the Majors are making and thinks they will get some of that is going to be very, very disappointed.
In the grand scheme of things the windfall taxes are just PR. They won't actually make much difference on their own. And I have yet to see any party come up with a solution that will actually deal with the issues without costing the country a fortune.
Labour will try to do what they always do - again, load a vast amount of public sector expenditure onto a private sector that, again, won't be able to bear it.
What is different this time is that they won't be able to borrow, so it will be an immediate cash grab from wherever they can get it.
That first Labour Budget is going to be a horror show for the private sector. Everyone in the public sector will have their begging bowls out, expecting them to be filled.
They will undoubtedly end their period of Government with unemployment far higher than they inherited. Again.
The Tories have managed to leverage the economy into recession.
Labour (97-10) now looks like a golden period.
No way Labour 97 -10 could have funded the furlough scheme. Especially the economy towards the end that the Conservatives inherited.
"There is no money". That golden period?
You seem to have forgotten that Labour had to deal with the global financial crisis. It is not too hard to draw parallels between bank bailouts and QE under Labour, and furlough payments under the Conservatives. And in 2010 the Conservatives inherited a recovering economy which they promptly flatlined.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way out of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
Is Liz Truss a small-state or Singapore-on-Thames Conservative. Some of her supporters might be but the lady herself? I'm not sure.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The biggest single issue facing governments of all shades and hues is the issue of an ageing population, because that puts pressure on government spending (pensions and health care), diverting workers into looking after the elderly, while at the same time meaning a smaller proportion of people are of working age.
The first step to solving this is to make sure that *everyone* is saving for their own retirement all the time - which probably means a system like the Australian compulsory saving scheme.
The issue is that - while this is absolutely the right thing in the long-term - it means one generation of workers will simultaneously be paying for yesterday's unfunded promises, and saving for their own retirement. And that is a very hard sell.
Workers already pay NICs to qualify for the state pension, and there is no reason successive governments could not have invested in some sort of national wealth fund or pension fund. And do not all employers have to enrol workers into private pension schemes nowadays?
But having seen my own private pension pot drop by a third in a year, I am sceptical about trusting our old ages to an incompetent rentier class of fund managers.
I keep trying to figure out what my strategy from here would be, if I was Truss.
And I just can’t.
Clinging on and hoping the storm will blow over is basically her only option.
Firstly announce benefits going up online with inflation. Then hunker down, nothing controversial, help Ukraine. Have two years and see where you are. If you lose then, it’s been 14 years in power anyway.
And if 2024 brings UK the best growth in the G7, Labour are struggling in that autumn election?
Not if 1997 is anything to go by. Awful economy from 1990 to 1994, then much improved. And a labour landslide.
No, 1993 was a good year (GDP growth of 2.5%) and 1994 was a mini-boom (nearly 4%).
Per capita growth under Blair and Brown never reached the level it was at under John Major.
Is that true?
Major took over in 1990, pretty much immediately before a recession. In 1991, the economy actually contracted, and even in 1992, it was pretty aneamic (0.4%) growth. 1993 (2.5%) and 1994 (3.8%) were good years, and then Major gets 2.5% growth in 1995 and 1996. According to Macrotrends (https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-growth-rate) this comes out to just under 10% over seven years, which is 1.2% per year.
During that period, the UK population grew only a little (57.25m to 58.38m - or 2%), so you're looking at a 8% increase in GDP per capita over seven years, or 1%.
I suspect - and I could be wrong - that the numbers for the Blair period (which does not include the GFC) probably beat that, while for the Brown period, I would expect them to lag it.
I didn't check the cumulative numbers, but according to the ONS, per capita growth was 4.3% in 1997 and below that every year since until 2021 when we had the anomaly of the covid rebound.
On a cumulative basis, Blair did better - but only because he left just before the GFC. In every year between 1997 and 2007, UK GDP per capita growth was 1.4% or better. If you include the GFC, when it shrank by 1.1% then 4.9%, then I imagine Major does better.
