Yes looks like LAB are going to win! I say that without any enthusiasm. I suspect the majority will be relatively small. Not much real enthusiasm for Keir and team even recognising that the current government is useless 👿
A small majority (or quite possibly, no majority) would almost certainly turn out to be a better Labour win for the country than a massive one.
Would you not be worried by the left being too influential if that happens? Eg a Lab equivalent of the ERG led by Richard Burgon?
The right wing weren't particularly influential under Cameron/Clegg - indeed the two of them used to play games with Cameron regularly using the 'threat' of what the LibDems might do or think to keep his nutters in line.
Yes but they had a good majority and a formal coalition. I was more thinking of what happens with a small Lab majority or Lab minority government.
A Lab minority (but largest party) might actually work to Labour's advantage in that they could call a quick second election and put the squeeze on LD/Green/SNP.
Perhaps. But plan A has to be that big majority and "we are the masters now".
If Lab can't win an overall majority in this climate, then when would they? If they called a quick second squeeze election, I'd be worried the electorate would be less likely to vote for me, not more.
But it’s not just the climate - it’s the swing.
Most people (but not all, as pollsters know!) remember how they voted last time. Having made a decision it’s human nature to defend it - beyond the point at which a newcomer, objectively weighing the evidence, would come to the opposite conclusion. This basic aspect of human thinking acts as a brake on the number of people who are prepared to switch at the succeeding election, particularly if it follows soon after.
A Labour majority requires an exceptional number of people who backed the Tories last time to admit that they were wrong - and while many will, some won’t. For people who don’t follow politics particularly closely, an abstention may be an easier option than jumping straight to the opposing team. Hence a government just scrapes in can hope that a second election soon after will pull over that vital few extra supporters to get them more comfortably across the line.
Also, unless Labour really turns it around in Scotland (of which there is currently little sign), then they need to get to 326 almost entirely in England and Wales.
That's a tough ask.
Put this in context for a second. Back in 2005, when Labour got a majority of 66, they got 56 of their seats in Scotland.
There have been MRP polls in Scotland in recent weeks giving Labour 15 seats in Scotland.Other Scotland polls have Labour in the 30% - 32% range.
Yes looks like LAB are going to win! I say that without any enthusiasm. I suspect the majority will be relatively small. Not much real enthusiasm for Keir and team even recognising that the current government is useless 👿
A small majority (or quite possibly, no majority) would almost certainly turn out to be a better Labour win for the country than a massive one.
Would you not be worried by the left being too influential if that happens? Eg a Lab equivalent of the ERG led by Richard Burgon?
The right wing weren't particularly influential under Cameron/Clegg - indeed the two of them used to play games with Cameron regularly using the 'threat' of what the LibDems might do or think to keep his nutters in line.
Yes but they had a good majority and a formal coalition. I was more thinking of what happens with a small Lab majority or Lab minority government.
A Lab minority (but largest party) might actually work to Labour's advantage in that they could call a quick second election and put the squeeze on LD/Green/SNP.
Perhaps. But plan A has to be that big majority and "we are the masters now".
If Lab can't win an overall majority in this climate, then when would they? If they called a quick second squeeze election, I'd be worried the electorate would be less likely to vote for me, not more.
But it’s not just the climate - it’s the swing.
Most people (but not all, as pollsters know!) remember how they voted last time. Having made a decision it’s human nature to defend it - beyond the point at which a newcomer, objectively weighing the evidence, would come to the opposite conclusion. This basic aspect of human thinking acts as a brake on the number of people who are prepared to switch at the succeeding election, particularly if it follows soon after.
A Labour majority requires an exceptional number of people who backed the Tories last time to admit that they were wrong - and while many will, some won’t. For people who don’t follow politics particularly closely, an abstention may be an easier option than jumping straight to the opposing team. Hence a government just scrapes in can hope that a second election soon after will pull over that vital few extra supporters to get them more comfortably across the line.
Also, unless Labour really turns it around in Scotland (of which there is currently little sign), then they need to get to 326 almost entirely in England and Wales.
That's a tough ask.
Put this in context for a second. Back in 2005, when Labour got a majority of 66, they got 56 of their seats in Scotland.
There have been MRP polls in Scotland in recent weeks giving Labour 15 seats in Scotland.Other Scotland polls have Labour in the 30% - 32% range.
You are correct: I had missed the Scottish Labour surge.
Lewis Goodall: Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
If we're now questioning whether free trade is always and everywhere a good thing, then maybe we should revisit the EU agreement, not to make it more open, but to make it more restricted in areas where it is in our national interest.
You need to understand your erstwhile fellow travellers.
Trade with Europe good. Trade with Australia bad.
Barriers with Europe bad. Barriers with Australia good.
Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
Invert that and we have you. But in any case, for our trading account, Australia is of marginal interest compared to Europe.
No, invert that and you don't have me.
I very much want and desire a free trade agreement with both Europe AND Australia.
Yes looks like LAB are going to win! I say that without any enthusiasm. I suspect the majority will be relatively small. Not much real enthusiasm for Keir and team even recognising that the current government is useless 👿
A small majority (or quite possibly, no majority) would almost certainly turn out to be a better Labour win for the country than a massive one.
Would you not be worried by the left being too influential if that happens? Eg a Lab equivalent of the ERG led by Richard Burgon?
The right wing weren't particularly influential under Cameron/Clegg - indeed the two of them used to play games with Cameron regularly using the 'threat' of what the LibDems might do or think to keep his nutters in line.
Yes but they had a good majority and a formal coalition. I was more thinking of what happens with a small Lab majority or Lab minority government.
A Lab minority (but largest party) might actually work to Labour's advantage in that they could call a quick second election and put the squeeze on LD/Green/SNP.
Perhaps. But plan A has to be that big majority and "we are the masters now".
If Lab can't win an overall majority in this climate, then when would they? If they called a quick second squeeze election, I'd be worried the electorate would be less likely to vote for me, not more.
But it’s not just the climate - it’s the swing.
Most people (but not all, as pollsters know!) remember how they voted last time. Having made a decision it’s human nature to defend it - beyond the point at which a newcomer, objectively weighing the evidence, would come to the opposite conclusion. This basic aspect of human thinking acts as a brake on the number of people who are prepared to switch at the succeeding election, particularly if it follows soon after.
A Labour majority requires an exceptional number of people who backed the Tories last time to admit that they were wrong - and while many will, some won’t. For people who don’t follow politics particularly closely, an abstention may be an easier option than jumping straight to the opposing team. Hence a government just scrapes in can hope that a second election soon after will pull over that vital few extra supporters to get them more comfortably across the line.
Also, unless Labour really turns it around in Scotland (of which there is currently little sign), then they need to get to 326 almost entirely in England and Wales.
That's a tough ask.
Put this in context for a second. Back in 2005, when Labour got a majority of 66, they got 56 of their seats in Scotland.
Not so. The 2005 GE in Scotland resulted in Lab 41 seats LD 11 seats Con 1 seat SNP 6 seats. The number of Scotland seats had been reduced from 72 to 59 post Devolution.
Lewis Goodall: Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
If we're now questioning whether free trade is always and everywhere a good thing, then maybe we should revisit the EU agreement, not to make it more open, but to make it more restricted in areas where it is in our national interest.
You need to understand your erstwhile fellow travellers.
Trade with Europe good. Trade with Australia bad.
Barriers with Europe bad. Barriers with Australia good.
Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
Invert that and we have you. But in any case, for our trading account, Australia is of marginal interest compared to Europe.
No, invert that and you don't have me.
I very much want and desire a free trade agreement with both Europe AND Australia.
We have both now. Cake and eat it. 😋
Yup. And if only what you said was true we would have cake. The people *who negotiated this deal* are telling us in detail why it is shit. They are the best judge of that with their direct experience of the practical details. Vs your non-involvement and theoretical "expertise".
Yes looks like LAB are going to win! I say that without any enthusiasm. I suspect the majority will be relatively small. Not much real enthusiasm for Keir and team even recognising that the current government is useless 👿
A small majority (or quite possibly, no majority) would almost certainly turn out to be a better Labour win for the country than a massive one.
Would you not be worried by the left being too influential if that happens? Eg a Lab equivalent of the ERG led by Richard Burgon?
The right wing weren't particularly influential under Cameron/Clegg - indeed the two of them used to play games with Cameron regularly using the 'threat' of what the LibDems might do or think to keep his nutters in line.
Yes but they had a good majority and a formal coalition. I was more thinking of what happens with a small Lab majority or Lab minority government.
A Lab minority (but largest party) might actually work to Labour's advantage in that they could call a quick second election and put the squeeze on LD/Green/SNP.
Perhaps. But plan A has to be that big majority and "we are the masters now".
If Lab can't win an overall majority in this climate, then when would they? If they called a quick second squeeze election, I'd be worried the electorate would be less likely to vote for me, not more.
But it’s not just the climate - it’s the swing.
Most people (but not all, as pollsters know!) remember how they voted last time. Having made a decision it’s human nature to defend it - beyond the point at which a newcomer, objectively weighing the evidence, would come to the opposite conclusion. This basic aspect of human thinking acts as a brake on the number of people who are prepared to switch at the succeeding election, particularly if it follows soon after.
A Labour majority requires an exceptional number of people who backed the Tories last time to admit that they were wrong - and while many will, some won’t. For people who don’t follow politics particularly closely, an abstention may be an easier option than jumping straight to the opposing team. Hence a government just scrapes in can hope that a second election soon after will pull over that vital few extra supporters to get them more comfortably across the line.
Also, unless Labour really turns it around in Scotland (of which there is currently little sign), then they need to get to 326 almost entirely in England and Wales.
That's a tough ask.
Put this in context for a second. Back in 2005, when Labour got a majority of 66, they got 56 of their seats in Scotland.
Not so. The 2005 GE in Scotland resulted in Lab 41 seats LD 11 seats Con 1 seat SNP 6 seats. The number of Scotland seats had been reduced from 72 to 59 post Devolution.
You are correct on that too.
It's early in CA and I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet!
Could we have a new award to celebrate the Kings birthday for any ex minister who manages to go three months without pouring ordure over Liz Truss?
One of the beauties of the British Constitution is it's ability to flex in response to events. This is why pouring ordure over Liz Truss is now part of the ministerial oath of office.
Ministers will be doing this, in an increasingly ritualistic manner, for many centuries.
Lewis Goodall: Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
If we're now questioning whether free trade is always and everywhere a good thing, then maybe we should revisit the EU agreement, not to make it more open, but to make it more restricted in areas where it is in our national interest.
You need to understand your erstwhile fellow travellers.
Trade with Europe good. Trade with Australia bad.
Barriers with Europe bad. Barriers with Australia good.
Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
Invert that and we have you. But in any case, for our trading account, Australia is of marginal interest compared to Europe.
So it's more important to protect our farmers from European competition than from Australian competition?
I was thinking about trade in general. I find the focus on Australia a bit odd. You couldn't get further away if you tried. I do get the "friends and cousins" angle but all that seems rather sentimental to me. Within reason, obviously, but trade needs a hard head.
By Christmas, nobody will remember the September heist budget or Liz whoever-it-was.
The Tories will win the next election by fighting it on imm*gr*tion. It is possible to blame immigrants for almost anything: the NHS being sh*t, real incomes falling (what parrots call "the cost of living crisis"), crime, schools being sh*t, debt, unemployment, and not receiving the inheritance you expected because of the cost of keeping yer granny in a "home".
Keir Starmer is at 1.38 at Smarkets to be PM after the next GE. Laying him yields a 263% profit on stake if he isn't. That's what I call value.
Oh no, wait, news just in: the Heil will support Starmer. Just kidding.
Depressing as it is, to think the Tories could win again, I think you may be right
An incumbent government, with a 12+ year record, can most credibly win on an argument along the lines of, "we've made so much progress, don't let the opposition ruin it."
