I missed the Truss speech as I was travelling. Would one of PB's many fair-minded and balanced posters mind giving me a brief assessment of how it went and to what extent it may or may not have got her out of the doo-doo?
I did hear the news, but that the Beeb, and you know what they're like.
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
What planet are you living on?
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
This is where I claim the Labour conference last week was poor, I ask you to what degree did it engage with the pressure on UK from globalisation, demographic time bomb (and permanent higher inflation it brings) and transformation to UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment. Or was Labours a safety first conference - For all talk of not being Corbyn anymore it’s now very different, the proof of the pudding will be comparing what Starmer’s manifesto has to say about the main issues, compared to the solutions in Corbyn’s manifesto.
there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and out for eighteen years whilst rival philosophy as clear as Tory’s now laying down, wields the blade and makes necessary changes.
My own one nation instincts are not liking two nation solutions that widen the apartheid of the pocket, so leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics. Doesn’t it?
If your aim at the start of the day was "can I be really, really obtuse on PB today?" Mission accomplished!
Stop playing dum. We know you are intelligent, that cats out the bag,
To me good politics is engaging and winning the arguments, not coasting along safety first. You have to play the long game, and this means arguing and winning the argument. Last weeks Labour conference was poor on this benchmark.
But don’t just ask me what planet I am on for suggesting this, ask Ganesh - one of the more left wing economic columnists around, what planet he is on. For him the exact opposite of a Pyrrhic victory is a defeat that turns out to bring success in the long run
If Trussnomics attempting to answer the problems facing UK today, and Starmerology 😴 isn’t, that’s the very opposite of good politics, it’s a Pyrrhic victory regardless what opinion polls say going into the next election - if Tory’s go into 2029 election both challenging the consensus with their radical solutions, and ahead in the polls.
Janan Ganesh leftwing?
Only on PB.
I know!
We're being razzled by a moon rabbit ... moon rabbit moon rabbit
Janan was at university at the same time as me and was a Tory Association member for a time
Not surprised. He's trad non-populist centre right imo. Economically and socially liberal. Kind of a Topping without the uniform.
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
What planet are you living on?
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
This is where I claim the Labour conference last week was poor, I ask you to what degree did it engage with the pressure on UK from globalisation, demographic time bomb (and permanent higher inflation it brings) and transformation to UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment. Or was Labours a safety first conference - For all talk of not being Corbyn anymore it’s now very different, the proof of the pudding will be comparing what Starmer’s manifesto has to say about the main issues, compared to the solutions in Corbyn’s manifesto.
there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and out for eighteen years whilst rival philosophy as clear as Tory’s now laying down, wields the blade and makes necessary changes.
My own one nation instincts are not liking two nation solutions that widen the apartheid of the pocket, so leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics. Doesn’t it?
If your aim at the start of the day was "can I be really, really obtuse on PB today?" Mission accomplished!
Stop playing dum. We know you are intelligent, that cats out the bag,
To me good politics is engaging and winning the arguments, not coasting along safety first. You have to play the long game, and this means arguing and winning the argument. Last weeks Labour conference was poor on this benchmark.
But don’t just ask me what planet I am on for suggesting this, ask Ganesh - one of the more left wing economic columnists around, what planet he is on. For him the exact opposite of a Pyrrhic victory is a defeat that turns out to bring success in the long run
If Trussnomics attempting to answer the problems facing UK today, and Starmerology 😴 isn’t, that’s the very opposite of good politics, it’s a Pyrrhic victory regardless what opinion polls say going into the next election - if Tory’s go into 2029 election both challenging the consensus with their radical solutions, and ahead in the polls.
Janan Ganesh leftwing?
Only on PB.
I know!
We're being razzled by a moon rabbit ... moon rabbit moon rabbit
Janan was at university at the same time as me and was a Tory Association member for a time
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
This is essentially my prediction, but the PCP have to conclude by strong majority that neither Boris, Sunak or Braverman are viable.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
The PCP would probably install Mark Francois as PM. Meetings of the 1922 Committee must sometimes resemble the Bar Scene in Star Wars.
By the way, the Telegraph online have chosen a rotating set of photos of Truss picked from her speech that make her look... well I am not sure of the PC term for it... mentally deficient?
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
The Council from Council Tax etc
More houses means more Council Tax means more funding for schools.
If an elderly couple die and their house is sold and is bought by someone with children then the demand for schools may change, but you don't expect them to build a new school for that home do you?
If a young couple buy a home, then live in it for fifty years, they may then need social care rather than schooling.
Demands change. The Council should handle that from its taxes for the services it provides.
The council is voted in by the residents so that they can make these decisions. It is democracy at work to disallow someone from building a multi-storey block of flats in a village field if the villagers don't want it to be built there and would have to pay, via their Council tax, if it was built.
And if those voters determined they don't want any black people in their village? Should that be voted for too?
If someone wants to build a block of flats on their own land then that is their own land, not the villagers land.
But if you "own" a piece of land, does that also give you the right to do whatever you like with it? After all, you "own" it only for the time being, not for all eternity.
I tend to see us as being temporary custodians of things... In time, they will pass on to future generations. Hopefully in good condition.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
The Council from Council Tax etc
More houses means more Council Tax means more funding for schools.
If an elderly couple die and their house is sold and is bought by someone with children then the demand for schools may change, but you don't expect them to build a new school for that home do you?
If a young couple buy a home, then live in it for fifty years, they may then need social care rather than schooling.
Demands change. The Council should handle that from its taxes for the services it provides.
The council is voted in by the residents so that they can make these decisions. It is democracy at work to disallow someone from building a multi-storey block of flats in a village field if the villagers don't want it to be built there and would have to pay, via their Council tax, if it was built.
And if those voters determined they don't want any black people in their village? Should that be voted for too?
If someone wants to build a block of flats on their own land then that is their own land, not the villagers land.
Externalities, Bart, externalities.
We live in a democracy and the local residents can make their feelings known that they don't want that via the medium of the council and the application of the planning laws; laws that were created by a democratically-elected government.
As for black people, the people voted in a government which made it illegal to discriminate against black people.
You are having a moment here.
No moment, I'm being consistent. Yes I understand that the laws were created by a democratically-elected government, I would like to see those laws changed democratically too, which is how it became illegal to discriminate against black people. Only by people campaigning to get the law changed.
I don't think people are right to object to someone else selling or letting their home to a black family. I don't think people are right to object to someone else building a house or flats on their own land.
People have a right to free speech. Someone should be allowed to say "we don't want any blacks in our village", and people should be allowed to say "we don't want any houses built in our village", and rational people should be able to dismiss those racists/NIMBYs as the scum they are.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
The Council from Council Tax etc
More houses means more Council Tax means more funding for schools.
If an elderly couple die and their house is sold and is bought by someone with children then the demand for schools may change, but you don't expect them to build a new school for that home do you?
If a young couple buy a home, then live in it for fifty years, they may then need social care rather than schooling.
Demands change. The Council should handle that from its taxes for the services it provides.
The council is voted in by the residents so that they can make these decisions. It is democracy at work to disallow someone from building a multi-storey block of flats in a village field if the villagers don't want it to be built there and would have to pay, via their Council tax, if it was built.
And if those voters determined they don't want any black people in their village? Should that be voted for too?
If someone wants to build a block of flats on their own land then that is their own land, not the villagers land.
But if you "own" a piece of land, does that also give you the right to do whatever you like with it? After all, you "own" it only for the time being, not for all eternity.
I tend to see us as being temporary custodians of things... In time, they will pass on to future generations. Hopefully in good condition.
For me, yes, within reason.
There should be standards and taxes to prevent or deal with externalities, but within reason whatever you want to do with your own land, that should be your business and nobody else's.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
This is essentially my prediction, but the PCP have to conclude by strong majority that neither Boris, Sunak or Braverman are viable.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
The PCP would probably install Mark Francois as PM.
TSE would probably take that over Andrea Jenkyns....
As predicted on this board, M People are objecting to their music being used at conference.
So Tories are not allowed to like M People?
They can like them but they shouldn't use their music without permission, or M-People might object to being associated, or worse.
Is this true though? If your music is for sale, do you keep the rights to say who can buy and use it?