But... those are trends you see everywhere in the developed world.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The biggest single issue facing governments of all shades and hues is the issue of an ageing population, because that puts pressure on government spending (pensions and health care), diverting workers into looking after the elderly, while at the same time meaning a smaller proportion of people are of working age.
The first step to solving this is to make sure that *everyone* is saving for their own retirement all the time - which probably means a system like the Australian compulsory saving scheme.
The issue is that - while this is absolutely the right thing in the long-term - it means one generation of workers will simultaneously be paying for yesterday's unfunded promises, and saving for their own retirement. And that is a very hard sell.
Workers already pay NICs to qualify for the state pension, and there is no reason successive governments could not have invested in some sort of national wealth fund or pension fund. And do not all employers have to enrol workers into private pension schemes nowadays?
But having seen my own private pension pot drop by a third in a year, I am sceptical about trusting our old ages to an incompetent rentier class of fund managers.
The NICs are spent on today's pensioners. Which is why the transition is painful.
Personally, I'm very relaxed about people making their own pension savings choices. It is - after all - not the government's money.
Is there one for the Chancellor? Just, you know, to make Liz feel a bit better....
Anyone else find the wordcloud responses a bit weird?
The question: “In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss”
Some people respond with;
“bit” or “time” or “bring” or just, “Liz”
I despair at the British public, sometimes.
Yes some of it is a bit odd.
“In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss” - BORIS “In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss” - COMPLETELY “In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss” - WOMAN
My general assumption is that most supposed wordclouds are nonsense or parodies, or nonsense parodies.
My guess is that if you answer “female Boris”, both words go in.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The biggest single issue facing governments of all shades and hues is the issue of an ageing population, because that puts pressure on government spending (pensions and health care), diverting workers into looking after the elderly, while at the same time meaning a smaller proportion of people are of working age.
The first step to solving this is to make sure that *everyone* is saving for their own retirement all the time - which probably means a system like the Australian compulsory saving scheme.
The issue is that - while this is absolutely the right thing in the long-term - it means one generation of workers will simultaneously be paying for yesterday's unfunded promises, and saving for their own retirement. And that is a very hard sell.
The first step to solving this is getting the fertility rate up, especially among the more productive segments of society.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The biggest single issue facing governments of all shades and hues is the issue of an ageing population, because that puts pressure on government spending (pensions and health care), diverting workers into looking after the elderly, while at the same time meaning a smaller proportion of people are of working age.
The first step to solving this is to make sure that *everyone* is saving for their own retirement all the time - which probably means a system like the Australian compulsory saving scheme.
The issue is that - while this is absolutely the right thing in the long-term - it means one generation of workers will simultaneously be paying for yesterday's unfunded promises, and saving for their own retirement. And that is a very hard sell.
The first step to solving this is getting the fertility rate up, especially among the more productive segments of society.
There is exactly one country in the world where college educated women have a TFR of 2.1 or higher: France.
(France is the only country where TFRs rise with education levels.)
But here's the thing. France has done this by making tax allowances stack. So, two parents with two kids get four lots of tax allowances to share. It also means that families with children are treated tax advantageously to the single young and to... ahhhhh... retirees.
Getting the TFR up is also a very long term project (albeit probably a necessary one) that will take 25 years to have an impact.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The biggest single issue facing governments of all shades and hues is the issue of an ageing population, because that puts pressure on government spending (pensions and health care), diverting workers into looking after the elderly, while at the same time meaning a smaller proportion of people are of working age.
The first step to solving this is to make sure that *everyone* is saving for their own retirement all the time - which probably means a system like the Australian compulsory saving scheme.
The issue is that - while this is absolutely the right thing in the long-term - it means one generation of workers will simultaneously be paying for yesterday's unfunded promises, and saving for their own retirement. And that is a very hard sell.
The first step to solving this is getting the fertility rate up, especially among the more productive segments of society.
There is exactly one country in the world where college educated women have a TFR of 2.1 or higher: France.
(France is the only country where TFRs rise with education levels.)