It's not possible for the Tories to run that argument for immigration. They've had twelve years and, regardless of what side of the debate you're on, the situation is worse. There's no progress for the opposition to ruin.
Post-Truss too many in the electorate aren't willing to listen to the Tories anymore. The shark has been jumped. It's over.
Starmer, of course, or his shadow Cabinet, still have it within their power to blow it. Plenty of sharks to be jumped if politicians are stupid enough.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to see how. It takes a length of time for an electorate to come to a settled judgement but once they do it's nearly always unshakable and we're well past that point here
By Christmas, nobody will remember the September heist budget or Liz whoever-it-was.
The Tories will win the next election by fighting it on imm*gr*tion. It is possible to blame immigrants for almost anything: the NHS being sh*t, real incomes falling (what parrots call "the cost of living crisis"), crime, schools being sh*t, debt, unemployment, and not receiving the inheritance you expected because of the cost of keeping yer granny in a "home".
Keir Starmer is at 1.38 at Smarkets to be PM after the next GE. Laying him yields a 263% profit on stake if he isn't. That's what I call value.
Oh no, wait, news just in: the Heil will support Starmer. Just kidding.
Depressing as it is, to think the Tories could win again, I think you may be right
An incumbent government, with a 12+ year record, can most credibly win on an argument along the lines of, "we've made so much progress, don't let the opposition ruin it."
It's not possible for the Tories to run that argument for immigration. They've had twelve years and, regardless of what side of the debate you're on, the situation is worse. There's no progress for the opposition to ruin.
Post-Truss too many in the electorate aren't willing to listen to the Tories anymore. The shark has been jumped. It's over.
Starmer, of course, or his shadow Cabinet, still have it within their power to blow it. Plenty of sharks to be jumped if politicians are stupid enough.
The Tories ran on xenophobia in 2019 when they'd been in office for nine years.
When they do the same next time, Labour cannot reply "Sure, problems associated with immigration are awful, and you've been in office for ~14 years and you've let them get worse! And a lot of other things too! You're so incompetent! For example, as well as immigration, there's X Y Z..."
Logically they could, but electoral politics isn't based on logic. They'd be drowned out with shouts of "Woke!"
Similarly the way the Tories handled the process of leaving the EU was execrable, but Labour didn't make much of an issue of it in the election. The Tories, having no shame, fought with the slogan "Get Brexit done".
It's also possible that between now and the election the government will be seen to do something against high immigration that is successful - or brave, or indicatory of oneness with the non-immigrant population - such as letting boats sink (a favourite among racist voters) or a Son of Rwanda op. Extra marks if it involves the armed forces.
Got to wonder how the diphtheria in the detention centre story will develop. And how it's playing in focus groups already.
"Thousands of older Londoners have called on Sadiq Khan to reinstate their free travel during the morning rush hour.
The benefit – which is given to about 1.3m people over 60 – was suspended soon after the start of the pandemic in June 2020 for weekday journeys before 9am, primarily to ensure public transport was kept free for key workers.
But the mayor is due to decide by the end of the year whether to retain the restriction on a permanent basis, which would generate about £15m to £18m in fares for cash-strapped Transport for London.
The charity Age UK London presented a petition signed by more than 10,000 people, demanding the reinstatement of the benefit, to City Hall on Tuesday afternoon."
Lewis Goodall: Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
If we're now questioning whether free trade is always and everywhere a good thing, then maybe we should revisit the EU agreement, not to make it more open, but to make it more restricted in areas where it is in our national interest.
You need to understand your erstwhile fellow travellers.
Trade with Europe good. Trade with Australia bad.
Barriers with Europe bad. Barriers with Australia good.
Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
Invert that and we have you. But in any case, for our trading account, Australia is of marginal interest compared to Europe.
So it's more important to protect our farmers from European competition than from Australian competition?
Not really, because other European producers are high cost like us, having the same animal welfare rules and similar geography. Australia is a much more efficient agricultural producer, like the US, and so always pushes for trade liberalisation in agriculture. If protecting our farmers is an objective, there's a lot more to worry about from trade with Australia, despite Europe being a far bigger trading partner overall.
Two strains of Salmonella Enteritidis in frozen, raw, breaded chicken products from Poland have caused almost 500 illnesses since January 2020 and at least one death in the UK. The outbreak strains have been traced to two suppliers in Poland.
One of the strains has also affected people in Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden since May 2018.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
Until you head over there… to watch the tumbleweed.
All the wokiest leftiest most annoyingly right on Twitterers are urgently telling everyone their new handles on Mastodon. Which, of course, is entirely self defeating
Anyone with an ounce of non-Wokeness will shiver, and think No way. It will be a Woke ghetto and it will fail, as I have predicted
Mastodon has bimbled along not failing for the last five years or so. I imagine it will continue to no fail in much the same way, regardless of what happens to Twitter.
As your regular posting here might indicate, sometimes it’s nice to be part of a community instead of a speck on the windshield of an SV social media company.
Sure. But the Wokerati are desperately trying to turn Mastodon into the new Twitter - they are REALLY working hard at it - they seem oblivious to the truth that their labours are pointless if not counterproductive, because they will only attract their own types (and the more earnest amongst them, moreover). Everyone else will be actively repelled
When and if an alternative to Twitter arises (and it surely must, nothing is forever) it probably has to happen organically - the result of a hundred million individuals choosing a superior social network
And that is the key. A successful alternative to Twitter has to be superior, which is simultaneously simple but hard. Of course, it is possible Musk will fuck up Twitter so bad it becomes quite easy to be better than Twitter..
I love the way you've conjured up a sinister cohort of wokerati.
By Christmas, nobody will remember the September heist budget or Liz whoever-it-was.
The Tories will win the next election by fighting it on imm*gr*tion. It is possible to blame immigrants for almost anything: the NHS being sh*t, real incomes falling (what parrots call "the cost of living crisis"), crime, schools being sh*t, debt, unemployment, and not receiving the inheritance you expected because of the cost of keeping yer granny in a "home".
Keir Starmer is at 1.38 at Smarkets to be PM after the next GE. Laying him yields a 263% profit on stake if he isn't. That's what I call value.
Oh no, wait, news just in: the Heil will support Starmer. Just kidding.
Depressing as it is, to think the Tories could win again, I think you may be right
An incumbent government, with a 12+ year record, can most credibly win on an argument along the lines of, "we've made so much progress, don't let the opposition ruin it."
It's not possible for the Tories to run that argument for immigration. They've had twelve years and, regardless of what side of the debate you're on, the situation is worse. There's no progress for the opposition to ruin.
Post-Truss too many in the electorate aren't willing to listen to the Tories anymore. The shark has been jumped. It's over.
Starmer, of course, or his shadow Cabinet, still have it within their power to blow it. Plenty of sharks to be jumped if politicians are stupid enough.
The Tories ran on xenophobia in 2019 when they'd been in office for nine years.
When they do the same next time, Labour cannot reply "Sure, problems associated with immigration are awful, and you've been in office for ~14 years and you've let them get worse! And a lot of other things too! You're so incompetent! For example, as well as immigration, there's X Y Z..."
Logically they could, but electoral politics isn't based on logic. They'd be drowned out with shouts of "Woke!"
Similarly the way the Tories handled the process of leaving the EU was execrable, but Labour didn't make much of an issue of it in the election. The Tories, having no shame, fought with the slogan "Get Brexit done".
It's also possible that between now and the election the government will be seen to do something against high immigration that is successful - or brave, or indicatory of oneness with the non-immigrant population - such as letting boats sink (a favourite among racist voters) or a Son of Rwanda op. Extra marks if it involves the armed forces.
Got to wonder how the diphtheria in the detention centre story will develop. And how it's playing in focus groups already.
Boats don't often sink in the time it takes to cross the channel, if you get your weather and tides right. You are perhaps being misled by the RNLI's involvement. They aren't plucking passengers off as the vessel disappears dorever beneath the waves, they are escorting dodgy and not hugely seaworthy, but still afloat, vessels on a precautionary basis. The med fucking sucks, 1,000s of deaths a year. not the channel.
As far as I understand it, Leon has left. Good riddance.
Therefore I will be returning to the site.
He’s not left.
In what way os that off-topic?
It’s a straight answer to a comment posted
People do that by accident when they're phone-using PB, I think.
Very coincidental that my comment asking why it was "off-topic" was off-topiced then...
Given this one that I'm now replying to has also been OT'd I think we can indeed deduce that we're looking at an act of cold calculated intent. Ooo err.
Indeed… a bit passive aggressive… if someone has an issue with me, let’s have it out on Hampstead Heath at dawn
Lewis Goodall: Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
If we're now questioning whether free trade is always and everywhere a good thing, then maybe we should revisit the EU agreement, not to make it more open, but to make it more restricted in areas where it is in our national interest.
You need to understand your erstwhile fellow travellers.
Trade with Europe good. Trade with Australia bad.
Barriers with Europe bad. Barriers with Australia good.
Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
Invert that and we have you. But in any case, for our trading account, Australia is of marginal interest compared to Europe.
No, invert that and you don't have me.
I very much want and desire a free trade agreement with both Europe AND Australia.
We have both now. Cake and eat it. 😋
Something doesn't feel quite right here. How can a person who was licking their chops at the prospect of a No Deal "WTO" Brexit - right up until the last minute when the cup was dashed from the lips - also be a person strongly in favour of free trade with Europe?
Do terrorists always lose? The IRA have made some pretty strong advances I'd say. Britain wasn't even allowed to install a border between Britain and Ireland for fear they'd start up again. That's a win without even donning a balaclava.
Until you head over there… to watch the tumbleweed.
All the wokiest leftiest most annoyingly right on Twitterers are urgently telling everyone their new handles on Mastodon. Which, of course, is entirely self defeating
Anyone with an ounce of non-Wokeness will shiver, and think No way. It will be a Woke ghetto and it will fail, as I have predicted
Mastodon has bimbled along not failing for the last five years or so. I imagine it will continue to no fail in much the same way, regardless of what happens to Twitter.
As your regular posting here might indicate, sometimes it’s nice to be part of a community instead of a speck on the windshield of an SV social media company.
In any event, the real significance Mastodon is more as an escape contingency for particular communities (various sets of scientists, for example) should Twitter implode.
It's not designed or intended as a replacement for Twitter, as a means of entertainment for Leon.
And for now, the vast majority are staying on Twitter.
I note in passing that the entirety of the infosec community (i.e. those interested in IT security at all levels) appears to have decamped to a small set of mastodon instances after hearing that Twitter’s CIO, Chief Privacy Office & Head of Legal Affairs (can’t remember their title exactly) all resigned on the same day last week.
"Thousands of older Londoners have called on Sadiq Khan to reinstate their free travel during the morning rush hour.
The benefit – which is given to about 1.3m people over 60 – was suspended soon after the start of the pandemic in June 2020 for weekday journeys before 9am, primarily to ensure public transport was kept free for key workers.
But the mayor is due to decide by the end of the year whether to retain the restriction on a permanent basis, which would generate about £15m to £18m in fares for cash-strapped Transport for London.
The charity Age UK London presented a petition signed by more than 10,000 people, demanding the reinstatement of the benefit, to City Hall on Tuesday afternoon."
why would a pensioner need to travel so early in the morning - 99% of them most be using their free travel to get to work.
Good point.
Except these people are over 60s, not pensioners (which actually makes the point all the stronger). I am 61; 5 and a half years to go before my craving for that lovely triple-locked goodness is satisfied.
Until you head over there… to watch the tumbleweed.
All the wokiest leftiest most annoyingly right on Twitterers are urgently telling everyone their new handles on Mastodon. Which, of course, is entirely self defeating
Anyone with an ounce of non-Wokeness will shiver, and think No way. It will be a Woke ghetto and it will fail, as I have predicted
Mastodon has bimbled along not failing for the last five years or so. I imagine it will continue to no fail in much the same way, regardless of what happens to Twitter.