Only if the music is for commercial use, such as in a film or TV show. Played at a venue such as a conference hall or a bar, it’s covered by generic licensing under PRS.
I missed the Truss speech as I was travelling. Would one of PB's many fair-minded and balanced posters mind giving me a brief assessment of how it went and to what extent it may or may not have got her out of the doo-doo?
I did hear the news, but that the Beeb, and you know what they're like.
Thanks
I think, being as fair minded as I can be:
- it wasn’t a disaster. We’re not talking TM cough sweets and collapsing backdrops
- it was platitude heavy. All the Tory greatest hits - low taxes, small state, it’s not the government’s money it’s taxpayers’ money yadda yadda. All stuff we’ve heard before. All getting a bit stale now.
- Not too much on policy. That was almost certainly deliberate.
- Truss will never be public speaker of the year. She probably did as well on that front as could be expected. Managed to deal with the hecklers quite well.
In short, I don’t think it’s going to have any meaningful impact at all, I wouldn’t have thought. Very “meh”.
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
What planet are you living on?
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
This is where I claim the Labour conference last week was poor, I ask you to what degree did it engage with the pressure on UK from globalisation, demographic time bomb (and permanent higher inflation it brings) and transformation to UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment. Or was Labours a safety first conference - For all talk of not being Corbyn anymore it’s now very different, the proof of the pudding will be comparing what Starmer’s manifesto has to say about the main issues, compared to the solutions in Corbyn’s manifesto.
there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and out for eighteen years whilst rival philosophy as clear as Tory’s now laying down, wields the blade and makes necessary changes.
My own one nation instincts are not liking two nation solutions that widen the apartheid of the pocket, so leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics. Doesn’t it?
If your aim at the start of the day was "can I be really, really obtuse on PB today?" Mission accomplished!
Stop playing dum. We know you are intelligent, that cats out the bag,
To me good politics is engaging and winning the arguments, not coasting along safety first. You have to play the long game, and this means arguing and winning the argument. Last weeks Labour conference was poor on this benchmark.
But don’t just ask me what planet I am on for suggesting this, ask Ganesh - one of the more left wing economic columnists around, what planet he is on. For him the exact opposite of a Pyrrhic victory is a defeat that turns out to bring success in the long run
If Trussnomics attempting to answer the problems facing UK today, and Starmerology 😴 isn’t, that’s the very opposite of good politics, it’s a Pyrrhic victory regardless what opinion polls say going into the next election - if Tory’s go into 2029 election both challenging the consensus with their radical solutions, and ahead in the polls.
Janan Ganesh leftwing?
Only on PB.
I know!
We're being razzled by a moon rabbit ... moon rabbit moon rabbit
Janan was at university at the same time as me and was a Tory Association member for a time
Doesn’t surprise me. He’s a “Tory Moderniser” in effect. A Cameroon, essentially.
Other than party affiliation, is there any real ideological difference between a Blairite, a Cameroon and an Orange Booker?
Which neatly encapsulates which end of the telescope you're looking down.
Blairites were Social Democrats, and Orange bookers are Christian Democrats.
Cameroons were Tory wets.
Their social and economic objectives were quite different. But within the boundaries of the 1990s economic consensus.
I think we should privatise the state pension system, and probably introduce health insurance into healthcare provision. (I'd opt for Scandi insurance with a choice of providers which would give unions and associations a new lease of life).
You might well agree (in private moments). It doesn't mean that we have anything else in common.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
The Council from Council Tax etc
More houses means more Council Tax means more funding for schools.
If an elderly couple die and their house is sold and is bought by someone with children then the demand for schools may change, but you don't expect them to build a new school for that home do you?
If a young couple buy a home, then live in it for fifty years, they may then need social care rather than schooling.
Demands change. The Council should handle that from its taxes for the services it provides.
The council is voted in by the residents so that they can make these decisions. It is democracy at work to disallow someone from building a multi-storey block of flats in a village field if the villagers don't want it to be built there and would have to pay, via their Council tax, if it was built.
And if those voters determined they don't want any black people in their village? Should that be voted for too?
If someone wants to build a block of flats on their own land then that is their own land, not the villagers land.
I thought you had an almost mystical respect for voting? Eg whenever I've suggested - as is my wont - that some things should be enshrined above and beyond the hurly burly of electoral politics you have always bridled.
I missed the Truss speech as I was travelling. Would one of PB's many fair-minded and balanced posters mind giving me a brief assessment of how it went and to what extent it may or may not have got her out of the doo-doo?
I did hear the news, but that the Beeb, and you know what they're like.
Thanks
I think, being as fair minded as I can be:
- it wasn’t a disaster. We’re not talking TM cough sweets and collapsing backdrops
- it was platitude heavy. All the Tory greatest hits - low taxes, small state, it’s not the government’s money it’s taxpayers’ money yadda yadda. All stuff we’ve heard before. All getting a bit stale now.
- Not too much on policy. That was almost certainly deliberate.
- Truss will never be public speaker of the year. She probably did as well on that front as could be expected. Managed to deal with the hecklers quite well.
In short, I don’t think it’s going to have any meaningful impact at all, I wouldn’t have thought. Very “meh”.
It's actually a success when a Tory PM's conference speech doesn't crash the pound.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
The Council from Council Tax etc
More houses means more Council Tax means more funding for schools.
If an elderly couple die and their house is sold and is bought by someone with children then the demand for schools may change, but you don't expect them to build a new school for that home do you?
If a young couple buy a home, then live in it for fifty years, they may then need social care rather than schooling.
Demands change. The Council should handle that from its taxes for the services it provides.
The council is voted in by the residents so that they can make these decisions. It is democracy at work to disallow someone from building a multi-storey block of flats in a village field if the villagers don't want it to be built there and would have to pay, via their Council tax, if it was built.
And if those voters determined they don't want any black people in their village? Should that be voted for too?
If someone wants to build a block of flats on their own land then that is their own land, not the villagers land.
I thought you had an almost mystical respect for voting? Eg whenever I've suggested - as is my wont - that some things should be enshrined above and beyond the hurly burly of electoral politics you have always bridled.
I do.
If people want to create a law that allows NIMBYism, they should be allowed to do so. If people want to create a law that allows racism, they should be allowed to do so.
However I retain the right to vehemently oppose both. I can and do have my own opinions on what the law should be, while respecting others right to disagree with me.
In order to end racism or NIMBYism or sexism or any other destructive -ism we need to win the argument, not just have the law match our desires.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
This is essentially my prediction, but the PCP have to conclude by strong majority that neither Boris, Sunak or Braverman are viable.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
The PCP would probably install Mark Francois as PM.
TSE would probably take that over Andrea Jenkyns....
The big difference with 2003, when Michael Howard had his coronation, is that the calibre of Conservative MP's was notably higher than it is today.
I missed the Truss speech as I was travelling. Would one of PB's many fair-minded and balanced posters mind giving me a brief assessment of how it went and to what extent it may or may not have got her out of the doo-doo?
I did hear the news, but that the Beeb, and you know what they're like.
Thanks
I heard it.
To me, she just sounds weird, worse even than May. It was short on substance and the Anti-Growth Coalition sounded desperate to me (it sucks - who the hell is anti growth? Coalition of chaos was much more powerful). But it wasn't a disaster.
I also heard Starmer a week or two back (whenever that was) and found him pretty underwhelming too, but less weird.
(Somewhat floating voter and not particularly tribal, LD more often than not and I was a member for a year or two around 2005ish, but I've voted Con, Lab, LD and Green and independent at various levels over the years)
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I thought it was more that you waive certain rights under the Geneva Convention if you are not in the correct uniform and/or don't have the correct markings.
Seems that was wrong?
You can't be treated as a prisoner of war if you weren't in uniform. That doesn't necessarily make you a war criminal.
However, if you while out of uniform use that advantage to kill or injure an enemy combatant - as appears to have happened in this case - that is a horse of a different colour.
And think about it, if that rule wasn't there, war would be even more of a mess than it is. Every civilian, for a start, could be considered an enemy combatant and killed.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
Depends a bit on whether their country is technically at war or not.
I think that, since partisans are civilians then the rules of war don't apply to them. Their sabotage actions would be covered by normal civil (or martial) law of the occupying power.