But here's the thing. France has done this by making tax allowances stack. So, two parents with two kids get four lots of tax allowances to share. It also means that families with children are treated tax advantageously to the single young and to... ahhhhh... retirees.
Getting the TFR up is also a very long term project (albeit probably a necessary one) that will take 25 years to have an impact.
I agree with all of that, but we need to start now. 25 years from now will be too late. Single child families will have set in as the norm, and at that point its too late to roll back.
The other big piece of this is the ridiculous working hours of graduate jobs.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The biggest single issue facing governments of all shades and hues is the issue of an ageing population, because that puts pressure on government spending (pensions and health care), diverting workers into looking after the elderly, while at the same time meaning a smaller proportion of people are of working age.
The first step to solving this is to make sure that *everyone* is saving for their own retirement all the time - which probably means a system like the Australian compulsory saving scheme.
The issue is that - while this is absolutely the right thing in the long-term - it means one generation of workers will simultaneously be paying for yesterday's unfunded promises, and saving for their own retirement. And that is a very hard sell.
The first step to solving this is getting the fertility rate up, especially among the more productive segments of society.
There is exactly one country in the world where college educated women have a TFR of 2.1 or higher: France.
(France is the only country where TFRs rise with education levels.)
But here's the thing. France has done this by making tax allowances stack. So, two parents with two kids get four lots of tax allowances to share. It also means that families with children are treated tax advantageously to the single young and to... ahhhhh... retirees.
Getting the TFR up is also a very long term project (albeit probably a necessary one) that will take 25 years to have an impact.
I agree with all of that, but we need to start now. 25 years from now will be too late. Single child families will have set in as the norm, and at that point its too late to roll back.
The other big piece of this is the ridiculous working hours of graduate jobs.
Is this not just a human ponzi scheme? If we create or import more young people then, barring wars, we shall end up with more old people, so will need yet more young people and eventually we will run out of room.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The biggest single issue facing governments of all shades and hues is the issue of an ageing population, because that puts pressure on government spending (pensions and health care), diverting workers into looking after the elderly, while at the same time meaning a smaller proportion of people are of working age.
The first step to solving this is to make sure that *everyone* is saving for their own retirement all the time - which probably means a system like the Australian compulsory saving scheme.
The issue is that - while this is absolutely the right thing in the long-term - it means one generation of workers will simultaneously be paying for yesterday's unfunded promises, and saving for their own retirement. And that is a very hard sell.
The first step to solving this is getting the fertility rate up, especially among the more productive segments of society.
There is exactly one country in the world where college educated women have a TFR of 2.1 or higher: France.
(France is the only country where TFRs rise with education levels.)
But here's the thing. France has done this by making tax allowances stack. So, two parents with two kids get four lots of tax allowances to share. It also means that families with children are treated tax advantageously to the single young and to... ahhhhh... retirees.
Getting the TFR up is also a very long term project (albeit probably a necessary one) that will take 25 years to have an impact.
I agree with all of that, but we need to start now. 25 years from now will be too late. Single child families will have set in as the norm, and at that point its too late to roll back.
The other big piece of this is the ridiculous working hours of graduate jobs.
Is this not just a human ponzi scheme? If we create or import more young people then, barring wars, we shall end up with more old people, so will need yet more young people and eventually we will run out of room.
This is entirely absent of context. We need to boost our fertility rate not to grow our population, but to stop a precipitous collapse. This is already happening at an accelerating rate in Japan and Korea and it's too late for them to stop it. They will collapse as societies.
The problem is only at the beginning of the downward curve here. We have a couple of decades to reverse the trend. In 25 years we will be where Japan and Korea are and then it will be too late.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The biggest single issue facing governments of all shades and hues is the issue of an ageing population, because that puts pressure on government spending (pensions and health care), diverting workers into looking after the elderly, while at the same time meaning a smaller proportion of people are of working age.
The first step to solving this is to make sure that *everyone* is saving for their own retirement all the time - which probably means a system like the Australian compulsory saving scheme.
The issue is that - while this is absolutely the right thing in the long-term - it means one generation of workers will simultaneously be paying for yesterday's unfunded promises, and saving for their own retirement. And that is a very hard sell.