As your regular posting here might indicate, sometimes it’s nice to be part of a community instead of a speck on the windshield of an SV social media company.
Sure. But the Wokerati are desperately trying to turn Mastodon into the new Twitter - they are REALLY working hard at it - they seem oblivious to the truth that their labours are pointless if not counterproductive, because they will only attract their own types (and the more earnest amongst them, moreover). Everyone else will be actively repelled
When and if an alternative to Twitter arises (and it surely must, nothing is forever) it probably has to happen organically - the result of a hundred million individuals choosing a superior social network
And that is the key. A successful alternative to Twitter has to be superior, which is simultaneously simple but hard. Of course, it is possible Musk will fuck up Twitter so bad it becomes quite easy to be better than Twitter..
I love the way you've conjured up a sinister cohort of wokerati.
I think that may just be a statistical blip that can disappear with more polls. For example, the line from Techne would be straight up and now in thirties, I’m predicting next Saturday’s Opinium to be 31+. We haven’t had a Kantor for a while.
Your worm that turned can be gone next time you look. A case of Ephemeral Worms.
Have we returned to analysing hypothetical polls published at some vaguely defined point in the future?
Well. To be bluff. Yes.
You see different polls whose methodologies favour different results report at different times, maybe not even spaced but in clusters. People polling for example had a reform at 8 and others at six from their method, therefore a con of 21 last week, even though it sits away from the polling average or herding they are not remotely outliers for the firm, it’s what people polling been doing since they appeared, so it’s not an outlier because it’s in sequence to their method. Similarly Kantor, Techne and Opinium tend to produce higher Con share and they feed into this graph too - so where you have a statistical blip at the moment, next Techne 30 or 29, Opinium 31+ and a Kantor in 30s will make the blip vanish forever - the more recent ticks on the graph can be ephemeral.
PeoplePolling, with their high Greens and others have also given Labour at just 42. Is that an outlier or more realistic to an election PV?
To address Barry’s point, what you say is true, so do you want it removed from this table because of it? Where would that lead, because all the forms method are different - if anything Opinium closer to the rest than PeoplePolling, would you want them removed too? And then uberTory friendly Kantor?
Lewis Goodall: Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
If we're now questioning whether free trade is always and everywhere a good thing, then maybe we should revisit the EU agreement, not to make it more open, but to make it more restricted in areas where it is in our national interest.
You need to understand your erstwhile fellow travellers.
Trade with Europe good. Trade with Australia bad.
Barriers with Europe bad. Barriers with Australia good.
Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
Invert that and we have you. But in any case, for our trading account, Australia is of marginal interest compared to Europe.
So it's more important to protect our farmers from European competition than from Australian competition?
Not really, because other European producers are high cost like us, having the same animal welfare rules and similar geography. Australia is a much more efficient agricultural producer, like the US, and so always pushes for trade liberalisation in agriculture. If protecting our farmers is an objective, there's a lot more to worry about from trade with Australia, despite Europe being a far bigger trading partner overall.
Two strains of Salmonella Enteritidis in frozen, raw, breaded chicken products from Poland have caused almost 500 illnesses since January 2020 and at least one death in the UK. The outbreak strains have been traced to two suppliers in Poland.
One of the strains has also affected people in Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden since May 2018.
Yeah we'd never have salmonella in our food supply here right?
By Christmas, nobody will remember the September heist budget or Liz whoever-it-was.
The Tories will win the next election by fighting it on imm*gr*tion. It is possible to blame immigrants for almost anything: the NHS being sh*t, real incomes falling (what parrots call "the cost of living crisis"), crime, schools being sh*t, debt, unemployment, and not receiving the inheritance you expected because of the cost of keeping yer granny in a "home".
Keir Starmer is at 1.38 at Smarkets to be PM after the next GE. Laying him yields a 263% profit on stake if he isn't. That's what I call value.
Oh no, wait, news just in: the Heil will support Starmer. Just kidding.
By Christmas, nobody will remember the September heist budget or Liz whoever-it-was.
The Tories will win the next election by fighting it on imm*gr*tion. It is possible to blame immigrants for almost anything: the NHS being sh*t, real incomes falling (what parrots call "the cost of living crisis"), crime, schools being sh*t, debt, unemployment, and not receiving the inheritance you expected because of the cost of keeping yer granny in a "home".
Keir Starmer is at 1.38 at Smarkets to be PM after the next GE. Laying him yields a 263% profit on stake if he isn't. That's what I call value.
Oh no, wait, news just in: the Heil will support Starmer. Just kidding.
Depressing as it is, to think the Tories could win again, I think you may be right
An incumbent government, with a 12+ year record, can most credibly win on an argument along the lines of, "we've made so much progress, don't let the opposition ruin it."
It's not possible for the Tories to run that argument for immigration. They've had twelve years and, regardless of what side of the debate you're on, the situation is worse. There's no progress for the opposition to ruin.
Post-Truss too many in the electorate aren't willing to listen to the Tories anymore. The shark has been jumped. It's over.
Starmer, of course, or his shadow Cabinet, still have it within their power to blow it. Plenty of sharks to be jumped if politicians are stupid enough.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to see how. It takes a length of time for an electorate to come to a settled judgement but once they do it's nearly always unshakable and we're well past that point here
That is my view as well. The Sunak bounce has been modest. Labour are still well ahead. The local by-election results simply echo the polling we are seeing too.
This is all before the bad news to come as well as the recession.
The Tories may say "dont jeopardise the recovery" in 2024 but who will trust them given their past performance.
Until you head over there… to watch the tumbleweed.
All the wokiest leftiest most annoyingly right on Twitterers are urgently telling everyone their new handles on Mastodon. Which, of course, is entirely self defeating
Anyone with an ounce of non-Wokeness will shiver, and think No way. It will be a Woke ghetto and it will fail, as I have predicted
Mastodon has bimbled along not failing for the last five years or so. I imagine it will continue to no fail in much the same way, regardless of what happens to Twitter.
As your regular posting here might indicate, sometimes it’s nice to be part of a community instead of a speck on the windshield of an SV social media company.
Sure. But the Wokerati are desperately trying to turn Mastodon into the new Twitter - they are REALLY working hard at it - they seem oblivious to the truth that their labours are pointless if not counterproductive, because they will only attract their own types (and the more earnest amongst them, moreover). Everyone else will be actively repelled
When and if an alternative to Twitter arises (and it surely must, nothing is forever) it probably has to happen organically - the result of a hundred million individuals choosing a superior social network
And that is the key. A successful alternative to Twitter has to be superior, which is simultaneously simple but hard. Of course, it is possible Musk will fuck up Twitter so bad it becomes quite easy to be better than Twitter..
I love the way you've conjured up a sinister cohort of wokerati.
Ex Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith warns: "[Sunak] said in summer, categorically, he considered China to be a systemic threat. What we’re seeing here is the beginnings of a step away from his original position. I hope he’s not about to do a U-turn, it would be completely wrong." https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1592471784456085505
Osborne digging in his claws
Only interested in money not in geopolitics
In hindsight Dave and Ossie were very much in bed with the Chinese weren’t they?
But also Hunt - don’t the Chinese themselves refer to him as the Son in Law of China?
Hunt is in Osbornes camp.
Osborne was (is!) greedy and monomaniacal. He’s perfectly suited to Robey Warshaw
So after trying to generate the Cold War with China, the Tory’s under Sunak, Hunt and Ossie in the back room are climbing back into bed with the Chinese?
I think that may just be a statistical blip that can disappear with more polls. For example, the line from Techne would be straight up and now in thirties, I’m predicting next Saturday’s Opinium to be 31+. We haven’t had a Kantor for a while.
Your worm that turned can be gone next time you look. A case of Ephemeral Worms.
Have we returned to analysing hypothetical polls published at some vaguely defined point in the future?
Well. To be bluff. Yes.
You see different polls whose methodologies favour different results report at different times, maybe not even spaced but in clusters. People polling for example had a reform at 8 and others at six from their method, therefore a con of 21 last week, even though it sits away from the polling average or herding they are not remotely outliers for the firm, it’s what people polling been doing since they appeared, so it’s not an outlier because it’s in sequence to their method. Similarly Kantor, Techne and Opinium tend to produce higher Con share and they feed into this graph too - so where you have a statistical blip at the moment, next Techne 30 or 29, Opinium 31+ and a Kantor in 30s will make the blip vanish forever - the more recent ticks on the graph can be ephemeral.
We've had four polls in a row where that company's swing towards the Tories has slowed virtually to a halt, or started reversing. That might be a short term trend, but it's still a real trend, rather than a reporting quirk.
I understand your point about Opinium giving a higher Tory figure, but even their last two polls showed movement back towards Labour.
By Christmas, nobody will remember the September heist budget or Liz whoever-it-was.
The Tories will win the next election by fighting it on imm*gr*tion. It is possible to blame immigrants for almost anything: the NHS being sh*t, real incomes falling (what parrots call "the cost of living crisis"), crime, schools being sh*t, debt, unemployment, and not receiving the inheritance you expected because of the cost of keeping yer granny in a "home".
Keir Starmer is at 1.38 at Smarkets to be PM after the next GE. Laying him yields a 263% profit on stake if he isn't. That's what I call value.
Oh no, wait, news just in: the Heil will support Starmer. Just kidding.
Not just possible, virtually obligatory in many circles and people have been at it for decades. But I don't see that it helps the tories, when they patently have no solutions to it. The government has to spend 45 squillion quid a day on hotels and bribing the French, and the tories is currently the government.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
Redwood sees austerity as a political choice, and wants a growth budget.
As far as I understand it, Leon has left. Good riddance.
Therefore I will be returning to the site.
He’s not left.
In what way os that off-topic?
It’s a straight answer to a comment posted
People do that by accident when they're phone-using PB, I think.
Very coincidental that my comment asking why it was "off-topic" was off-topiced then...
Given this one that I'm now replying to has also been OT'd I think we can indeed deduce that we're looking at an act of cold calculated intent. Ooo err.
Indeed… a bit passive aggressive… if someone has an issue with me, let’s have it out on Hampstead Heath at dawn
Haven't noticed you getting into any lurid tumbles with anybody. Unless you're a re-badge?
By Christmas, nobody will remember the September heist budget or Liz whoever-it-was.
The Tories will win the next election by fighting it on imm*gr*tion. It is possible to blame immigrants for almost anything: the NHS being sh*t, real incomes falling (what parrots call "the cost of living crisis"), crime, schools being sh*t, debt, unemployment, and not receiving the inheritance you expected because of the cost of keeping yer granny in a "home".
Keir Starmer is at 1.38 at Smarkets to be PM after the next GE. Laying him yields a 263% profit on stake if he isn't. That's what I call value.
Oh no, wait, news just in: the Heil will support Starmer. Just kidding.
Depressing as it is, to think the Tories could win again, I think you may be right
An incumbent government, with a 12+ year record, can most credibly win on an argument along the lines of, "we've made so much progress, don't let the opposition ruin it."
It's not possible for the Tories to run that argument for immigration. They've had twelve years and, regardless of what side of the debate you're on, the situation is worse. There's no progress for the opposition to ruin.
Post-Truss too many in the electorate aren't willing to listen to the Tories anymore. The shark has been jumped. It's over.
Starmer, of course, or his shadow Cabinet, still have it within their power to blow it. Plenty of sharks to be jumped if politicians are stupid enough.
Yes but the might of the Tory propaganda machines will turn their guns on Starmer, and it won't be pretty, although they can't have a go at him for being dull, if anything Sunak is duller than him
You mea, they haven't already? The donkey business was a low water mark (though not LWMOST) in the tabloid treatment of a pol.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
So he thinks we can abolish boom and bust. The hubris of it!