This is actually mind-boggling. Neither of these images is fake. Liz Truss was literally wearing today what the tyrannical populist leader played by Emma Thompson in *Years and Years* wore, right down to the shoulder-detail, belt and collar. Just a different shade. How? Why? https://twitter.com/Tweet_Dec/status/1577649652597334017
As predicted on this board, M People are objecting to their music being used at conference.
So Tories are not allowed to like M People?
They can like them but they shouldn't use their music without permission, or M-People might object to being associated, or worse.
Is this true though? If your music is for sale, do you keep the rights to say who can buy and use it?
Only if the music is for commercial use, such as in a film or TV show. Played at a venue such as a conference hall or a bar, it’s covered by generic licensing under PRS.
Anecdote: I was recently in a slightly dodgy cafe playing which was playing a (quite good, I thought) playlist of music too loudly and around 20% too fast (I timed it). It didn't alter the pitch, it was just faster - so must have had some quite clever software. Apparently it is commonly thought that if you play a song more than a certain amount too fast you don't have to pay PRS fees for it. This is almost certainly legally nonsense, but the fact that people believe it means that it happens. I must admit, I didn't actually mind it. Anyway, I'd quite like to see the Tories take this approach next conference. It would lend proceedings a slightly frantic, manic tone.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I thought it was more that you waive certain rights under the Geneva Convention if you are not in the correct uniform and/or don't have the correct markings.
Seems that was wrong?
You can't be treated as a prisoner of war if you weren't in uniform. That doesn't necessarily make you a war criminal.
However, if you while out of uniform use that advantage to kill or injure an enemy combatant - as appears to have happened in this case - that is a horse of a different colour.
And think about it, if that rule wasn't there, war would be even more of a mess than it is. Every civilian, for a start, could be considered an enemy combatant and killed.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
Depends a bit on whether their country is technically at war or not.
I think that, since partisans are civilians then the rules of war don't apply to them. Their sabotage actions would be covered by normal civil (or martial) law of the occupying power.
The annexation actually improves things for partisans (in theory) as there's no death penalty in Russia unlike the DPR and LPR previously.
This is actually mind-boggling. Neither of these images is fake. Liz Truss was literally wearing today what the tyrannical populist leader played by Emma Thompson in *Years and Years* wore, right down to the shoulder-detail, belt and collar. Just a different shade. How? Why? https://twitter.com/Tweet_Dec/status/1577649652597334017
Her dresser is intent on destroying her?
She's worn the outfit before at set piece events. Seems like its an outfit she owns that she likes, should she stop wearing it just because it was also used by an actress?
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
This is essentially my prediction, but the PCP have to conclude by strong majority that neither Boris, Sunak or Braverman are viable.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
The PCP would probably install Mark Francois as PM.
TSE would probably take that over Andrea Jenkyns....
The big difference with 2003, when Michael Howard had his coronation, is that the calibre of Conservative MP's was notably higher than it is today.
I'd agree with you, but extend that to Labour too. They've also got a heap of real moon-howlers - and out of a much smaller pot.
The speech was very wooden. She isn’t a great communicator
She doesn’t have the mandate, communication skills or charisma to bring people along with her. This will become increasingly clear in the weeks ahead. Some delegates are leaving thinking “phew, she didn’t spook the markets”, which is an incredibility low bar
They leave with a massive gap to Labour in the polls, an economic storm approaching with no signs of turbo charged growth
I missed the Truss speech as I was travelling. Would one of PB's many fair-minded and balanced posters mind giving me a brief assessment of how it went and to what extent it may or may not have got her out of the doo-doo?
I did hear the news, but that the Beeb, and you know what they're like.
Thanks
I think, being as fair minded as I can be:
- it wasn’t a disaster. We’re not talking TM cough sweets and collapsing backdrops
- it was platitude heavy. All the Tory greatest hits - low taxes, small state, it’s not the government’s money it’s taxpayers’ money yadda yadda. All stuff we’ve heard before. All getting a bit stale now.
- Not too much on policy. That was almost certainly deliberate.
- Truss will never be public speaker of the year. She probably did as well on that front as could be expected. Managed to deal with the hecklers quite well.
In short, I don’t think it’s going to have any meaningful impact at all, I wouldn’t have thought. Very “meh”.
Yes. Awful.
Small state: they are running a very large centralised state and plan to carry on doing so
Low taxes: we are a fairly high tax state and borrowing £195 billion pa; every single big spend area is asking for a lot more just to function at all effectively
Policy: "You can run a complex modern state on simple rules and regulations." False. You can't.
Social care: ? Silence I think
Doctor's appointments: Sunlit uplands. You will only have to wait 14 days for an appointment.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I thought it was more that you waive certain rights under the Geneva Convention if you are not in the correct uniform and/or don't have the correct markings.
Seems that was wrong?
You can't be treated as a prisoner of war if you weren't in uniform. That doesn't necessarily make you a war criminal.
However, if you while out of uniform use that advantage to kill or injure an enemy combatant - as appears to have happened in this case - that is a horse of a different colour.
And think about it, if that rule wasn't there, war would be even more of a mess than it is. Every civilian, for a start, could be considered an enemy combatant and killed.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
Depends a bit on whether their country is technically at war or not.
I think that, since partisans are civilians then the rules of war don't apply to them. Their sabotage actions would be covered by normal civil (or martial) law of the occupying power.
The annexation actually improves things for partisans (in theory) as there's no death penalty in Russia unlike the DPR and LPR previously.
Officially there's no death penalty in Russia but window safety leaves a bit to be desired ...
This is actually mind-boggling. Neither of these images is fake. Liz Truss was literally wearing today what the tyrannical populist leader played by Emma Thompson in *Years and Years* wore, right down to the shoulder-detail, belt and collar. Just a different shade. How? Why? https://twitter.com/Tweet_Dec/status/1577649652597334017
Her dresser is intent on destroying her?
She's worn the outfit before at set piece events. Seems like its an outfit she owns that she likes, should she stop wearing it just because it was also used by an actress?
As predicted on this board, M People are objecting to their music being used at conference.
So Tories are not allowed to like M People?
They can like them but they shouldn't use their music without permission, or M-People might object to being associated, or worse.
Is this true though? If your music is for sale, do you keep the rights to say who can buy and use it?
Only if the music is for commercial use, such as in a film or TV show. Played at a venue such as a conference hall or a bar, it’s covered by generic licensing under PRS.
Anecdote: I was recently in a slightly dodgy cafe playing which was playing a (quite good, I thought) playlist of music too loudly and around 20% too fast (I timed it). It didn't alter the pitch, it was just faster - so must have had some quite clever software. Apparently it is commonly thought that if you play a song more than a certain amount too fast you don't have to pay PRS fees for it. This is almost certainly legally nonsense, but the fact that people believe it means that it happens. I must admit, I didn't actually mind it. Anyway, I'd quite like to see the Tories take this approach next conference. It would lend proceedings a slightly frantic, manic tone.
LOL, presumably that’s some American argument that centres around ‘fair use’ or ‘transformative work’. Almost certainly baloney though. PRS licensing is generic, so either your venue is playing music and register for it, or you’re not playing music and don’t.
Any modern DJ software can adjust the speed without adjusting the pitch of the track - something which sounds like magic, to those of us raised with a pair of Technics SL1210s and a crossfader!
This is actually mind-boggling. Neither of these images is fake. Liz Truss was literally wearing today what the tyrannical populist leader played by Emma Thompson in *Years and Years* wore, right down to the shoulder-detail, belt and collar. Just a different shade. How? Why? https://twitter.com/Tweet_Dec/status/1577649652597334017
Her dresser is intent on destroying her?
She's worn the outfit before at set piece events. Seems like its an outfit she owns that she likes, should she stop wearing it just because it was also used by an actress?
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
This is essentially my prediction, but the PCP have to conclude by strong majority that neither Boris, Sunak or Braverman are viable.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
The PCP would probably install Mark Francois as PM.
TSE would probably take that over Andrea Jenkyns....
The big difference with 2003, when Michael Howard had his coronation, is that the calibre of Conservative MP's was notably higher than it is today.