The first step to solving this is getting the fertility rate up, especially among the more productive segments of society.
There is exactly one country in the world where college educated women have a TFR of 2.1 or higher: France.
(France is the only country where TFRs rise with education levels.)
But here's the thing. France has done this by making tax allowances stack. So, two parents with two kids get four lots of tax allowances to share. It also means that families with children are treated tax advantageously to the single young and to... ahhhhh... retirees.
Getting the TFR up is also a very long term project (albeit probably a necessary one) that will take 25 years to have an impact.
I agree with all of that, but we need to start now. 25 years from now will be too late. Single child families will have set in as the norm, and at that point its too late to roll back.
The other big piece of this is the ridiculous working hours of graduate jobs.
Is this not just a human ponzi scheme? If we create or import more young people then, barring wars, we shall end up with more old people, so will need yet more young people and eventually we will run out of room.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The biggest single issue facing governments of all shades and hues is the issue of an ageing population, because that puts pressure on government spending (pensions and health care), diverting workers into looking after the elderly, while at the same time meaning a smaller proportion of people are of working age.
The first step to solving this is to make sure that *everyone* is saving for their own retirement all the time - which probably means a system like the Australian compulsory saving scheme.
The issue is that - while this is absolutely the right thing in the long-term - it means one generation of workers will simultaneously be paying for yesterday's unfunded promises, and saving for their own retirement. And that is a very hard sell.
The first step to solving this is getting the fertility rate up, especially among the more productive segments of society.
There is exactly one country in the world where college educated women have a TFR of 2.1 or higher: France.
(France is the only country where TFRs rise with education levels.)
But here's the thing. France has done this by making tax allowances stack. So, two parents with two kids get four lots of tax allowances to share. It also means that families with children are treated tax advantageously to the single young and to... ahhhhh... retirees.
Getting the TFR up is also a very long term project (albeit probably a necessary one) that will take 25 years to have an impact.
I agree with all of that, but we need to start now. 25 years from now will be too late. Single child families will have set in as the norm, and at that point its too late to roll back.
The other big piece of this is the ridiculous working hours of graduate jobs.
Is this not just a human ponzi scheme? If we create or import more young people then, barring wars, we shall end up with more old people, so will need yet more young people and eventually we will run out of room.
Which takes you back to immigration - whilst global population has topped out almost everywhere, Africa is the exception with a boom generation of young people still to work through the demographics. How these population bulges are to be employed and supported isn’t clear, whereas other parts of the world particularly Europe and the US needs more workers.
This sentence is extremely misleading given that the UK announced a windfall tax in response to the Ukraine war several months ago:
"While the European Union approved emergency levies on energy firms' unusually high profits, the UK has chosen to borrow to fund consumer subsidies."
Tell it to the CEO of Shell.
That would be the CEO of Shell who is just about to step down so honestly probably doesn't give a fuck.
The same CEO of Shell who decided to move their head office from the Netherlands to the UK after Brexit specifically to avoid higher taxes inside the EU.
The CEO of Shell who actually produce only 2.5% of their worldwide production from the UK.
If you are going to quote someone it is always as well to try and work out what their angle is.
Personally I think this is such a dire situation that we should get more from the oil companies producing from the North Sea. But Shell's contribution to that will be the square root of fuck all in the grand scheme of things so it is easy for Van Beurden to come over all holy.
That’s fine, but even your last para you concede there is political merit.
Yet we kept being told a few weeks ago that Labour’s policy was in some sense undeliverable.
Anything is deliverable. If you are the Government you just tell them what they have to pay. The problem with Labour's plan is that it will only deliver a fraction of the money they - and we - need. I am not saying that is an argument against doing it but anyone who looks at the billions of pounds profit the Majors are making and thinks they will get some of that is going to be very, very disappointed.
In the grand scheme of things the windfall taxes are just PR. They won't actually make much difference on their own. And I have yet to see any party come up with a solution that will actually deal with the issues without costing the country a fortune.