I think that may just be a statistical blip that can disappear with more polls. For example, the line from Techne would be straight up and now in thirties, I’m predicting next Saturday’s Opinium to be 31+. We haven’t had a Kantor for a while.
Your worm that turned can be gone next time you look. A case of Ephemeral Worms.
Have we returned to analysing hypothetical polls published at some vaguely defined point in the future?
Well. To be bluff. Yes.
You see different polls whose methodologies favour different results report at different times, maybe not even spaced but in clusters. People polling for example had a reform at 8 and others at six from their method, therefore a con of 21 last week, even though it sits away from the polling average or herding they are not remotely outliers for the firm, it’s what people polling been doing since they appeared, so it’s not an outlier because it’s in sequence to their method. Similarly Kantor, Techne and Opinium tend to produce higher Con share and they feed into this graph too - so where you have a statistical blip at the moment, next Techne 30 or 29, Opinium 31+ and a Kantor in 30s will make the blip vanish forever - the more recent ticks on the graph can be ephemeral.
We've had four polls in a row where that company's swing towards the Tories has slowed virtually to a halt, or started reversing. That might be a short term trend, but it's still a real trend, rather than a reporting quirk.
I understand your point about Opinium giving a higher Tory figure, but even their last two polls showed movement back towards Labour.
It’s a mixed picture right now, still to early to say the new leader bounce has peaked and gone into reverse - and rather shockingly didn’t really get anywhere in the first place.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
Good grief Redwood is living in a parallel fantasy universe of his own design. His proposal is basically 'repeat the Liz Truss budget'.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
So he thinks we can abolish boom and bust.
So you support an Austerity budget this week, on grounds there’s a sixty billion black hole to fill?
"Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out."
From John Redwood's stuff found at length above.. His analysis basically is:
That everything everyone has ever done is wrong, but there is a popular winning formula which avoids austerity, promotes growth, doesn't raise taxes, and balances the books
That he appears to be the only person who knows this
Lewis Goodall: Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
If we're now questioning whether free trade is always and everywhere a good thing, then maybe we should revisit the EU agreement, not to make it more open, but to make it more restricted in areas where it is in our national interest.
You need to understand your erstwhile fellow travellers.
Trade with Europe good. Trade with Australia bad.
Barriers with Europe bad. Barriers with Australia good.
Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
Invert that and we have you. But in any case, for our trading account, Australia is of marginal interest compared to Europe.
No, invert that and you don't have me.
I very much want and desire a free trade agreement with both Europe AND Australia.
We have both now. Cake and eat it. 😋
Yup. And if only what you said was true we would have cake. The people *who negotiated this deal* are telling us in detail why it is shit. They are the best judge of that with their direct experience of the practical details. Vs your non-involvement and theoretical "expertise".
The "people who negotiated this deal" are telling us it is good.
One person, Eustice, is pandering to people who object by saying "we gave away too much".
Err . . . You what? You can't give away "too much" in a free trade deal, as that's the frigging point, free trade. If you've not "given away" trade restrictions, you've not negotiated a free trade deal.
Name me one "too much" restriction we've "given away" in the trade deal with Australia that still applies to trade with France. I bet you can't.
Excerpts from feature about liberation of Kherson by UKR from Monday's NYT:
> Iryna Dyagileva's daughter attended a school where the curriculum included memorizing the Russian national anthem. But teachers ignored it, instead quietly greeting students in the morning with a salute: "Glory to Ukraine!"
> "When our soldiers (UKR) drove in, their machine guns were pointing up, into the air," Mr. Bloshko said. "When the Russians drove in, their guns were pointed at the people. That explains everything. And they said they were our liberators."
>Iryna Rodavanova, a retired curator at the Kherson Art Museum, said the brutality of the Russian soldiers had alienated residents, undermining the efforts at cultural assimilation. Soldiers beat her husband on a roadside after accusing him of a traffic violation.
"I agree with our president, Ms. Rodavanova said. "Better without electricity, better without water and without heat, if also without the Russians."
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
So he thinks we can abolish boom and bust.
So you support an Austerity budget this week, on grounds there’s a sixty billion black hole to fill?
There is no need for austerity, the £60bn could be raised through taxes on the wealthy.
I think that may just be a statistical blip that can disappear with more polls. For example, the line from Techne would be straight up and now in thirties, I’m predicting next Saturday’s Opinium to be 31+. We haven’t had a Kantor for a while.
Your worm that turned can be gone next time you look. A case of Ephemeral Worms.
Have we returned to analysing hypothetical polls published at some vaguely defined point in the future?
Well. To be bluff. Yes.
You see different polls whose methodologies favour different results report at different times, maybe not even spaced but in clusters. People polling for example had a reform at 8 and others at six from their method, therefore a con of 21 last week, even though it sits away from the polling average or herding they are not remotely outliers for the firm, it’s what people polling been doing since they appeared, so it’s not an outlier because it’s in sequence to their method. Similarly Kantor, Techne and Opinium tend to produce higher Con share and they feed into this graph too - so where you have a statistical blip at the moment, next Techne 30 or 29, Opinium 31+ and a Kantor in 30s will make the blip vanish forever - the more recent ticks on the graph can be ephemeral.
We've had four polls in a row where that company's swing towards the Tories has slowed virtually to a halt, or started reversing. That might be a short term trend, but it's still a real trend, rather than a reporting quirk.
I understand your point about Opinium giving a higher Tory figure, but even their last two polls showed movement back towards Labour.
It’s a mixed picture right now, still to early to say the new leader bounce has peaked and gone into reverse - and rather shockingly didn’t really get anywhere in the first place.
It is beginning to look like that though. 😕
The Wikipedia worm is showing Sunak's bounce as L down 5, C up 5. Not that bad for a new leader bounce, just nowhere near enough.
"Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out."
From John Redwood's stuff found at length above.. His analysis basically is:
That everything everyone has ever done is wrong, but there is a popular winning formula which avoids austerity, promotes growth, doesn't raise taxes, and balances the books
That he appears to be the only person who knows this
and
I AM NOT TELLING YOU WHAT IT IS.
Easy. Just want those things enough. Then it will be obvious and any practical difficulties will melt away.
Lewis Goodall: Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
If we're now questioning whether free trade is always and everywhere a good thing, then maybe we should revisit the EU agreement, not to make it more open, but to make it more restricted in areas where it is in our national interest.
You need to understand your erstwhile fellow travellers.
Trade with Europe good. Trade with Australia bad.
Barriers with Europe bad. Barriers with Australia good.
Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
Invert that and we have you. But in any case, for our trading account, Australia is of marginal interest compared to Europe.
No, invert that and you don't have me.
I very much want and desire a free trade agreement with both Europe AND Australia.
We have both now. Cake and eat it. 😋
Something doesn't feel quite right here. How can a person who was licking their chops at the prospect of a No Deal "WTO" Brexit - right up until the last minute when the cup was dashed from the lips - also be a person strongly in favour of free trade with Europe?
I never once licked my chops at the prospect of a No Deal Brexit.
I said consistently that I wanted a trade deal, but that we should be prepared to walk away if we can't get a free trade only agreement that leaves us bound to their laws.
Good Deal (Free Trade) > No Deal > Bad Deal (Alignment).
We got the deal I wanted. May's deal, including alignment, was worse than No Deal.
Until you head over there… to watch the tumbleweed.
All the wokiest leftiest most annoyingly right on Twitterers are urgently telling everyone their new handles on Mastodon. Which, of course, is entirely self defeating
Anyone with an ounce of non-Wokeness will shiver, and think No way. It will be a Woke ghetto and it will fail, as I have predicted
Mastodon has bimbled along not failing for the last five years or so. I imagine it will continue to no fail in much the same way, regardless of what happens to Twitter.
As your regular posting here might indicate, sometimes it’s nice to be part of a community instead of a speck on the windshield of an SV social media company.
Sure. But the Wokerati are desperately trying to turn Mastodon into the new Twitter - they are REALLY working hard at it - they seem oblivious to the truth that their labours are pointless if not counterproductive, because they will only attract their own types (and the more earnest amongst them, moreover). Everyone else will be actively repelled
When and if an alternative to Twitter arises (and it surely must, nothing is forever) it probably has to happen organically - the result of a hundred million individuals choosing a superior social network
And that is the key. A successful alternative to Twitter has to be superior, which is simultaneously simple but hard. Of course, it is possible Musk will fuck up Twitter so bad it becomes quite easy to be better than Twitter..
I love the way you've conjured up a sinister cohort of wokerati.
Ex Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith warns: "[Sunak] said in summer, categorically, he considered China to be a systemic threat. What we’re seeing here is the beginnings of a step away from his original position. I hope he’s not about to do a U-turn, it would be completely wrong." https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1592471784456085505
Osborne digging in his claws
Only interested in money not in geopolitics
In hindsight Dave and Ossie were very much in bed with the Chinese weren’t they?
But also Hunt - don’t the Chinese themselves refer to him as the Son in Law of China?
Hunt is in Osbornes camp.
Osborne was (is!) greedy and monomaniacal. He’s perfectly suited to Robey Warshaw
So after trying to generate the Cold War with China, the Tory’s under Sunak, Hunt and Ossie in the back room are climbing back into bed with the Chinese?
As far as I understand it, Leon has left. Good riddance.
Therefore I will be returning to the site.
He’s not left.
In what way os that off-topic?
It’s a straight answer to a comment posted
People do that by accident when they're phone-using PB, I think.
Very coincidental that my comment asking why it was "off-topic" was off-topiced then...
Given this one that I'm now replying to has also been OT'd I think we can indeed deduce that we're looking at an act of cold calculated intent. Ooo err.
Indeed… a bit passive aggressive… if someone has an issue with me, let’s have it out on Hampstead Heath at dawn
Haven't noticed you getting into any lurid tumbles with anybody. Unless you're a re-badge?
I think that may just be a statistical blip that can disappear with more polls. For example, the line from Techne would be straight up and now in thirties, I’m predicting next Saturday’s Opinium to be 31+. We haven’t had a Kantor for a while.
Your worm that turned can be gone next time you look. A case of Ephemeral Worms.
Have we returned to analysing hypothetical polls published at some vaguely defined point in the future?
Well. To be bluff. Yes.
You see different polls whose methodologies favour different results report at different times, maybe not even spaced but in clusters. People polling for example had a reform at 8 and others at six from their method, therefore a con of 21 last week, even though it sits away from the polling average or herding they are not remotely outliers for the firm, it’s what people polling been doing since they appeared, so it’s not an outlier because it’s in sequence to their method. Similarly Kantor, Techne and Opinium tend to produce higher Con share and they feed into this graph too - so where you have a statistical blip at the moment, next Techne 30 or 29, Opinium 31+ and a Kantor in 30s will make the blip vanish forever - the more recent ticks on the graph can be ephemeral.
PeoplePolling, with their high Greens and others have also given Labour at just 42. Is that an outlier or more realistic to an election PV?
To address Barry’s point, what you say is true, so do you want it removed from this table because of it? Where would that lead, because all the forms method are different - if anything Opinium closer to the rest than PeoplePolling, would you want them removed too? And then uberTory friendly Kantor?
The case for excluding Opinium is based on the fact that is measuring something different - ie not 'how would you vote in a General Election tomorrow.?' Rather it is trying to predict how people will vote in 12/18/24 months time. It is simply not comparing like with like. Kantar apparently is quite similar.
Good stuff from the Guardian about sensible kangaroos, babies and mothers. But it's a Guardian classic of presentation.
In the article baby kangaroos have mothers, in all the quotes from the nice midwife human babies have mothers, in the journalists own copy human babies have caregivers. Trans kangas are already organising a demo.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
Good grief Redwood is living in a parallel fantasy universe of his own design. His proposal is basically 'repeat the Liz Truss budget'.