I'd agree with you, but extend that to Labour too. They've also got a heap of real moon-howlers - and out of a much smaller pot.
Who’d want to be a Parliamentarian today, in an era of social media muck-raking, offence-taking and hyper-partisanship on every issue?
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
This is essentially my prediction, but the PCP have to conclude by strong majority that neither Boris, Sunak or Braverman are viable.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
The PCP would probably install Mark Francois as PM.
TSE would probably take that over Andrea Jenkyns....
The big difference with 2003, when Michael Howard had his coronation, is that the calibre of Conservative MP's was notably higher than it is today.
I'd agree with you, but extend that to Labour too. They've also got a heap of real moon-howlers - and out of a much smaller pot.
Sure, Labour have selected some real horrors in recent years.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
The Council from Council Tax etc
More houses means more Council Tax means more funding for schools.
If an elderly couple die and their house is sold and is bought by someone with children then the demand for schools may change, but you don't expect them to build a new school for that home do you?
If a young couple buy a home, then live in it for fifty years, they may then need social care rather than schooling.
Demands change. The Council should handle that from its taxes for the services it provides.
That's quite poignant. Circle of Life etc. Reminds me of that Halifax ad.
Yes, what’s required is for councils to be able to benefit financially - through increased CT revenues - to allow more building in their areas. Too much local authority budget comes from central government, and not enough from local taxes.
Britain pretty much the weakest, worst funded local government in the OECD.
Again, a sane government would be looking at this as a growth measure. But Tories are instinctively against decentralisation.
So are Labour, although there are signs of an important shift there.
Too many governments of all stripes have wanted central control. Personally would prefer much more local power. Let local councils raise and keep the council tax and business rates, and let them set the levels too. Get genuine competition between areas.
Won't happen though.
The news media might have to pay attention to different parts of the country though. And I mean more than just north and south London. Madness!
I missed the Truss speech as I was travelling. Would one of PB's many fair-minded and balanced posters mind giving me a brief assessment of how it went and to what extent it may or may not have got her out of the doo-doo?
I did hear the news, but that the Beeb, and you know what they're like.
Thanks
I heard it.
To me, she just sounds weird, worse even than May. It was short on substance and the Anti-Growth Coalition sounded desperate to me (it sucks - who the hell is anti growth? Coalition of chaos was much more powerful). But it wasn't a disaster.
I also heard Starmer a week or two back (whenever that was) and found him pretty underwhelming too, but less weird.
(Somewhat floating voter and not particularly tribal, LD more often than not and I was a member for a year or two around 2005ish, but I've voted Con, Lab, LD and Green and independent at various levels over the years)
ETA: She sounds weirder than May, but this was better than May's speech in 2017, or whenever that was. Empty but not too much wrong with it. Nothing today to hasten her exit. She probably did better than many feared, so may give her some more time.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
This is essentially my prediction, but the PCP have to conclude by strong majority that neither Boris, Sunak or Braverman are viable.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
People made that point before the recent polling collapse. The national equivalent vote shares in the 2019 locals were 28-28-19. If in 2023 it's a modest 35-25-16 then surely that would be a disaster for the Tories?
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I thought it was more that you waive certain rights under the Geneva Convention if you are not in the correct uniform and/or don't have the correct markings.
Seems that was wrong?
You can't be treated as a prisoner of war if you weren't in uniform. That doesn't necessarily make you a war criminal.
However, if you while out of uniform use that advantage to kill or injure an enemy combatant - as appears to have happened in this case - that is a horse of a different colour.
And think about it, if that rule wasn't there, war would be even more of a mess than it is. Every civilian, for a start, could be considered an enemy combatant and killed.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
Depends a bit on whether their country is technically at war or not.
I think that, since partisans are civilians then the rules of war don't apply to them. Their sabotage actions would be covered by normal civil (or martial) law of the occupying power.
The annexation actually improves things for partisans (in theory) as there's no death penalty in Russia unlike the DPR and LPR previously.
Officially there's no death penalty in Russia but window safety leaves a bit to be desired ...
Yes, I believe that in Russia those warnings about not leaning out of the window are not confined to railway trains.
As predicted on this board, M People are objecting to their music being used at conference.
So Tories are not allowed to like M People?
They can like them but they shouldn't use their music without permission, or M-People might object to being associated, or worse.
Is this true though? If your music is for sale, do you keep the rights to say who can buy and use it?
Only if the music is for commercial use, such as in a film or TV show. Played at a venue such as a conference hall or a bar, it’s covered by generic licensing under PRS.
Anecdote: I was recently in a slightly dodgy cafe playing which was playing a (quite good, I thought) playlist of music too loudly and around 20% too fast (I timed it). It didn't alter the pitch, it was just faster - so must have had some quite clever software. Apparently it is commonly thought that if you play a song more than a certain amount too fast you don't have to pay PRS fees for it. This is almost certainly legally nonsense, but the fact that people believe it means that it happens. I must admit, I didn't actually mind it. Anyway, I'd quite like to see the Tories take this approach next conference. It would lend proceedings a slightly frantic, manic tone.
This is actually mind-boggling. Neither of these images is fake. Liz Truss was literally wearing today what the tyrannical populist leader played by Emma Thompson in *Years and Years* wore, right down to the shoulder-detail, belt and collar. Just a different shade. How? Why? https://twitter.com/Tweet_Dec/status/1577649652597334017
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
What planet are you living on?
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
This is where I claim the Labour conference last week was poor, I ask you to what degree did it engage with the pressure on UK from globalisation, demographic time bomb (and permanent higher inflation it brings) and transformation to UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment. Or was Labours a safety first conference - For all talk of not being Corbyn anymore it’s now very different, the proof of the pudding will be comparing what Starmer’s manifesto has to say about the main issues, compared to the solutions in Corbyn’s manifesto.
there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and out for eighteen years whilst rival philosophy as clear as Tory’s now laying down, wields the blade and makes necessary changes.
My own one nation instincts are not liking two nation solutions that widen the apartheid of the pocket, so leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics. Doesn’t it?
If your aim at the start of the day was "can I be really, really obtuse on PB today?" Mission accomplished!
Stop playing dum. We know you are intelligent, that cats out the bag,
To me good politics is engaging and winning the arguments, not coasting along safety first. You have to play the long game, and this means arguing and winning the argument. Last weeks Labour conference was poor on this benchmark.
But don’t just ask me what planet I am on for suggesting this, ask Ganesh - one of the more left wing economic columnists around, what planet he is on. For him the exact opposite of a Pyrrhic victory is a defeat that turns out to bring success in the long run
If Trussnomics attempting to answer the problems facing UK today, and Starmerology 😴 isn’t, that’s the very opposite of good politics, it’s a Pyrrhic victory regardless what opinion polls say going into the next election - if Tory’s go into 2029 election both challenging the consensus with their radical solutions, and ahead in the polls.
Janan Ganesh leftwing?
Only on PB.
I know!
We're being razzled by a moon rabbit ... moon rabbit moon rabbit
Janan was at university at the same time as me and was a Tory Association member for a time
Not surprised. He's trad non-populist centre right imo. Economically and socially liberal. Kind of a Topping without the uniform.
Yes I've chatted to him and this is exactly where he is - a Cameron era Tory. Nice chap and super smart but definitely not left-wing.
This is actually mind-boggling. Neither of these images is fake. Liz Truss was literally wearing today what the tyrannical populist leader played by Emma Thompson in *Years and Years* wore, right down to the shoulder-detail, belt and collar. Just a different shade. How? Why? https://twitter.com/Tweet_Dec/status/1577649652597334017
She's probably never watched it, I am going to go with coincidence.
Why would a politician not watch a programme about a politician? Think of Theresa May and The Saj making jokes about political thrillers at previous conferences. Of course, it might still be a coincidence, and iirc Liz Truss has often worn similar dresses before, so I can't get excited about it.
That rather confirms my impression that she got through it ok but without doing much to address the obvious problems she has and the decline in her Party's popularity.
The bar was set pretty low, but she cleared it ok, yes?
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
What planet are you living on?