Labour will try to do what they always do - again, load a vast amount of public sector expenditure onto a private sector that, again, won't be able to bear it.
What is different this time is that they won't be able to borrow, so it will be an immediate cash grab from wherever they can get it.
That first Labour Budget is going to be a horror show for the private sector. Everyone in the public sector will have their begging bowls out, expecting them to be filled.
They will undoubtedly end their period of Government with unemployment far higher than they inherited. Again.
The Tories have managed to leverage the economy into recession.
Labour (97-10) now looks like a golden period.
1993-2007 does - its effectively one period, except for the dotcom bust and 9/11 dip which didn't prove to be material. Except to our civil liberties and international relations.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The biggest single issue facing governments of all shades and hues is the issue of an ageing population, because that puts pressure on government spending (pensions and health care), diverting workers into looking after the elderly, while at the same time meaning a smaller proportion of people are of working age.
The first step to solving this is to make sure that *everyone* is saving for their own retirement all the time - which probably means a system like the Australian compulsory saving scheme.
The issue is that - while this is absolutely the right thing in the long-term - it means one generation of workers will simultaneously be paying for yesterday's unfunded promises, and saving for their own retirement. And that is a very hard sell.
The first step to solving this is getting the fertility rate up, especially among the more productive segments of society.
There is exactly one country in the world where college educated women have a TFR of 2.1 or higher: France.
(France is the only country where TFRs rise with education levels.)
But here's the thing. France has done this by making tax allowances stack. So, two parents with two kids get four lots of tax allowances to share. It also means that families with children are treated tax advantageously to the single young and to... ahhhhh... retirees.
Getting the TFR up is also a very long term project (albeit probably a necessary one) that will take 25 years to have an impact.
I agree with all of that, but we need to start now. 25 years from now will be too late. Single child families will have set in as the norm, and at that point its too late to roll back.
The other big piece of this is the ridiculous working hours of graduate jobs.
Is this not just a human ponzi scheme? If we create or import more young people then, barring wars, we shall end up with more old people, so will need yet more young people and eventually we will run out of room.
Which takes you back to immigration - whilst global population has topped out almost everywhere, Africa is the exception with a boom generation of young people still to work through the demographics. How these population bulges are to be employed and supported isn’t clear, whereas other parts of the world particularly Europe and the US needs more workers.
They will end up here, or at least try to do so.
I'm not sure Europe will be comfortable with that.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It is a 3 stage problem.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
you are saying this moment is in fact 1975, not 1995 - an orthodoxy, a consensus, is rightly being challenged here, if/when managed well it actually represents the future, and shapes the future?
Indeed. But I also don't think the solutions that were developed from 1979 onwards are necessarily going to be the ones that work this time.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
The biggest single issue facing governments of all shades and hues is the issue of an ageing population, because that puts pressure on government spending (pensions and health care), diverting workers into looking after the elderly, while at the same time meaning a smaller proportion of people are of working age.
The first step to solving this is to make sure that *everyone* is saving for their own retirement all the time - which probably means a system like the Australian compulsory saving scheme.
The issue is that - while this is absolutely the right thing in the long-term - it means one generation of workers will simultaneously be paying for yesterday's unfunded promises, and saving for their own retirement. And that is a very hard sell.
The first step to solving this is getting the fertility rate up, especially among the more productive segments of society.
There is exactly one country in the world where college educated women have a TFR of 2.1 or higher: France.
(France is the only country where TFRs rise with education levels.)
But here's the thing. France has done this by making tax allowances stack. So, two parents with two kids get four lots of tax allowances to share. It also means that families with children are treated tax advantageously to the single young and to... ahhhhh... retirees.
Getting the TFR up is also a very long term project (albeit probably a necessary one) that will take 25 years to have an impact.
Why don't we debate this here?
Perception of too much judgement and attachment to individualism is my guess.
Comments
It's beyond belief; such an attack on a Tory government - a Tory government! - that has been in power for 12 years and failed so abysmally.