Despite the international situation causing all this pain, someone in G20/G7 will get highest growth in this period, someone the lowest. Those with the highest can pass this growth on to voters in higher wages, tax cuts, higher household incomes, investment in public services to make them better - those with the lowest will send their MPs and party canvassers out for re-election having first given every household a sniper rifle and every motive to snipe at their MPs and canvassers as they come calling.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
So he thinks we can abolish boom and bust.
So you support an Austerity budget this week, on grounds there’s a sixty billion black hole to fill?
Thanks to Truss and co we have little choice but to do so because we've seen the consequences of what happens if the markets are displeased.
That doesn't mean I favour austerity, it's just the cost of avoiding austerity would be way worse.
One thing Truss did once and for all was demonstrate that Modern Monetary Theory (i.e. the magic money tree) has limits and Truss successfully (and unfortunately) found those limits.
I think that may just be a statistical blip that can disappear with more polls. For example, the line from Techne would be straight up and now in thirties, I’m predicting next Saturday’s Opinium to be 31+. We haven’t had a Kantor for a while.
Your worm that turned can be gone next time you look. A case of Ephemeral Worms.
Have we returned to analysing hypothetical polls published at some vaguely defined point in the future?
Well. To be bluff. Yes.
You see different polls whose methodologies favour different results report at different times, maybe not even spaced but in clusters. People polling for example had a reform at 8 and others at six from their method, therefore a con of 21 last week, even though it sits away from the polling average or herding they are not remotely outliers for the firm, it’s what people polling been doing since they appeared, so it’s not an outlier because it’s in sequence to their method. Similarly Kantor, Techne and Opinium tend to produce higher Con share and they feed into this graph too - so where you have a statistical blip at the moment, next Techne 30 or 29, Opinium 31+ and a Kantor in 30s will make the blip vanish forever - the more recent ticks on the graph can be ephemeral.
We've had four polls in a row where that company's swing towards the Tories has slowed virtually to a halt, or started reversing. That might be a short term trend, but it's still a real trend, rather than a reporting quirk.
I understand your point about Opinium giving a higher Tory figure, but even their last two polls showed movement back towards Labour.
It’s a mixed picture right now, still to early to say the new leader bounce has peaked and gone into reverse - and rather shockingly didn’t really get anywhere in the first place.
It is beginning to look like that though. 😕
The Wikipedia worm is showing Sunak's bounce as L down 5, C up 5. Not that bad for a new leader bounce, just nowhere near enough.
I like the Wikipedia graph as much as anyone (I dare ya!) but the LOESS smooth used is particularly sensitive at the endpoints to outliers, so the last bit of the graph should always be considered as provisional.
I like the way this was shown for a binomial smooth on the old HadCRUT4 graphs, where the smooth is dashed where it is provisional and solid otherwise.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
So he thinks we can abolish boom and bust.
So you support an Austerity budget this week, on grounds there’s a sixty billion black hole to fill?
Good question. Not easy to answer. I believe in sound money, ie getting on top of public borrowing, but I'd err on the side of going easy at this point rather than being super tough - since there's much uncertainty in the forecasting and if you're not careful you can do more harm than good; trying to cut and tax your way out of a debt crisis can be a bit like reaching down and trying to pick yourself up with your own shoelaces. So, if the "hole" is 60, I'd do 40 and I'd direct the pain best I could at those most able to handle it, eg tax rises skewed at wealthier people and corporations.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
So he thinks we can abolish boom and bust.
So you support an Austerity budget this week, on grounds there’s a sixty billion black hole to fill?
Thanks to Truss and co we have little choice but to do so because we've seen the consequences of what happens if the markets are displeased.
That doesn't mean I favour austerity, it's just the cost of avoiding austerity would be way worse.
One thing Truss did once and for all was demonstrate that Modern Monetary Theory (i.e. the magic money tree) has limits and Truss successfully (and unfortunately) found those limits.
A lot of financial stuff is trust and confidence, it seems.
And the Truss-Kwateng interlude has left the UK government in much the same position as a teenager who isn't going to be allowed out in the car on their own for a while, even if most of the dents and scratches have been removed.
Where did the sixty billion banded around in the media come from?
Three weeks ago when it appeared from nowhere it was mere thirty billion, how did it double, creeping up in tens in last three weeks?
I dunno - you're the one who bandied the £60bn about.
I got it from the papers.
It appeared from nowhere at thirty about 4 weeks ago, the following week reported at forty, then fifty, this week the media report it being sixty.
If you were Sunak and Hunt wishing to justify windfall taxes, income taxes and other cuts to peoples incomes, justify higher council taxes, could you introduce that and sell it without filling everyone’s minds with there is a sixty billion hole to fill?
If there is anyone on PB this afternoon who believes the £60bn is real - please explain what caused it and when.
I think that may just be a statistical blip that can disappear with more polls. For example, the line from Techne would be straight up and now in thirties, I’m predicting next Saturday’s Opinium to be 31+. We haven’t had a Kantor for a while.
Your worm that turned can be gone next time you look. A case of Ephemeral Worms.
Have we returned to analysing hypothetical polls published at some vaguely defined point in the future?
Well. To be bluff. Yes.
You see different polls whose methodologies favour different results report at different times, maybe not even spaced but in clusters. People polling for example had a reform at 8 and others at six from their method, therefore a con of 21 last week, even though it sits away from the polling average or herding they are not remotely outliers for the firm, it’s what people polling been doing since they appeared, so it’s not an outlier because it’s in sequence to their method. Similarly Kantor, Techne and Opinium tend to produce higher Con share and they feed into this graph too - so where you have a statistical blip at the moment, next Techne 30 or 29, Opinium 31+ and a Kantor in 30s will make the blip vanish forever - the more recent ticks on the graph can be ephemeral.
We've had four polls in a row where that company's swing towards the Tories has slowed virtually to a halt, or started reversing. That might be a short term trend, but it's still a real trend, rather than a reporting quirk.
I understand your point about Opinium giving a higher Tory figure, but even their last two polls showed movement back towards Labour.
It’s a mixed picture right now, still to early to say the new leader bounce has peaked and gone into reverse - and rather shockingly didn’t really get anywhere in the first place.
It is beginning to look like that though. 😕
Definitely too early - but I don't see where it's mixed. If we had a selection of polls showing the lead coming solidly down, then that would be mixed, but they pretty much all seem to be slowing/reversing.
It's also a reasonable bounce - not many leaders start from 30%+ down, so it was always going to take time. He was always up against it, and I can't imagine people will be on a budget that raises tax and cuts spending.
I suspect they're looking to hang on till hopefully Ukraine win, and we see fuel prices and inflation fall, and they will claim it as a win for "grown-up politics" or some other nonsense.
Where did the sixty billion banded around in the media come from?
Three weeks ago when it appeared from nowhere it was mere thirty billion, how did it double, creeping up in tens in last three weeks?
I dunno - you're the one who bandied the £60bn about.
I got it from the papers.
It appeared from nowhere at thirty about 4 weeks ago, the following week reported at forty, then fifty, this week the media report it being sixty.
If you were Sunak and Hunt wishing to justify windfall taxes, income taxes and other cuts to peoples incomes, justify higher council taxes, could you introduce that and sell it without filling everyone’s minds with there is a sixty billion hole to fill?
If there is anyone on PB this afternoon who believes the £60bn is real - please explain what caused it and when.
I don't know - the OBR will publish some figures this week, why don't we wait and see what they are, then we can argue over whether they're right or not.
More importantly, whatever the size of the hole in the finances that needs plugging, the way to do it is tax the wealthy and those on higher incomes* not austerity (aka cutting public spending and benefits).
Talking of the suffragettes, sorry but today's throwing of paint at the glass covering Klimt's Death and Life by climate loons in Vienna (anyone got a mop?) wasn't a patch on suffragette Mary Richardson's slashing of Velazquez's Rokeby Venus with a butcher's knife.
As for Richardson's later career, of course that was very sad. Same could be said about Christabel.
Lewis Goodall: Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
If we're now questioning whether free trade is always and everywhere a good thing, then maybe we should revisit the EU agreement, not to make it more open, but to make it more restricted in areas where it is in our national interest.
You need to understand your erstwhile fellow travellers.
Trade with Europe good. Trade with Australia bad.
Barriers with Europe bad. Barriers with Australia good.
Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
Invert that and we have you. But in any case, for our trading account, Australia is of marginal interest compared to Europe.
No, invert that and you don't have me.
I very much want and desire a free trade agreement with both Europe AND Australia.
We have both now. Cake and eat it. 😋
Yup. And if only what you said was true we would have cake. The people *who negotiated this deal* are telling us in detail why it is shit. They are the best judge of that with their direct experience of the practical details. Vs your non-involvement and theoretical "expertise".
The "people who negotiated this deal" are telling us it is good.
One person, Eustice, is pandering to people who object by saying "we gave away too much".
Err . . . You what? You can't give away "too much" in a free trade deal, as that's the frigging point, free trade. If you've not "given away" trade restrictions, you've not negotiated a free trade deal.
Name me one "too much" restriction we've "given away" in the trade deal with Australia that still applies to trade with France. I bet you can't.
Admirable theory, and excellent starting point. David Ricardo and others who developed the free trade theory, the law of comparative advantage, are secular saints in my book and have added massively to the good in the world.
However in the actual world there will always be some protectionism. Especially in food production but also in other essentials. It will also occur because of the intervention of ethical standards of product quality and the ethics of how things are produced. So Ricardo's fabulous simplicity gets muddied once you have more than two countries producing more then one product each in a world of war, danger and political realities.
And that's without the intervention of human nature which invariably wants free trade in all things apart from the exceptions in which you have a proprietorial interest.
The "people who negotiated this deal" are telling us it is good.
One person, Eustice, is pandering to people who object by saying "we gave away too much".
Err . . . You what? You can't give away "too much" in a free trade deal, as that's the frigging point, free trade. If you've not "given away" trade restrictions, you've not negotiated a free trade deal.
Name me one "too much" restriction we've "given away" in the trade deal with Australia that still applies to trade with France. I bet you can't.
I've been professionally close to this. It's factually correct that everyone, including the Government, concedes that the deal will damage British agriculture (by allowing substandard products in with zero tariffs). The Government, in its impact assessment, judges that this hit for agriculture is justified by significant benefits in other areas (whisky, financial services).
Eustice was responsible for Defra. Inevitably, he was against a deal adversely affecting agriculture. I think he's right, since setting a standard for British farmers and then allowing imports that don't meet it with no tariff barrier is simply unfair for British farmers. That's what we gave away. But Truss and the Government more generally shrugged that off, because of the positive overall effect.
Lewis Goodall: Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
If we're now questioning whether free trade is always and everywhere a good thing, then maybe we should revisit the EU agreement, not to make it more open, but to make it more restricted in areas where it is in our national interest.
You need to understand your erstwhile fellow travellers.
Trade with Europe good. Trade with Australia bad.
Barriers with Europe bad. Barriers with Australia good.
Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
Invert that and we have you. But in any case, for our trading account, Australia is of marginal interest compared to Europe.
No, invert that and you don't have me.
I very much want and desire a free trade agreement with both Europe AND Australia.
We have both now. Cake and eat it. 😋
Something doesn't feel quite right here. How can a person who was licking their chops at the prospect of a No Deal "WTO" Brexit - right up until the last minute when the cup was dashed from the lips - also be a person strongly in favour of free trade with Europe?
I never once licked my chops at the prospect of a No Deal Brexit.
I said consistently that I wanted a trade deal, but that we should be prepared to walk away if we can't get a free trade only agreement that leaves us bound to their laws.
Good Deal (Free Trade) > No Deal > Bad Deal (Alignment).