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
This is where I claim the Labour conference last week was poor, I ask you to what degree did it engage with the pressure on UK from globalisation, demographic time bomb (and permanent higher inflation it brings) and transformation to UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment. Or was Labours a safety first conference - For all talk of not being Corbyn anymore it’s now very different, the proof of the pudding will be comparing what Starmer’s manifesto has to say about the main issues, compared to the solutions in Corbyn’s manifesto.
there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and out for eighteen years whilst rival philosophy as clear as Tory’s now laying down, wields the blade and makes necessary changes.
My own one nation instincts are not liking two nation solutions that widen the apartheid of the pocket, so leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics. Doesn’t it?
If your aim at the start of the day was "can I be really, really obtuse on PB today?" Mission accomplished!
Stop playing dum. We know you are intelligent, that cats out the bag,
To me good politics is engaging and winning the arguments, not coasting along safety first. You have to play the long game, and this means arguing and winning the argument. Last weeks Labour conference was poor on this benchmark.
But don’t just ask me what planet I am on for suggesting this, ask Ganesh - one of the more left wing economic columnists around, what planet he is on. For him the exact opposite of a Pyrrhic victory is a defeat that turns out to bring success in the long run
If Trussnomics attempting to answer the problems facing UK today, and Starmerology 😴 isn’t, that’s the very opposite of good politics, it’s a Pyrrhic victory regardless what opinion polls say going into the next election - if Tory’s go into 2029 election both challenging the consensus with their radical solutions, and ahead in the polls.
Janan Ganesh leftwing?
Only on PB.
I know!
We're being razzled by a moon rabbit ... moon rabbit moon rabbit
Janan was at university at the same time as me and was a Tory Association member for a time
Not surprised. He's trad non-populist centre right imo. Economically and socially liberal. Kind of a Topping without the uniform.
Yes I've chatted to him and this is exactly where he is - a Cameron era Tory. Nice chap and super smart but definitely not left-wing.
Another mixed round of local by-elections tomorrow. There are Con defences in Mendip and Shropshire, Lab defences in Birmingham and Ceredigion, a LD defence in Eastbourne, and an Ind defence in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
This is essentially my prediction, but the PCP have to conclude by strong majority that neither Boris, Sunak or Braverman are viable.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
The PCP would probably install Mark Francois as PM.
TSE would probably take that over Andrea Jenkyns....
The big difference with 2003, when Michael Howard had his coronation, is that the calibre of Conservative MP's was notably higher than it is today.
I'd agree with you, but extend that to Labour too. They've also got a heap of real moon-howlers - and out of a much smaller pot.
Who’d want to be a Parliamentarian today, in an era of social media muck-raking, offence-taking and hyper-partisanship on every issue?
Certainly true.
I considered, for a second, that my social media feeds were entirely bland, but then I realised my PB oeuvre - if someone were to link it to me - would totally screw me.
Why would a politician not watch a programme about a politician?
Grant Shapps' answer to this one (about a different programme, maybe the covid-themed one) was that he didn't watch programmes about situations/people/organizations he'd been closely involved with because he couldn't stand the way he'd constantly be noticing all the unimportant background details that the programme-makers had got wrong...
The economy can probably “survive” when gilt rates are around 3%
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
Talking of gilts, they might be a better bet than savings accounts.
1) AIUI, the uplift is untaxed. Eg, buy a £100 0.25% bond at £85 market value. Receive a tiny amount of interest (that is taxed) but get the £100 payout tax-free. 2) No risk of a financial institution going under and fscs not paying out. 3) slightly better overall returns vs fixed savers, last time I checked. 4) can be cashed out (maybe at a loss) vs fixed rates which usually can’t, without a penalty.
The economy can probably “survive” when gilt rates are around 3%
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
Talking of gilts, they might be a better bet than savings accounts.
1) AIUI, the uplift is untaxed. 2) No risk of the financial institution going under and fscs not paying out. 3) slightly better overall returns, last time I checked. 4) can be cashed out (maybe at a loss) vs fixed rates which usually can’t, without a penalty.
If FSCS doesn't pay out then the gilts probably won't either.
The economy can probably “survive” when gilt rates are around 3%
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
Will Starmer be able to provide monetary tightening when he's in office ?
Strictly speaking that’s the BoE’s job.
The question for Starmer come 24 will be, will the market accept his investment plans, which for now at least, are based on similar borrowing assumptions to Truss’s.
Starmer/Reeves now have to confront the mess that Truss/Kwarteng have created, which means, essentially, either lower public spending or higher taxes.
The economy can probably “survive” when gilt rates are around 3%
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
Talking of gilts, they might be a better bet than savings accounts.
1) AIUI, the uplift is untaxed. 2) No risk of the financial institution going under and fscs not paying out. 3) slightly better overall returns, last time I checked. 4) can be cashed out (maybe at a loss) vs fixed rates which usually can’t, without a penalty.
If FSCS doesn't pay out then the gilts probably won't either.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
This is essentially my prediction, but the PCP have to conclude by strong majority that neither Boris, Sunak or Braverman are viable.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
The PCP would probably install Mark Francois as PM.
TSE would probably take that over Andrea Jenkyns....
The big difference with 2003, when Michael Howard had his coronation, is that the calibre of Conservative MP's was notably higher than it is today.
I'd agree with you, but extend that to Labour too. They've also got a heap of real moon-howlers - and out of a much smaller pot.
Who’d want to be a Parliamentarian today, in an era of social media muck-raking, offence-taking and hyper-partisanship on every issue?
Certainly true.
I considered, for a second, that my social media feeds were entirely bland, but then I realised my PB oeuvre - if someone were to link it to me - would totally screw me.
Incidentally, Rachel Reeves has lied about the Bank of England intervention much more blatantly than the famous "£350m a week" bus by calling it a "£65 billion bailout out with taxpayers money". She used to work for the Bank of England so she must know this is wrong.
The economy can probably “survive” when gilt rates are around 3%
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
Will Starmer be able to provide monetary tightening when he's in office ?
Strictly speaking that’s the BoE’s job.
The question for Starmer come 24 will be, will the market accept his investment plans, which for now at least, are based on similar borrowing assumptions to Truss’s.
Starmer/Reeves now have to confront the mess that Truss/Kwarteng have created, which means, essentially, either lower public spending or higher taxes.
Given the size of the fiscal hole we are in, probably a combination of both. And because of the demographic transition is akin to walking up a down escalator.
Quite how you create the fiscal room to manoeuvre to make necessary investments to patch up the most dysfunctional public services, and to create the conditions for future growth, I really don't know. The fiscal position of the country is really weak.
As predicted on this board, M People are objecting to their music being used at conference.
So Tories are not allowed to like M People?
They can like them but they shouldn't use their music without permission, or M-People might object to being associated, or worse.
Is this true though? If your music is for sale, do you keep the rights to say who can buy and use it?
Buying a CD or downloading music does not give you a licence from the copyright holder to broadcast it or even play it publicly. If you want to include recorded music in a radio or TV broadcast, online, or if you want to play it in public, permission is needed from each and every recording rightsholder whose recordings you use. The vast majority of record companies have signed up with PPL (broadcast) and PRS for Music (public venues) in the UK (https://www.ppluk.com/what-we-do/ and https://www.prsformusic.com/) who deal with licencing on their behalf - so pubs etc. can get a blanket licence to play the music of all copyright holders signed up with. You'll often see a PRS sticker by the door of a pub. The Tories could/should and probably did get the right licences but they can't stop M-People voicing an objection at being associated with the Conservative Party.
I was aware that a licence was required to play it publicly - I am involved with charities etc. I just assumed that once you pay your fee, the original creators have no rights to stopping you using it.
Incidentally, Rachel Reeves has lied about the Bank of England intervention much more blatantly than the famous "£350m a week" bus by calling it a "£65 billion bailout out with taxpayers money". She used to work for the Bank of England so she must know this is wrong.
If my mate owed £100k on a mortgage and was about to have the house reposessed but it clearly was worth more than that and I stepped in with the cash on condition I got the profits (i.e. I expect to recouptthe money, even make a profit) would you criticise me for calling that a £100k bailout?
The economy can probably “survive” when gilt rates are around 3%
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
Will Starmer be able to provide monetary tightening when he's in office ?
Strictly speaking that’s the BoE’s job.
The question for Starmer come 24 will be, will the market accept his investment plans, which for now at least, are based on similar borrowing assumptions to Truss’s.