If you are predicting the same again…
https://twitter.com/Applefilosofen/status/1577410147546148865
The question: “In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss”
Some people respond with;
“bit” or “time” or “bring” or just, “Liz”
I despair at the British public, sometimes.
Being serious, for all the talk of Russia's myriad military problems, at present they still seem to be fighting stubbornly on, having been advancing (slowly) a few months ago. Presumably the Ukrainians are also constrained by supplies coming in so cannot go too rapidly even if they wanted to and the Russians looked weak in an area.
One hopes the general course of future events will be set come the winter, and that 2023 will be a far better year.
“In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss” - BORIS
“In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss” - COMPLETELY
“In a word, please give your view of Liz Truss” - WOMAN
You could say they are from the Dark Ages, but then the Dark Ages would write in to complain they were never THAT bad
The tragedy of Truss is that she has a point
She deserves to fall but the prime minister’s liberal critique of Britain must not be allowed to go down with her
JANAN GANESH" (via G search)
https://www.ft.com/content/d8d09faa-19d7-48e7-907e-b788d574cf32
Prime Minister Liz Truss has said the government is looking at long-term energy contracts with other countries.
Asked by reporters if she was considering buying Norwegian gas, Ms Truss said: "We will move forward on our own energy
security...
"Energy security is vitally important. We are looking at long-term energy contracts with other countries making sure we have got a good price,
The UK is far less reliant on Russian gas than European countries - in 2021 imports from Russia made up 4% of gas used here.
However, as more countries shop around for gas due to the Ukraine conflict disrupting supply, global prices have risen - hence why Britons have not been shielded from energy price hikes this year.
Crazy if true, as it blocks off that one bridge via which the Russians can bring supplies.
https://www.daterightstuff.com/homepagevideo
These are now so well done....
https://twitter.com/Kiborgzzz/status/1577408654185156608?s=20&t=Pk5K6t3UMvx6OdUiI_kxNg
What is different this time is that they won't be able to borrow, so it will be an immediate cash grab from wherever they can get it.
That first Labour Budget is going to be a horror show for the private sector. Everyone in the public sector will have their begging bowls out, expecting them to be filled.
They will undoubtedly end their period of Government with unemployment far higher than they inherited. Again.
Labour (97-10) now looks like a golden period.
I think the first stage is that they are bright enough to have identified a real problem - and one that many on all sides of the debate have identified for many years so I don't give them too much credit for it. We are in decline and we are all part of a very long term but undeniable ponzi scheme. We cannot simply carry on as we are because you cannot tax your way out of an ever increasing public spending and demographic crisis
They also have a solution. Stage 2. This solution, which is not the only possible one but is valid none the less - cutting the size of the state and making people more responsible for their own well being - could work if it is done carefully and thoughtfully and by taking the public along with you through education and open debate of the issues and the possible solutions. That relies on politicians being honest and also ensuring that the basic principles of fairness and a proper safety net are retained. It also relies on picking the right moment to start it.
But the last stage - now this is where they show their true colours and simply go mad. They are so inept and so drunk with their own power that they have managed to do just about every single thing wrong. Wrong timing, wrong policies, wrong winners and certainly wrong losers. No preparation, no explanation and no remorse when it all goes wrong. They are just, basically, fecking useless.
It doesn't change the fact that the analysis and the possible solution (amongst others) were all sound. But they are so totally incompetent and arrogant that that all counts for nothing.
The trouble is that when they are long gone the problems will still remain and I don't really see any other UK politicians facing up to that fact in the next decade and making any meaningful attempts to deal with it. I would like to think I am wrong on this and that Starmer or Gove or Badenock or some other politician yet to emerge will grasp the issues and make a meaningful attempt to solve them. But I am not holding my breath.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Russo-Ukrainian_War_detailed_map
- worn out barrels on the guns are not being replaced and are wearing out faster than spec. This is due to poor quality control and failed manufacturing.
- HIMARS hitting the supply lines and depots.
The Russian forces have been steadily hollowed out, with the higher end weapons depleted and destroyed. This has a curious parallel in how the German Army in Russia was slowly reduced to infantry divisions with less and less heavy equipment as the war went on.