We got the deal I wanted. May's deal, including alignment, was worse than No Deal.
Oh do stop this. You were gagging (!) for it. Couldn't wait to show those EUs how tough we were. Show we didn't need them. If it wouldn't be the dreaded "doxing" I'd copy over some choice posts from you at the time - do it right now - to show without a shadow of a doubt that I speak the truth here.
Have you actually looked at the make-up of the figures? Yes, arithmetically 0.5% of the total 'wealth' of £15,000bn is about £76bn. But that includes private pension pots - are you seriously suggesting that those who don't have the luxury of public-sector defined-benefit schemes should be further disadvantaged by a commitment-breaking levy on their pension pots (which are usually small anyway?) I assume not, so that's 0.5% of £6,000bn of your free money disappearing by contact with reality. Another £5400bn is property wealth and £1300bn 'physical' wealth - i.e. illiquid stuff that may not generate much income. There might be a bit of scope for increasing property taxes, but too much plucking of the goose simply leads to values falling and your free money turns out not to exist any more. Much of the financial wealth will be in tax-free shelters; a government can't just suddenly say 'Ha! I know we said ISAs were tax free but we didn't really mean it!' without serious consequences for its credibility. In any case the really big sums of financial wealth are quite mobile.
It might be possible to squeeze a few billion out of this wealth, but nothing like enough to cover the shortfall.
The "people who negotiated this deal" are telling us it is good.
One person, Eustice, is pandering to people who object by saying "we gave away too much".
Err . . . You what? You can't give away "too much" in a free trade deal, as that's the frigging point, free trade. If you've not "given away" trade restrictions, you've not negotiated a free trade deal.
Name me one "too much" restriction we've "given away" in the trade deal with Australia that still applies to trade with France. I bet you can't.
I've been professionally close to this. It's factually correct that everyone, including the Government, concedes that the deal will damage British agriculture (by allowing substandard products in with zero tariffs). The Government, in its impact assessment, judges that this hit for agriculture is justified by significant benefits in other areas (whisky, financial services).
Eustice was responsible for Defra. Inevitably, he was against a deal adversely affecting agriculture. I think he's right, since setting a standard for British farmers and then allowing imports that don't meet it with no tariff barrier is simply unfair for British farmers. That's what we gave away. But Truss and the Government more generally shrugged that off, because of the positive overall effect.
Define substandard, I've been to Australia numerous times and I'd rate the quality of beef at least as good as ours and in some cases better. I can't wait to get some in my meat smoker.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
So he thinks we can abolish boom and bust.
So you support an Austerity budget this week, on grounds there’s a sixty billion black hole to fill?
Thanks to Truss and co we have little choice but to do so because we've seen the consequences of what happens if the markets are displeased.
That doesn't mean I favour austerity, it's just the cost of avoiding austerity would be way worse.
One thing Truss did once and for all was demonstrate that Modern Monetary Theory (i.e. the magic money tree) has limits and Truss successfully (and unfortunately) found those limits.
Is there not a danger the true history is becoming lost here amongst all the lies and spin about the short Truss reign and where Kwasi budget left us, in your words “Thanks to Truss and co we have little choice but to do so”?
The budget was politically toxic, boosted by a run on pound caused mainly by US interest rates decision not the budget itself. But to back up your belief it was so economically damaging, you need to explain just how.
My theory is different, At no point in the summer was any Tory, Boris, Sunak, Truss talking of raising money to bail things out in autumn statement, but it was always coming here long before Truss saucily walked into number ten.
The "people who negotiated this deal" are telling us it is good.
One person, Eustice, is pandering to people who object by saying "we gave away too much".
Err . . . You what? You can't give away "too much" in a free trade deal, as that's the frigging point, free trade. If you've not "given away" trade restrictions, you've not negotiated a free trade deal.
Name me one "too much" restriction we've "given away" in the trade deal with Australia that still applies to trade with France. I bet you can't.
I've been professionally close to this. It's factually correct that everyone, including the Government, concedes that the deal will damage British agriculture (by allowing substandard products in with zero tariffs). The Government, in its impact assessment, judges that this hit for agriculture is justified by significant benefits in other areas (whisky, financial services).
Eustice was responsible for Defra. Inevitably, he was against a deal adversely affecting agriculture. I think he's right, since setting a standard for British farmers and then allowing imports that don't meet it with no tariff barrier is simply unfair for British farmers. That's what we gave away. But Truss and the Government more generally shrugged that off, because of the positive overall effect.
Define substandard, I've been to Australia numerous times and I'd rate the quality of beef at least as good as ours and in some cases better. I can't wait to get some in my meat smoker.
Lewis Goodall: Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
If we're now questioning whether free trade is always and everywhere a good thing, then maybe we should revisit the EU agreement, not to make it more open, but to make it more restricted in areas where it is in our national interest.
You need to understand your erstwhile fellow travellers.
Trade with Europe good. Trade with Australia bad.
Barriers with Europe bad. Barriers with Australia good.
Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
Invert that and we have you. But in any case, for our trading account, Australia is of marginal interest compared to Europe.
No, invert that and you don't have me.
I very much want and desire a free trade agreement with both Europe AND Australia.
We have both now. Cake and eat it. 😋
Yup. And if only what you said was true we would have cake. The people *who negotiated this deal* are telling us in detail why it is shit. They are the best judge of that with their direct experience of the practical details. Vs your non-involvement and theoretical "expertise".
The "people who negotiated this deal" are telling us it is good.
One person, Eustice, is pandering to people who object by saying "we gave away too much".
Err . . . You what? You can't give away "too much" in a free trade deal, as that's the frigging point, free trade. If you've not "given away" trade restrictions, you've not negotiated a free trade deal.
Name me one "too much" restriction we've "given away" in the trade deal with Australia that still applies to trade with France. I bet you can't.
Admirable theory, and excellent starting point. David Ricardo and others who developed the free trade theory, the law of comparative advantage, are secular saints in my book and have added massively to the good in the world.
However in the actual world there will always be some protectionism. Especially in food production but also in other essentials. It will also occur because of the intervention of ethical standards of product quality and the ethics of how things are produced. So Ricardo's fabulous simplicity gets muddied once you have more than two countries producing more then one product each in a world of war, danger and political.
And that's without the intervention of human nature which invariably wants free trade in all things apart from the exceptions in which you have a proprietorial interest.
Humans have existed for ~2 million years; trade for a few thousand years; the notion of proprietorial interest for about five minutes. Wanting trade whether free or otherwise can't possibly be human nature.
Have you actually looked at the make-up of the figures? Yes, arithmetically 0.5% of the total 'wealth' of £15,000bn is about £76bn. But that includes private pension pots - are you seriously suggesting that those who don't have the luxury of public-sector defined-benefit schemes should be further disadvantaged by a commitment-breaking levy on their pension pots (which are usually small anyway?) I assume not, so that's 0.5% of £6,000bn of your free money disappearing by contact with reality. Another £5400bn is property wealth and £1300bn 'physical' wealth - i.e. illiquid stuff that may not generate much income. There might be a bit of scope for increasing property taxes, but too much plucking of the goose simply leads to values falling and your free money turns out not to exist any more. Much of the financial wealth will be in tax-free shelters; a government can't just suddenly say 'Ha! I know we said ISAs were tax free but we didn't really mean it!' without serious consequences for its credibility. In any case the really big sums of financial wealth are quite mobile.
It might be possible to squeeze a few billion out of this wealth, but nothing like enough to cover the shortfall.
You'd tax DB pensions at equivalent pot size, but yes this assumes no allowance. If there was a wealth tax both pension pots and ISAs would have to be included. Treat it the same as a beneficial trusts, 6% on every 10 year anniversary and the accrued amount if it exits the country or the person dies.
Good stuff from the Guardian about sensible kangaroos, babies and mothers. But it's a Guardian classic of presentation.
In the article baby kangaroos have mothers, in all the quotes from the nice midwife human babies have mothers, in the journalists own copy human babies have caregivers. Trans kangas are already organising a demo.
Not just trans. My first two children's initial significant skin to skin contact was with me, not my wife as she was in no fit state.* Third time she was rather better and I didn't get a look in
Clearly, I didn't breastfeed, but there will be circumstances in which the person the baby is strapped to initially may not be the mother.
*nothing too serious, just vomiting and problems getting the placenta out with #1 and a degree of shock for #2 who came rather quickly after being induced.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
So he thinks we can abolish boom and bust.
So you support an Austerity budget this week, on grounds there’s a sixty billion black hole to fill?
There is no need for austerity, the £60bn could be raised through taxes on the wealthy.
Austerity for the Rich has to at least be in the mix surely. They can't pull the same stunt as last time.
Have you actually looked at the make-up of the figures? Yes, arithmetically 0.5% of the total 'wealth' of £15,000bn is about £76bn. But that includes private pension pots - are you seriously suggesting that those who don't have the luxury of public-sector defined-benefit schemes should be further disadvantaged by a commitment-breaking levy on their pension pots (which are usually small anyway?) I assume not, so that's 0.5% of £6,000bn of your free money disappearing by contact with reality. Another £5400bn is property wealth and £1300bn 'physical' wealth - i.e. illiquid stuff that may not generate much income. There might be a bit of scope for increasing property taxes, but too much plucking of the goose simply leads to values falling and your free money turns out not to exist any more. Much of the financial wealth will be in tax-free shelters; a government can't just suddenly say 'Ha! I know we said ISAs were tax free but we didn't really mean it!' without serious consequences for its credibility. In any case the really big sums of financial wealth are quite mobile.
It might be possible to squeeze a few billion out of this wealth, but nothing like enough to cover the shortfall.
Good questions to which I answer:
1. Yes, including pension pots. Why not? 2. Illiquid assets - allow the option of a charge against the asset (an approach already used for social care costs). The charge can be collect when the asset is disposed of. 3. ISAs: Tough. The commitment was only ever income and gains to be tax free.
» show previous quotes In my recent experience (12 nights with broken hip & elbow) I could have been discharged two days faster if the different services were better at talking to each other. While the surgical side did feel “joined up” (an initial plan to delay operating on my elbow quashed in favour of more urgent treatment) the rest was disjointed. I saw this repeatedly in my 6 bed ward - discharge delayed because not all the paperwork was sorted. I counted myself lucky with a two day delay, and in the end that was nearly three.
I think that may just be a statistical blip that can disappear with more polls. For example, the line from Techne would be straight up and now in thirties, I’m predicting next Saturday’s Opinium to be 31+. We haven’t had a Kantor for a while.
Your worm that turned can be gone next time you look. A case of Ephemeral Worms.
Have we returned to analysing hypothetical polls published at some vaguely defined point in the future?
Well. To be bluff. Yes.
You see different polls whose methodologies favour different results report at different times, maybe not even spaced but in clusters. People polling for example had a reform at 8 and others at six from their method, therefore a con of 21 last week, even though it sits away from the polling average or herding they are not remotely outliers for the firm, it’s what people polling been doing since they appeared, so it’s not an outlier because it’s in sequence to their method. Similarly Kantor, Techne and Opinium tend to produce higher Con share and they feed into this graph too - so where you have a statistical blip at the moment, next Techne 30 or 29, Opinium 31+ and a Kantor in 30s will make the blip vanish forever - the more recent ticks on the graph can be ephemeral.
We've had four polls in a row where that company's swing towards the Tories has slowed virtually to a halt, or started reversing. That might be a short term trend, but it's still a real trend, rather than a reporting quirk.
I understand your point about Opinium giving a higher Tory figure, but even their last two polls showed movement back towards Labour.
It’s a mixed picture right now, still to early to say the new leader bounce has peaked and gone into reverse - and rather shockingly didn’t really get anywhere in the first place.