Starmer/Reeves now have to confront the mess that Truss/Kwarteng have created, which means, essentially, either lower public spending or higher taxes.
Given the size of the fiscal hole we are in, probably a combination of both. And because of the demographic transition is akin to walking up a down escalator.
Quite how you create the fiscal room to manoeuvre to make necessary investments to patch up the most dysfunctional public services, and to create the conditions for future growth, I really don't know. The fiscal position of the country is really weak.
Step one is to build market confidence, which means a realistic plan to balance the deficit across the economic cycle.
Actually, step one is probably to build public support for a government which can balance the deficit across the economic cycle.
Incidentally, Rachel Reeves has lied about the Bank of England intervention much more blatantly than the famous "£350m a week" bus by calling it a "£65 billion bailout out with taxpayers money". She used to work for the Bank of England so she must know this is wrong.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
This is essentially my prediction, but the PCP have to conclude by strong majority that neither Boris, Sunak or Braverman are viable.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
The PCP would probably install Mark Francois as PM.
TSE would probably take that over Andrea Jenkyns....
The big difference with 2003, when Michael Howard had his coronation, is that the calibre of Conservative MP's was notably higher than it is today.
I'd agree with you, but extend that to Labour too. They've also got a heap of real moon-howlers - and out of a much smaller pot.
Who’d want to be a Parliamentarian today, in an era of social media muck-raking, offence-taking and hyper-partisanship on every issue?
Certainly true.
I considered, for a second, that my social media feeds were entirely bland, but then I realised my PB oeuvre - if someone were to link it to me - would totally screw me.
Hence a certain poster and their multiple personas.
The economy can probably “survive” when gilt rates are around 3%
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
Will Starmer be able to provide monetary tightening when he's in office ?
Strictly speaking that’s the BoE’s job.
The question for Starmer come 24 will be, will the market accept his investment plans, which for now at least, are based on similar borrowing assumptions to Truss’s.
Starmer/Reeves now have to confront the mess that Truss/Kwarteng have created, which means, essentially, either lower public spending or higher taxes.
Good luck with getting lower public spending through their vote.
So, higher taxes it is. Will the pips squeak? Again?
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
This is essentially my prediction, but the PCP have to conclude by strong majority that neither Boris, Sunak or Braverman are viable.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
The PCP would probably install Mark Francois as PM.
TSE would probably take that over Andrea Jenkyns....
The big difference with 2003, when Michael Howard had his coronation, is that the calibre of Conservative MP's was notably higher than it is today.
I'd agree with you, but extend that to Labour too. They've also got a heap of real moon-howlers - and out of a much smaller pot.
Who’d want to be a Parliamentarian today, in an era of social media muck-raking, offence-taking and hyper-partisanship on every issue?
Certainly true.
I considered, for a second, that my social media feeds were entirely bland, but then I realised my PB oeuvre - if someone were to link it to me - would totally screw me.
The economy can probably “survive” when gilt rates are around 3%
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
Will Starmer be able to provide monetary tightening when he's in office ?
Strictly speaking that’s the BoE’s job.
The question for Starmer come 24 will be, will the market accept his investment plans, which for now at least, are based on similar borrowing assumptions to Truss’s.
Starmer/Reeves now have to confront the mess that Truss/Kwarteng have created, which means, essentially, either lower public spending or higher taxes.
Good luck with getting lower public spending through their vote.
So, higher taxes it is. Will the pips squeak? Again?
They’ll probably have to, due to years of Tory misrule.
After all, even you want greater investment, in the green energy infrastructure of your choice.
Incidentally, Rachel Reeves has lied about the Bank of England intervention much more blatantly than the famous "£350m a week" bus by calling it a "£65 billion bailout out with taxpayers money". She used to work for the Bank of England so she must know this is wrong.
Anyone know how to sign up to the Anti-Growth Coalition? Sounds like something I’d want to join. Do they have a website? Google’s not helping me here.
If you complain about house prices but oppose them being built near you, if you moan about airports being busy but don't want a third runway, if you hate traffic jams but don't want a bypass, then I have good news for you, YOU are already a member of the Anti-Growth Coalition. No further action is necessary.
If mortgage rates go up and it precipitates a collapse in house prices then it might actually help first time buyers get on the housing ladder. They won't have to borrow so much so even if higher rates their monthly payments may be less. All those recently on the housing ladder who paid over the odds and had short term mortgage deals will be the ones in trouble.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I thought it was more that you waive certain rights under the Geneva Convention if you are not in the correct uniform and/or don't have the correct markings.
Seems that was wrong?
You can't be treated as a prisoner of war if you weren't in uniform. That doesn't necessarily make you a war criminal.
However, if you while out of uniform use that advantage to kill or injure an enemy combatant - as appears to have happened in this case - that is a horse of a different colour.
And think about it, if that rule wasn't there, war would be even more of a mess than it is. Every civilian, for a start, could be considered an enemy combatant and killed.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
Depends a bit on whether their country is technically at war or not.
I think that, since partisans are civilians then the rules of war don't apply to them. Their sabotage actions would be covered by normal civil (or martial) law of the occupying power.
The annexation actually improves things for partisans (in theory) as there's no death penalty in Russia unlike the DPR and LPR previously.
Officially there's no death penalty in Russia but window safety leaves a bit to be desired ...
Incidentally, Rachel Reeves has lied about the Bank of England intervention much more blatantly than the famous "£350m a week" bus by calling it a "£65 billion bailout out with taxpayers money". She used to work for the Bank of England so she must know this is wrong.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I thought it was more that you waive certain rights under the Geneva Convention if you are not in the correct uniform and/or don't have the correct markings.
Seems that was wrong?
You can't be treated as a prisoner of war if you weren't in uniform. That doesn't necessarily make you a war criminal.
However, if you while out of uniform use that advantage to kill or injure an enemy combatant - as appears to have happened in this case - that is a horse of a different colour.
And think about it, if that rule wasn't there, war would be even more of a mess than it is. Every civilian, for a start, could be considered an enemy combatant and killed.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
Depends a bit on whether their country is technically at war or not.
I think that, since partisans are civilians then the rules of war don't apply to them. Their sabotage actions would be covered by normal civil (or martial) law of the occupying power.
The annexation actually improves things for partisans (in theory) as there's no death penalty in Russia unlike the DPR and LPR previously.
Officially there's no death penalty in Russia but window safety leaves a bit to be desired ...
Incidentally, Rachel Reeves has lied about the Bank of England intervention much more blatantly than the famous "£350m a week" bus by calling it a "£65 billion bailout out with taxpayers money". She used to work for the Bank of England so she must know this is wrong.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I thought it was more that you waive certain rights under the Geneva Convention if you are not in the correct uniform and/or don't have the correct markings.
Seems that was wrong?
You can't be treated as a prisoner of war if you weren't in uniform. That doesn't necessarily make you a war criminal.
However, if you while out of uniform use that advantage to kill or injure an enemy combatant - as appears to have happened in this case - that is a horse of a different colour.
And think about it, if that rule wasn't there, war would be even more of a mess than it is. Every civilian, for a start, could be considered an enemy combatant and killed.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
Depends a bit on whether their country is technically at war or not.
I think that, since partisans are civilians then the rules of war don't apply to them. Their sabotage actions would be covered by normal civil (or martial) law of the occupying power.
The annexation actually improves things for partisans (in theory) as there's no death penalty in Russia unlike the DPR and LPR previously.
Officially there's no death penalty in Russia but window safety leaves a bit to be desired ...
The economy can probably “survive” when gilt rates are around 3%
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
Will Starmer be able to provide monetary tightening when he's in office ?
Strictly speaking that’s the BoE’s job.
The question for Starmer come 24 will be, will the market accept his investment plans, which for now at least, are based on similar borrowing assumptions to Truss’s.
Starmer/Reeves now have to confront the mess that Truss/Kwarteng have created, which means, essentially, either lower public spending or higher taxes.
Good luck with getting lower public spending through their vote.
So, higher taxes it is. Will the pips squeak? Again?
They’ll probably have to, due to years of Tory misrule.
After all, even you want greater investment, in the green energy infrastructure of your choice.