She seems to think this disruption is a badge of honour but so far the disruption has led to increased mortgage rates , a run on the pound and the BOE stepping in to shore up the pension markets .
The public might want a hug and some re-assurance not forced to take on an assault course !
"There is no money". That golden period?
Something to aim for.
Interestingly, such polling as there was prior to the invasion had it looking like another run off with Zelensky and Poroshenko.
Good growth, investment in public services, reducing inequality.
As for your last comment, compare debt to GDP compared with now.
It's a bit more complex than that, because there are only a limited number of gas pipelines, and they are (mostly) fed by individual fields.
To a large extent Thatcher had it easy. So much of the UK economy was nationalised that privatising it was, for a significant majority of the public, fairly uncontroversial. That easy solution no longer exists.
The past decade and a half had been mostly Labour years and so it was also relatively easy to place the blame elsewhere. The Tories cannot do that now. Only Labour can and I am not sure they are in the right place ideologically to challenge the orthodoxy.
And, of course, there was a ready source of income in the form of North Sea Oil to help pay for the transition. Again, that large reserve does not exist today.
Everything fell right for a paradigm shift in the late 70s. I am not sure anything is right for a similar shift today. Nor, if I am honest, do I know what that shift should necessarily be. All I know is that something has to give and either we control it or it will happen anyway in a form we might not like at all.
If the problem is the public wants to be nannied, the solution is probably not a sharp transition from being nannied to getting no support.
It’s not that difficult.
Get rid of the triple lock.
Charge national insurance on pensioner earnings.
Personally I would get rid of the winter fuel allowance too. I wouldn’t have a license fee, so no need to discount that. I would keep subsidised low fares for public transport.
Liz has created a crisis, and to be fair the situation has indeed worsened via exogenous factors. No time like now.
I don’t think the demographic balance is due to tilt in the way you mention until the mid 2040s.
Sucks for the country - but what else can they do?
https://archive.ph/7PTcI
I confess to having similar (though utterly inchoate) thoughts.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/bridges-to-the-future/id1385648485
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2022/06/the-death-of-consensus-phil-tinline-review-john-gray
Has anyone read it?
The collapse of this front in 48 hours is astonishing.
But I'm also sure that we wouldn't be paying the $8-10/mmcf that was common for LNG projects for the last 15 years either. We're going to market to tie up gas at the same time that Germany (and others) are, so I would imagine we'd have to pay $15 or more on a fixed price contract.
The trouble with charging NIC on pensioner earnings is that NICs are paid to qualify for the state pension, which pensioners, by definition, already have. The government could do it anyway but it would be philosophically neater if NI were merged into income tax which would be charged at the same rate regardless of age. Of course, then you would lose employers' NICs so nothing is straightforward.
The first step to solving this is to make sure that *everyone* is saving for their own retirement all the time - which probably means a system like the Australian compulsory saving scheme.
The issue is that - while this is absolutely the right thing in the long-term - it means one generation of workers will simultaneously be paying for yesterday's unfunded promises, and saving for their own retirement. And that is a very hard sell.
But having seen my own private pension pot drop by a third in a year, I am sceptical about trusting our old ages to an incompetent rentier class of fund managers.
It's all part of the plan:
But... those are trends you see everywhere in the developed world.
Personally, I'm very relaxed about people making their own pension savings choices. It is - after all - not the government's money.
(France is the only country where TFRs rise with education levels.)
But here's the thing. France has done this by making tax allowances stack. So, two parents with two kids get four lots of tax allowances to share. It also means that families with children are treated tax advantageously to the single young and to... ahhhhh... retirees.
Getting the TFR up is also a very long term project (albeit probably a necessary one) that will take 25 years to have an impact.
The other big piece of this is the ridiculous working hours of graduate jobs.
The problem is only at the beginning of the downward curve here. We have a couple of decades to reverse the trend. In 25 years we will be where Japan and Korea are and then it will be too late.
I'm not sure Europe will be comfortable with that.
Perception of too much judgement and attachment to individualism is my guess.