It is beginning to look like that though. 😕
Definitely too early - but I don't see where it's mixed. If we had a selection of polls showing the lead coming solidly down, then that would be mixed, but they pretty much all seem to be slowing/reversing.
It's also a reasonable bounce - not many leaders start from 30%+ down, so it was always going to take time. He was always up against it, and I can't imagine people will be on a budget that raises tax and cuts spending.
I suspect they're looking to hang on till hopefully Ukraine win, and we see fuel prices and inflation fall, and they will claim it as a win for "grown-up politics" or some other nonsense.
It’s mixed because I’m not looking at gap between parties - if Starmgasm belches back to libdems 6% it stole the lead drops even if Tories rise not one iota. I am looking at the Tory share for their recovery, and the last three Techne each show an increase as one example of how it’s mixed, and the down tick does not tell us it’s mixed because of things like people polling con 21 and low yougov that didn’t move built in.
Talking of the suffragettes, sorry but today's throwing of paint at the glass covering Klimt's Death and Life by climate loons in Vienna (anyone got a mop?) wasn't a patch on suffragette Mary Richardson's slashing of Velazquez's Rokeby Venus with a butcher's knife.
As for Richardson's later career, of course that was very sad. Same could be said about Christabel.
Until you head over there… to watch the tumbleweed.
All the wokiest leftiest most annoyingly right on Twitterers are urgently telling everyone their new handles on Mastodon. Which, of course, is entirely self defeating
Anyone with an ounce of non-Wokeness will shiver, and think No way. It will be a Woke ghetto and it will fail, as I have predicted
Someone should write a little web app that simultaneously posts to Truth, Twitter, Gab and Mastodon. In that way, you can make all the networks into one.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
Redwood sees austerity as a political choice, and wants a growth budget.
Yes. The Kwasi budget wasn't wrong because it cut taxes and went for growth, it was wrong because it was poorly implemented - timing, communication, no reference to balancing cost savings, no working alongside monetary policy, no forecasts, measures that grabbed all the wrong headlines.
In fundamentals though, Liz was right and Sunak wrong. The more he clobbers the economy to try to fill the hole, the bigger that hole will be pulled.
Nope. The electorate have decided they want rid of the Tories. That means voting Labour in England and Wales and SNP in Scotland. The Lib Dems are surplus to requirements.
Lib dems are not surplus in the South of England, Often they will be the best vote to oust a Tory.
Nope.
Rest of South Lab 47% Con 32% LD 9% Grn 8% Ref 3% UKIP 2%
I can't be sure but I suspect it's one or more of:
1. Lack of imagination. 2. The knowledge that the right-wing press will major on it and warp it into something it isn't. 3. Not wanting to make manifesto commitments until there's an actual GE.
1. Yes, including pension pots. Why not? 2. Illiquid assets - allow the option of a charge against the asset (an approach already used for social care costs). The charge can be collect when the asset is disposed of.
1. We're desperately trying to encourage people to save more into their pensions. Breaking the promise that they would grow tax-free would be disastrous in that respect, as well as exacerbating the problem of inadequate pensions for currently working people (it would be mainly a tax on them, not on the oldies). As I said you've also got the problem of defined-benefit schemes. Who is going to pay your tax on the value of those?
2. Massive, massive bureaucracy. Also a very good way of losing elections! Probably the very best way.
» show previous quotes In my recent experience (12 nights with broken hip & elbow) I could have been discharged two days faster if the different services were better at talking to each other. While the surgical side did feel “joined up” (an initial plan to delay operating on my elbow quashed in favour of more urgent treatment) the rest was disjointed. I saw this repeatedly in my 6 bed ward - discharge delayed because not all the paperwork was sorted. I counted myself lucky with a two day delay, and in the end that was nearly three.
You fully recovered now hopefully.
I went to A&E with an injured child and they kept us waiting for two hours by a group of nurses and occasionally medics all standing around a f*cking computer occasionally typing sh*t in.
"Thank you, NHS" - that's what I'm supposed to say, right?
The effect of an attack with an electromagnetic pulse weapon might be positive if it deprived such huddles of functioning computers to stand around.
As far as I understand it, Leon has left. Good riddance.
Therefore I will be returning to the site.
He’s not left.
In what way os that off-topic?
It’s a straight answer to a comment posted
People do that by accident when they're phone-using PB, I think.
Very coincidental that my comment asking why it was "off-topic" was off-topiced then...
Given this one that I'm now replying to has also been OT'd I think we can indeed deduce that we're looking at an act of cold calculated intent. Ooo err.
Indeed… a bit passive aggressive… if someone has an issue with me, let’s have it out on Hampstead Heath at dawn
Haven't noticed you getting into any lurid tumbles with anybody. Unless you're a re-badge?
Have you actually looked at the make-up of the figures? Yes, arithmetically 0.5% of the total 'wealth' of £15,000bn is about £76bn. But that includes private pension pots - are you seriously suggesting that those who don't have the luxury of public-sector defined-benefit schemes should be further disadvantaged by a commitment-breaking levy on their pension pots (which are usually small anyway?) I assume not, so that's 0.5% of £6,000bn of your free money disappearing by contact with reality. Another £5400bn is property wealth and £1300bn 'physical' wealth - i.e. illiquid stuff that may not generate much income. There might be a bit of scope for increasing property taxes, but too much plucking of the goose simply leads to values falling and your free money turns out not to exist any more. Much of the financial wealth will be in tax-free shelters; a government can't just suddenly say 'Ha! I know we said ISAs were tax free but we didn't really mean it!' without serious consequences for its credibility. In any case the really big sums of financial wealth are quite mobile.
It might be possible to squeeze a few billion out of this wealth, but nothing like enough to cover the shortfall.
Good questions to which I answer:
1. Yes, including pension pots. Why not? 2. Illiquid assets - allow the option of a charge against the asset (an approach already used for social care costs). The charge can be collect when the asset is disposed of. 3. ISAs: Tough. The commitment was only ever income and gains to be tax free.
On 1: it's extremely hard to persuade people to save for their pensions already, which is why almost every country in the world incentivizes it in one way or another. If you start raiding them, then people will choose not to save which means that the government of the future has a bigger problem because fewer and fewer people have personal provision.
It's also - as @Richard_Nabavi notes - treating two different groups very differently. Those with defined benefit schemes have no negative impact whatsover, while those with defined contributions probably see their final payouts drop by 15% or so.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
So he thinks we can abolish boom and bust.
So you support an Austerity budget this week, on grounds there’s a sixty billion black hole to fill?
There is no need for austerity, the £60bn could be raised through taxes on the wealthy.
Austerity for the Rich has to at least be in the mix surely. They can't pull the same stunt as last time.
Depends on your definition of austerity I guess.
What would you envisage as austerity for the rich'? Sounds like tax rises by another name to me.
Where did the sixty billion banded around in the media come from?
Three weeks ago when it appeared from nowhere it was mere thirty billion, how did it double, creeping up in tens in last three weeks?
It's very obviously preparing the ground for "it could be much worse, so be lucky we're only cutting £10bn and raising £10bn".
Alternative view would be we have been moving towards creaking NH’S, social care, ambulance services for sometime, the international situation now means councils and their services are about to go bust on top of it, the Tory Party have not been straight and honest with the people all this year, no matter how many months of campaigning they had.
Truss politically damaging but not economically damaging month is a great corner of carpet to lift and sneak all the blame under, but the historical truth is higher interest rates and borrowing costs were coming long before Boris went, the Tories have never been straight and honest about why it’s come to this.
Where did the sixty billion banded around in the media come from?
Three weeks ago when it appeared from nowhere it was mere thirty billion, how did it double, creeping up in tens in last three weeks?
It's very obviously preparing the ground for "it could be much worse, so be lucky we're only cutting £10bn and raising £10bn".
The £60BN comes from the OBR afaicr - you're suggesting that all their forecasts are intended for is to provide political mood music for the Chancellor? What's the point then?
Lewis Goodall: Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
If we're now questioning whether free trade is always and everywhere a good thing, then maybe we should revisit the EU agreement, not to make it more open, but to make it more restricted in areas where it is in our national interest.
You need to understand your erstwhile fellow travellers.
Trade with Europe good. Trade with Australia bad.
Barriers with Europe bad. Barriers with Australia good.
Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
Invert that and we have you. But in any case, for our trading account, Australia is of marginal interest compared to Europe.
No, invert that and you don't have me.
I very much want and desire a free trade agreement with both Europe AND Australia.
We have both now. Cake and eat it. 😋
Yup. And if only what you said was true we would have cake. The people *who negotiated this deal* are telling us in detail why it is shit. They are the best judge of that with their direct experience of the practical details. Vs your non-involvement and theoretical "expertise".
The "people who negotiated this deal" are telling us it is good.
One person, Eustice, is pandering to people who object by saying "we gave away too much".
Err . . . You what? You can't give away "too much" in a free trade deal, as that's the frigging point, free trade. If you've not "given away" trade restrictions, you've not negotiated a free trade deal.
Name me one "too much" restriction we've "given away" in the trade deal with Australia that still applies to trade with France. I bet you can't.
Admirable theory, and excellent starting point. David Ricardo and others who developed the free trade theory, the law of comparative advantage, are secular saints in my book and have added massively to the good in the world.
However in the actual world there will always be some protectionism. Especially in food production but also in other essentials. It will also occur because of the intervention of ethical standards of product quality and the ethics of how things are produced. So Ricardo's fabulous simplicity gets muddied once you have more than two countries producing more then one product each in a world of war, danger and political.
And that's without the intervention of human nature which invariably wants free trade in all things apart from the exceptions in which you have a proprietorial interest.
Humans have existed for ~2 million years; trade for a few thousand years; the notion of proprietorial interest for about five minutes. Wanting trade whether free or otherwise can't possibly be human nature.
Good point well made. You have Hume, Darwin and a band of thoughtful hunter gatherers on your side. On my side, I ask allowance for imprecise use of terms.
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
So he thinks we can abolish boom and bust.
So you support an Austerity budget this week, on grounds there’s a sixty billion black hole to fill?
Thanks to Truss and co we have little choice but to do so because we've seen the consequences of what happens if the markets are displeased.
That doesn't mean I favour austerity, it's just the cost of avoiding austerity would be way worse.
One thing Truss did once and for all was demonstrate that Modern Monetary Theory (i.e. the magic money tree) has limits and Truss successfully (and unfortunately) found those limits.
A lot of financial stuff is trust and confidence, it seems.
And the Truss-Kwateng interlude has left the UK government in much the same position as a teenager who isn't going to be allowed out in the car on their own for a while, even if most of the dents and scratches have been removed.
But the Government is still expected to subsidise the BOE selling off bonds at a lower value than they bought them for, to the tune of £11bn. Which is a good chunk of the supposed £60bn being bandied about. Remind me who's the reckless spoiled teenager here?
Nope. The electorate have decided they want rid of the Tories. That means voting Labour in England and Wales and SNP in Scotland. The Lib Dems are surplus to requirements.
Lib dems are not surplus in the South of England, Often they will be the best vote to oust a Tory.
Nope.
Rest of South Lab 47% Con 32% LD 9% Grn 8% Ref 3% UKIP 2%
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
So he thinks we can abolish boom and bust.
So you support an Austerity budget this week, on grounds there’s a sixty billion black hole to fill?
There is no need for austerity, the £60bn could be raised through taxes on the wealthy.
Austerity for the Rich has to at least be in the mix surely. They can't pull the same stunt as last time.
Depends on your definition of austerity I guess.
What would you envisage as austerity for the rich'? Sounds like tax rises by another name to me.
Is what I mean, yes. I also agree with you about a Wealth Tax. That has to happen fairly soon imo. Probably under Labour. Maybe ease it in rather than big bang.
Comments
I very much want and desire a free trade agreement with both Europe AND Australia.
We have both now. Cake and eat it. 😋
It's early in CA and I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet!