My green infrastructure is financed outside of the government funding it.
If mortgage rates go up and it precipitates a collapse in house prices then it might actually help first time buyers get on the housing ladder. They won't have to borrow so much so even if higher rates their monthly payments may be less. All those recently on the housing ladder who paid over the odds and had short term mortgage deals will be the ones in trouble.
No, because the reason house prices go down is because mortgages are less affordable.
Essentially you are hoping for a recession.
First time buyers don’t win, unless and until overall housing costs fall behind growth in wages.
The economy can probably “survive” when gilt rates are around 3%
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
Will Starmer be able to provide monetary tightening when he's in office ?
Strictly speaking that’s the BoE’s job.
The question for Starmer come 24 will be, will the market accept his investment plans, which for now at least, are based on similar borrowing assumptions to Truss’s.
Starmer/Reeves now have to confront the mess that Truss/Kwarteng have created, which means, essentially, either lower public spending or higher taxes.
Good luck with getting lower public spending through their vote.
So, higher taxes it is. Will the pips squeak? Again?
They’ll probably have to, due to years of Tory misrule.
After all, even you want greater investment, in the green energy infrastructure of your choice.
My green infrastructure is financed outside of the government funding it.
So might investment from Starmer and Reeves, then.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I thought it was more that you waive certain rights under the Geneva Convention if you are not in the correct uniform and/or don't have the correct markings.
Seems that was wrong?
You can't be treated as a prisoner of war if you weren't in uniform. That doesn't necessarily make you a war criminal.
However, if you while out of uniform use that advantage to kill or injure an enemy combatant - as appears to have happened in this case - that is a horse of a different colour.
And think about it, if that rule wasn't there, war would be even more of a mess than it is. Every civilian, for a start, could be considered an enemy combatant and killed.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
Depends a bit on whether their country is technically at war or not.
I think that, since partisans are civilians then the rules of war don't apply to them. Their sabotage actions would be covered by normal civil (or martial) law of the occupying power.
The annexation actually improves things for partisans (in theory) as there's no death penalty in Russia unlike the DPR and LPR previously.
Officially there's no death penalty in Russia but window safety leaves a bit to be desired ...
The economy can probably “survive” when gilt rates are around 3%
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
Will Starmer be able to provide monetary tightening when he's in office ?
Strictly speaking that’s the BoE’s job.
The question for Starmer come 24 will be, will the market accept his investment plans, which for now at least, are based on similar borrowing assumptions to Truss’s.
Starmer/Reeves now have to confront the mess that Truss/Kwarteng have created, which means, essentially, either lower public spending or higher taxes.
Given the size of the fiscal hole we are in, probably a combination of both. And because of the demographic transition is akin to walking up a down escalator.
Quite how you create the fiscal room to manoeuvre to make necessary investments to patch up the most dysfunctional public services, and to create the conditions for future growth, I really don't know. The fiscal position of the country is really weak.
Step one is to build market confidence, which means a realistic plan to balance the deficit across the economic cycle.
Actually, step one is probably to build public support for a government which can balance the deficit across the economic cycle.
Truss/Kwarteng did not bother with either.
Well, sure, but we've put off the necessary steps for some time, and so it gets to be harder and harder to achieve.
Looking at the balance of payments, the government deficit, the current account, government debt interest payments, consumer and corporate borrowing - just to get all of those to a point where they were stable, and not deteriorating further, would take a monumental effort.
I feel like the goldfish near the end of The Cat In The Hat.
The economy can probably “survive” when gilt rates are around 3%
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
Will Starmer be able to provide monetary tightening when he's in office ?
Strictly speaking that’s the BoE’s job.
The question for Starmer come 24 will be, will the market accept his investment plans, which for now at least, are based on similar borrowing assumptions to Truss’s.
Starmer/Reeves now have to confront the mess that Truss/Kwarteng have created, which means, essentially, either lower public spending or higher taxes.
Good luck with getting lower public spending through their vote.
So, higher taxes it is. Will the pips squeak? Again?
A Wealth tax is the most likely. It's the clearest form of distribution from the haves to the have nots.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I thought it was more that you waive certain rights under the Geneva Convention if you are not in the correct uniform and/or don't have the correct markings.
Seems that was wrong?
You can't be treated as a prisoner of war if you weren't in uniform. That doesn't necessarily make you a war criminal.
However, if you while out of uniform use that advantage to kill or injure an enemy combatant - as appears to have happened in this case - that is a horse of a different colour.
And think about it, if that rule wasn't there, war would be even more of a mess than it is. Every civilian, for a start, could be considered an enemy combatant and killed.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
Depends a bit on whether their country is technically at war or not.
I think that, since partisans are civilians then the rules of war don't apply to them. Their sabotage actions would be covered by normal civil (or martial) law of the occupying power.
The annexation actually improves things for partisans (in theory) as there's no death penalty in Russia unlike the DPR and LPR previously.
Officially there's no death penalty in Russia but window safety leaves a bit to be desired ...
Not at all because the effect of what you are proposing is to actually give more power to the parties and less to the individual representatives. This comes back (with profuse apologies to all who have suffered this argument from me before) to the point that we should be looking to massively reduce the power of parties over MPs. There are lots of ways to do this but reinforcing the incorrect perception that we are voting for a party and therefore they can claim the mandate to do what they like and to force their MPs to acquiesce is certainly not a route we want to go down.
I think where we differ is that I don't take "voting for a party" as an 'incorrect perception' -- I think it is what most voters *actually want to do* and that we should prefer a system that helps them do what they want to do over one that sort of in practice lets them do it via indirect mechanics, and introduces unintended and sometime unfair outcomes in the process. Compare the US electoral college -- most US voters want to vote for a president, but they're having to do it via a weird system that introduces unfairnesses and unexpected points of weakness; the solution is not to educate voters and persuade them that they should be casting their vote to choose individual EC representatives, but to reform or abolish the EC so that voters really do get to vote for the president.
Got to agree. If the vast majority don't vote for a party, then what in heck are opinion polls all about? With no certain knowledge of the candidates in one's constituency, or visibility of the manifesto for the next election, why don't all polls go to zero/don't know between elections?
If mortgage rates go up and it precipitates a collapse in house prices then it might actually help first time buyers get on the housing ladder. They won't have to borrow so much so even if higher rates their monthly payments may be less. All those recently on the housing ladder who paid over the odds and had short term mortgage deals will be the ones in trouble.
In most variations of a nuclear war, outside a few big cities, physical destruction will be surprisingly small. Deaths from radiation and collapse in food supply will reduce the population by about 80%.
Think empty villages in the bucolic sunshine, with only a few dogs/rats eating the corpses to spoil the view.
So house prices in the aftermath should be quite affordable.
If mortgage rates go up and it precipitates a collapse in house prices then it might actually help first time buyers get on the housing ladder. They won't have to borrow so much so even if higher rates their monthly payments may be less. All those recently on the housing ladder who paid over the odds and had short term mortgage deals will be the ones in trouble.
In most variations of a nuclear war, outside a few big cities, physical destruction will be surprisingly small. Deaths from radiation and collapse in food supply will reduce the population by about 80%.
Think empty villages in the bucolic sunshine, with only a few dogs/rats eating the corpses to spoil the view.
So house prices in the aftermath should be quite affordable.
Would be a right bugger heating a large house with no gas or electricity though.
The economy can probably “survive” when gilt rates are around 3%
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
Will Starmer be able to provide monetary tightening when he's in office ?
Strictly speaking that’s the BoE’s job.
The question for Starmer come 24 will be, will the market accept his investment plans, which for now at least, are based on similar borrowing assumptions to Truss’s.
Starmer/Reeves now have to confront the mess that Truss/Kwarteng have created, which means, essentially, either lower public spending or higher taxes.
Given the size of the fiscal hole we are in, probably a combination of both. And because of the demographic transition is akin to walking up a down escalator.
Quite how you create the fiscal room to manoeuvre to make necessary investments to patch up the most dysfunctional public services, and to create the conditions for future growth, I really don't know. The fiscal position of the country is really weak.
Step one is to build market confidence, which means a realistic plan to balance the deficit across the economic cycle.
Actually, step one is probably to build public support for a government which can balance the deficit across the economic cycle.