Ministers will be doing this, in an increasingly ritualistic manner, for many centuries.
When they do the same next time, Labour cannot reply "Sure, problems associated with immigration are awful, and you've been in office for ~14 years and you've let them get worse! And a lot of other things too! You're so incompetent! For example, as well as immigration, there's X Y Z..."
Logically they could, but electoral politics isn't based on logic. They'd be drowned out with shouts of "Woke!"
Similarly the way the Tories handled the process of leaving the EU was execrable, but Labour didn't make much of an issue of it in the election. The Tories, having no shame, fought with the slogan "Get Brexit done".
It's also possible that between now and the election the government will be seen to do something against high immigration that is successful - or brave, or indicatory of oneness with the non-immigrant population - such as letting boats sink (a favourite among racist voters) or a Son of Rwanda op. Extra marks if it involves the armed forces.
Got to wonder how the diphtheria in the detention centre story will develop. And how it's playing in focus groups already.
Two strains of Salmonella Enteritidis in frozen, raw, breaded chicken products from Poland have caused almost 500 illnesses since January 2020 and at least one death in the UK. The outbreak strains have been traced to two suppliers in Poland.
One of the strains has also affected people in Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden since May 2018.
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/11/15/a-budget-to-beat-recession-from-conservative-home/
The Autumn Statement will be one of the most crucial budgets ever delivered. Rishi and Jeremy have in their hands the opportunity to rescue the Uk economy from poor performance and recession if they wish, or they can accept the depressing official advice and double down with austerity. Tax rises and the wrong spending cuts now will turn a downturn into a nasty and long recession. This will lead to job losses, struggling businesses and a bigger state deficit.
Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out. This is important for the whole country, and for MPs’ constituents. It is also important for the Conservative party whose reputation for economic competence hinges on it.
Over the last fifty years we have seen Labour lose badly on two occasions and Conservatives lose twice, once badly, thanks to presiding over recessions
Edward Heath presided over the 1973-4 recession. His 1970-2 policies of competition and credit control were inflationary leading to a borrowing binge . The inflation was worsened by the energy crisis when OPEC hiked the oil price. He tightened too much in response and lost the 1974 election.
Harold Wilson lost control of the economy in 1974-5, created a recession and left office. Labour lost the next election under his successor.
John Major on official advice put us into the Exchange rate Mechanism. As I warned it took us through a very predictable violent boom/bust cycle with a five quarter recession. This led to a huge defeat in 1997 which took the Conservatives 13 years to recover from.
Gordon Brown created his own disaster, leading and encouraging the wrong official advice. He put us through a banking and credit boom, only to collapse it too fast through severe policy. The five quarter recession took the economy down by more than 6% . Labour have still not won an election in the 12 years that followed, with their reputation for economics in tatters.
https://twitter.com/TheTNHoller/status/1591650023254953984
The issue with this sort of clip is we don’t know whether it was a statement of belief or a thought experiment for teaching purposes
You see different polls whose methodologies favour different results report at different times, maybe not even spaced but in clusters. People polling for example had a reform at 8 and others at six from their method, therefore a con of 21 last week, even though it sits away from the polling average or herding they are not remotely outliers for the firm, it’s what people polling been doing since they appeared, so it’s not an outlier because it’s in sequence to their method. Similarly Kantor, Techne and Opinium tend to produce higher Con share and they feed into this graph too - so where you have a statistical blip at the moment, next Techne 30 or 29, Opinium 31+ and a Kantor in 30s will make the blip vanish forever - the more recent ticks on the graph can be ephemeral.
PeoplePolling, with their high Greens and others have also given Labour at just 42. Is that an outlier or more realistic to an election PV?
To address Barry’s point, what you say is true, so do you want it removed from this table because of it?
Where would that lead, because all the forms method are different - if anything Opinium closer to the rest than PeoplePolling, would you want them removed too? And then uberTory friendly Kantor?
This is all before the bad news to come as well as the recession.
The Tories may say "dont jeopardise the recovery" in 2024 but who will trust them given their past performance.
I understand your point about Opinium giving a higher Tory figure, but even their last two polls showed movement back towards Labour.
Or Leon in another disguis.
Stark. Raving. Bonkers. And totally, utterly, wrong. Just pure bullshit.
And I shall leave it there. This site is best without trolling.
It is beginning to look like that though. 😕
"Their challenge should be to put forward a budget and plan for growth as Liz Truss proposed, but one with forecasts, numbers and sensible controls over spending and borrowing which in his haste Kwasi left out."
From John Redwood's stuff found at length above.. His analysis basically is:
That everything everyone has ever done is wrong, but there is a popular winning formula which avoids austerity, promotes growth, doesn't raise taxes, and balances the books
That he appears to be the only person who knows this
and
I AM NOT TELLING YOU WHAT IT IS.
One person, Eustice, is pandering to people who object by saying "we gave away too much".
Err . . . You what? You can't give away "too much" in a free trade deal, as that's the frigging point, free trade. If you've not "given away" trade restrictions, you've not negotiated a free trade deal.
Name me one "too much" restriction we've "given away" in the trade deal with Australia that still applies to trade with France. I bet you can't.
> Iryna Dyagileva's daughter attended a school where the curriculum included memorizing the Russian national anthem. But teachers ignored it, instead quietly greeting students in the morning with a salute: "Glory to Ukraine!"
> "When our soldiers (UKR) drove in, their machine guns were pointing up, into the air," Mr. Bloshko said. "When the Russians drove in, their guns were pointed at the people. That explains everything. And they said they were our liberators."
>Iryna Rodavanova, a retired curator at the Kherson Art Museum, said the brutality of the Russian soldiers had alienated residents, undermining the efforts at cultural assimilation. Soldiers beat her husband on a roadside after accusing him of a traffic violation.
"I agree with our president, Ms. Rodavanova said. "Better without electricity, better without water and without heat, if also without the Russians."
I said consistently that I wanted a trade deal, but that we should be prepared to walk away if we can't get a free trade only agreement that leaves us bound to their laws.
Good Deal (Free Trade) > No Deal > Bad Deal (Alignment).
We got the deal I wanted. May's deal, including alignment, was worse than No Deal.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain
In the article baby kangaroos have mothers, in all the quotes from the nice midwife human babies have mothers, in the journalists own copy human babies have caregivers. Trans kangas are already organising a demo.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/nov/15/kangaroo-mother-care-best-for-early-and-low-weight-babies-says-who
Three weeks ago when it appeared from nowhere it was mere thirty billion, how did it double, creeping up in tens in last three weeks?
That doesn't mean I favour austerity, it's just the cost of avoiding austerity would be way worse.
One thing Truss did once and for all was demonstrate that Modern Monetary Theory (i.e. the magic money tree) has limits and Truss successfully (and unfortunately) found those limits.
I like the way this was shown for a binomial smooth on the old HadCRUT4 graphs, where the smooth is dashed where it is provisional and solid otherwise.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html
And the Truss-Kwateng interlude has left the UK government in much the same position as a teenager who isn't going to be allowed out in the car on their own for a while, even if most of the dents and scratches have been removed.
It appeared from nowhere at thirty about 4 weeks ago, the following week reported at forty, then fifty, this week the media report it being sixty.
If you were Sunak and Hunt wishing to justify windfall taxes, income taxes and other cuts to peoples incomes, justify higher council taxes, could you introduce that and sell it without filling everyone’s minds with there is a sixty billion hole to fill?
If there is anyone on PB this afternoon who believes the £60bn is real - please explain what caused it and when.
It's also a reasonable bounce - not many leaders start from 30%+ down, so it was always going to take time. He was always up against it, and I can't imagine people will be on a budget that raises tax and cuts spending.
I suspect they're looking to hang on till hopefully Ukraine win, and we see fuel prices and inflation fall, and they will claim it as a win for "grown-up politics" or some other nonsense.
More importantly, whatever the size of the hole in the finances that needs plugging, the way to do it is tax the wealthy and those on higher incomes* not austerity (aka cutting public spending and benefits).
(Edit: *Includes me btw)
As for Richardson's later career, of course that was very sad. Same could be said about Christabel.
However in the actual world there will always be some protectionism. Especially in food production but also in other essentials. It will also occur because of the intervention of ethical standards of product quality and the ethics of how things are produced. So Ricardo's fabulous simplicity gets muddied once you have more than two countries producing more then one product each in a world of war, danger and political realities.
And that's without the intervention of human nature which invariably wants free trade in all things apart from the exceptions in which you have a proprietorial interest.
Eustice was responsible for Defra. Inevitably, he was against a deal adversely affecting agriculture. I think he's right, since setting a standard for British farmers and then allowing imports that don't meet it with no tariff barrier is simply unfair for British farmers. That's what we gave away. But Truss and the Government more generally shrugged that off, because of the positive overall effect.
It might be possible to squeeze a few billion out of this wealth, but nothing like enough to cover the shortfall.
The budget was politically toxic, boosted by a run on pound caused mainly by US interest rates decision not the budget itself. But to back up your belief it was so economically damaging, you need to explain just how.
My theory is different, At no point in the summer was any Tory, Boris, Sunak, Truss talking of raising money to bail things out in autumn statement, but it was always coming here long before Truss saucily walked into number ten.
Clearly, I didn't breastfeed, but there will be circumstances in which the person the baby is strapped to initially may not be the mother.
*nothing too serious, just vomiting and problems getting the placenta out with #1 and a degree of shock for #2 who came rather quickly after being induced.
1. Yes, including pension pots. Why not?
2. Illiquid assets - allow the option of a charge against the asset (an approach already used for social care costs). The charge can be collect when the asset is disposed of.
3. ISAs: Tough. The commitment was only ever income and gains to be tax free.
CarlottaVance said:
» show previous quotes
In my recent experience (12 nights with broken hip & elbow) I could have been discharged two days faster if the different services were better at talking to each other. While the surgical side did feel “joined up” (an initial plan to delay operating on my elbow quashed in favour of more urgent treatment) the rest was disjointed. I saw this repeatedly in my 6 bed ward - discharge delayed because not all the paperwork was sorted. I counted myself lucky with a two day delay, and in the end that was nearly three.
You fully recovered now hopefully.
https://youtu.be/xUhRAiZS70E
"There you are! I've messed up your sheet of glass for 10 minutes until you find a cloth!"
In fundamentals though, Liz was right and Sunak wrong. The more he clobbers the economy to try to fill the hole, the bigger that hole will be pulled.
Rest of South
Lab 47%
Con 32%
LD 9%
Grn 8%
Ref 3%
UKIP 2%
(Deltapoll; Fieldwork 10-14 November)
1. Lack of imagination.
2. The knowledge that the right-wing press will major on it and warp it into something it isn't.
3. Not wanting to make manifesto commitments until there's an actual GE.
2. Massive, massive bureaucracy. Also a very good way of losing elections! Probably the very best way.
"Thank you, NHS" - that's what I'm supposed to say, right?
The effect of an attack with an electromagnetic pulse weapon might be positive if it deprived such huddles of functioning computers to stand around.
It's also - as @Richard_Nabavi notes - treating two different groups very differently. Those with defined benefit schemes have no negative impact whatsover, while those with defined contributions probably see their final payouts drop by 15% or so.
What would you envisage as austerity for the rich'? Sounds like tax rises by another name to me.
Truss politically damaging but not economically damaging month is a great corner of carpet to lift and sneak all the blame under, but the historical truth is higher interest rates and borrowing costs were coming long before Boris went, the Tories have never been straight and honest about why it’s come to this.
https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1592564326405373952?t=X2aPcYkhHoPzCcuAUTtlwQ&s=19
Portugal 14/1
Belgium 18/1
to win the football world cup
https://www.betfair.com/sport/football/fifa-world-cup/12469077/winner-2022/924.301730156