Truss/Kwarteng did not bother with either.
Well, sure, but we've put off the necessary steps for some time, and so it gets to be harder and harder to achieve.
Looking at the balance of payments, the government deficit, the current account, government debt interest payments, consumer and corporate borrowing - just to get all of those to a point where they were stable, and not deteriorating further, would take a monumental effort.
I feel like the goldfish near the end of The Cat In The Hat.
Fantastic metaphor.
Ultimately - and this is where Truss is right - the answer is increased productivity to deliver higher growth.
It’s just that, apart from being PM, she is also leader of the “Anti-Growth” Party.
Comments
Verdict: a surprisingly strong performance from @trussliz that may just have rescued her position. Delegates will leave Birmingham feeling a bit better.
https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1577611522154676226
Liz truss speeded up to Yakkety Sax could become a thing....
And there are several that might need an explanation as to whether a certain flint knapper was stood behind her....
I tend to see us as being temporary custodians of things... In time, they will pass on to future generations. Hopefully in good condition.
I don't think people are right to object to someone else selling or letting their home to a black family.
I don't think people are right to object to someone else building a house or flats on their own land.
People have a right to free speech. Someone should be allowed to say "we don't want any blacks in our village", and people should be allowed to say "we don't want any houses built in our village", and rational people should be able to dismiss those racists/NIMBYs as the scum they are.
There should be standards and taxes to prevent or deal with externalities, but within reason whatever you want to do with your own land, that should be your business and nobody else's.
You know what's not moving on up? Your pay. Your pension. The pound. The country.
https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1577621031988199424
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1577615464741670914
Labour's poll lead...
- it wasn’t a disaster. We’re not talking TM cough sweets and collapsing backdrops
- it was platitude heavy. All the Tory greatest hits - low taxes, small state, it’s not the government’s money it’s taxpayers’ money yadda yadda. All stuff we’ve heard before. All getting a bit stale now.
- Not too much on policy. That was almost certainly deliberate.
- Truss will never be public speaker of the year. She probably did as well on that front as could be expected. Managed to deal with the hecklers quite well.
In short, I don’t think it’s going to have any meaningful impact at all, I wouldn’t have thought. Very “meh”.
Blairites were Social Democrats, and Orange bookers are Christian Democrats.
Cameroons were Tory wets.
Their social and economic objectives were quite different. But within the boundaries of the 1990s economic consensus.
I think we should privatise the state pension system, and probably introduce health insurance into healthcare provision. (I'd opt for Scandi insurance with a choice of providers which would give unions and associations a new lease of life).
You might well agree (in private moments). It doesn't mean that we have anything else in common.
If people want to create a law that allows NIMBYism, they should be allowed to do so.
If people want to create a law that allows racism, they should be allowed to do so.
However I retain the right to vehemently oppose both. I can and do have my own opinions on what the law should be, while respecting others right to disagree with me.
In order to end racism or NIMBYism or sexism or any other destructive -ism we need to win the argument, not just have the law match our desires.
To me, she just sounds weird, worse even than May. It was short on substance and the Anti-Growth Coalition sounded desperate to me (it sucks - who the hell is anti growth? Coalition of chaos was much more powerful). But it wasn't a disaster.
I also heard Starmer a week or two back (whenever that was) and found him pretty underwhelming too, but less weird.
(Somewhat floating voter and not particularly tribal, LD more often than not and I was a member for a year or two around 2005ish, but I've voted Con, Lab, LD and Green and independent at various levels over the years)
I must admit, I didn't actually mind it.
Anyway, I'd quite like to see the Tories take this approach next conference. It would lend proceedings a slightly frantic, manic tone.
https://twitter.com/secrettory12/status/1288400066819035136
Oh and that's the identical outfit right down to the necklace that @Leon is so obsessed about being worn two years ago.
She doesn’t have the mandate, communication skills or charisma to bring people along with her. This will become increasingly clear in the weeks ahead. Some delegates are leaving thinking “phew, she didn’t spook the markets”, which is an incredibility low bar
They leave with a massive gap to Labour in the polls, an economic storm approaching with no signs of turbo charged growth
Small state: they are running a very large centralised state and plan to carry on doing so
Low taxes: we are a fairly high tax state and borrowing £195 billion pa; every single big spend area is asking for a lot more just to function at all effectively
Policy: "You can run a complex modern state on simple rules and regulations." False. You can't.
Social care: ? Silence I think
Doctor's appointments: Sunlit uplands. You will only have to wait 14 days for an appointment.
Any modern DJ software can adjust the speed without adjusting the pitch of the track - something which sounds like magic, to those of us raised with a pair of Technics SL1210s and a crossfader!
Labour: 41% (+17)
Conservatives: 28% (-15)
...looks like markets didn't like the Bank not buying Gilts yet again at its daily auction... https://twitter.com/BenChu_/status/1577665491514134531/photo/1
That rather confirms my impression that she got through it ok but without doing much to address the obvious problems she has and the decline in her Party's popularity.
The bar was set pretty low, but she cleared it ok, yes?
At 4% we are talking certain recession and above that heavy recession.
I considered, for a second, that my social media feeds were entirely bland, but then I realised my PB oeuvre - if someone were to link it to me - would totally screw me.
1) AIUI, the uplift is untaxed. Eg, buy a £100 0.25% bond at £85 market value. Receive a tiny amount of interest (that is taxed) but get the £100 payout tax-free.
2) No risk of a financial institution going under and fscs not paying out.
3) slightly better overall returns vs fixed savers, last time I checked.
4) can be cashed out (maybe at a loss) vs fixed rates which usually can’t, without a penalty.
The question for Starmer come 24 will be, will the market accept his investment plans, which for now at least, are based on similar borrowing assumptions to Truss’s.
Starmer/Reeves now have to confront the mess that Truss/Kwarteng have created, which means, essentially, either lower public spending or higher taxes.
*ok, not very educated guess from the ONS most popular names over (my guess of) your likely decades of birth. Flawed only in being UK based, obvs - is there a NZ equivalent of https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/babynamesexplorer/2019-06-07 ?
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1576968232153804800
Quite how you create the fiscal room to manoeuvre to make necessary investments to patch up the most dysfunctional public services, and to create the conditions for future growth, I really don't know. The fiscal position of the country is really weak.
It’s the authentic voice of bovine Toryism. She is a fully signed up member of the anti-growth coalition.
Mind you, at the end it sounds as if even she is considering her Tory vote!
https://twitter.com/danwilsoncraw/status/1577619548034965504?s=46&t=UH_YpstHENL-JwfwCEoG-w
Attendees had to be removed for using highly offensive homophobic slurs.
One gay Conservative attending told me “Morally I don’t feel I fit in anymore”.
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-10-05/claims-of-homophobic-abuse-at-lgbt-event-during-conservative-conference
Actually, step one is probably to build public support for a government which can balance the deficit across the economic cycle.
Truss/Kwarteng did not bother with either.
So, higher taxes it is. Will the pips squeak? Again?
Corbyn’s commie cap?
Rees-Mogg’s frock coat?
Johnson’s clown suit?
After all, even you want greater investment, in the green energy infrastructure of your choice.
They are going backwards. So bizarre
Essentially you are hoping for a recession.
First time buyers don’t win, unless and until overall housing costs fall behind growth in wages.
Looking at the balance of payments, the government deficit, the current account, government debt interest payments, consumer and corporate borrowing - just to get all of those to a point where they were stable, and not deteriorating further, would take a monumental effort.
I feel like the goldfish near the end of The Cat In The Hat.
If the vast majority don't vote for a party, then what in heck are opinion polls all about?
With no certain knowledge of the candidates in one's constituency, or visibility of the manifesto for the next election, why don't all polls go to zero/don't know between elections?
Think empty villages in the bucolic sunshine, with only a few dogs/rats eating the corpses to spoil the view.
So house prices in the aftermath should be quite affordable.
https://twitter.com/resi_analyst/status/1574434332248350722/photo/1
I think in aeronautical terms this would be termed "coffin corner".
Ultimately - and this is where Truss is right - the answer is increased productivity to deliver higher growth.
It’s just that, apart from being PM, she is also leader of the “Anti-Growth” Party.