I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
Mandelson is - under direction perhaps? - dropping the hint that it will need cross party support to go ahead.
Looks to me like SKS kicking it into the long grass
SKS represents everything wrong with politics. Yes, I hate the Tories but they don't hide what they are. SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
I'll grant that investment was needed, but PFI was the wrong route and utterly dishonest. Most people don't realise that we are still paying the costs now, 12 years on from a labour government.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
In 1992 PFI was implemented for the first time in the UK by the Conservative Government led by John Major.
Despite being critical of PFI while in opposition and promising reform, once in power George Osborne progressed 61 PFI schemes worth a total of £6.9bn in his first year as Chancellor.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
Speaking as somebody who worked in a number of those PFI structures, how they looked and how they actually functioned were two very different matters.
As Gavin Barwell has tweeted, the Georgia run-off does matter, rather a lot.
1. If the Dems win they will have a majority on Senate committees, speeding up business.
2. They will be able to lose a seat in 2 years' time (when they have 3 seats in normally red states to defend) without losing control.
3.They won't have to depend on Joe Manchin's support for every vote.
It would also be a useful poke in the eye for Trump if Walker loses when Republicans won every other state-wide election in Georgia.
But they don't have the House, so control doesn't mean much outside of judges. And they will almost certainly lose at least 2 Senate seats in two years time.
And all other appointments, of course. And any efforts to impeach Biden.
The ones flagged as vulnerable next time are Montana, Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, Pennsylvania and Arizona. West Virginia is of course Manchin so I would assume he is likely to hold if he runs again, but whether that helps the blue caucus is another question. Montana I think will go. I have to say I would be surprised if Sherrod Brown lost the Ohio seat, although his best chance is if Ohio goes Republican for the Presidency and votes for a split ticket. Wisconsin is very tight however you look at it, as is Nevada. Keep an eye on Vermont too, where if he lives that long Bernie Sanders will be 83 and may retire at the next election. Who would win that is anybody's guess. The Dems should surely be favourites but if there was another radical left independent who split the vote...
About the only faint chance of a Dem pickup is if something dramatic happens in Texas. If Trump and Ted Cruz have another of their spats I suppose it might split the Republican vote and let a Dem in, but I wouldn't be putting money on it.
So holding Georgia is really quite important to them.
Albeit, even that is possibly not as important as keeping a certifiable fucktard like Walker away from the Senate.
Manchin only held on narrowly last time, but he's certainly, the only Democrat who has a chance in West Virginia.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
Trying to pin the GFC on the current government is quite a dishonest use of statistics.
It's richly ironic really as it includes the whole premiership of the author.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened.
It's easy to achieve "investment" if you postpone the expenditure into the never never.
Just as its easy to achieve "growth" if you look at a bubble and stop the clock before it bursts.
A balanced overview needs both. What's spent, and how it was funded. Both the growth and the crash that accompanies it. To look at one but exclude the other is pure dishonesty.
If it’s so east to achieve growth, pls send your ideas to Rishi.
However you cut the data - the economy has toileted under the Tories, and so has education, health and public service performance.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
Mandelson is - under direction perhaps? - dropping the hint that it will need cross party support to go ahead.
Looks to me like SKS kicking it into the long grass
SKS represents everything wrong with politics. Yes, I hate the Tories but they don't hide what they are. SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Yes, what went wrong wasn't so much the expenditure side of the sheet but the income side. Tax take collapsed as business struggled - the income tax, VAT and corporation tax receipts for 2008-09 all slumped but the spending kept the same so the gap had to be filled by borrowing.
Except that Brown should have known better - but he was fine with it because it allowed him to meet his political objective of massively increasing spending while pretending to be prudent.
He was either reckless or incompetent.
The initial spending increases in 1999-2000 were the equivalent of force feeding a starving man a banquet. The public services literally couldn't deal with the amounts of money being thrown at them and a lot was wasted. Had Brown gone for a more incremental approach we'd have been in a much better position.
There was a general feeling public services (and especially the NHS but also school buildings) had atrophied badly in the Major years and something needed to be done. We were running a surplus and growth was good so there seemed no reason why some of the funds available shouldn't be directed to improving public services - even the opposition Conservatives supported this at the time.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
Speaking as somebody who worked in a number of those PFI structures, how they looked and how they actually functioned were two very different matters.
PFI also spawned a whole genre of really shite public buildings, that were value engineered into awfulness.
Shareholders are entitled to run businesses as they want. But the Fenwick family had some very specific issues that a high dividend policy helped address
Tax on dividends as if they were earned income (i.e. 20/40/45% + ee's NI) would encourage a bit more investment.
If the Fenwicks had had to pay more tax they would have drained even more money from the business
Don't be dim. Fenwicks don't pay the tax on the dividends, the shareholders do.
Maybe the shareholders would have been a bit more inclined to invest for growth rather than milk the company for dividends if they were paying a fair rate of tax on the dividend income.
Don’t be rude.
If you had read my post carefully you’d have noticed I wrote “the Fenwicks” - the family shareholders - not “Fenwicks” the company.
The family had a number of specific funding needs that had to be paid for out of post tax income.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened.
It's easy to achieve "investment" if you postpone the expenditure into the never never.
Just as its easy to achieve "growth" if you look at a bubble and stop the clock before it bursts.
A balanced overview needs both. What's spent, and how it was funded. Both the growth and the crash that accompanies it. To look at one but exclude the other is pure dishonesty.
Quite concise description of the Truss/Kwarteng government.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Yes, what went wrong wasn't so much the expenditure side of the sheet but the income side. Tax take collapsed as business struggled - the income tax, VAT and corporation tax receipts for 2008-09 all slumped but the spending kept the same so the gap had to be filled by borrowing.
Except that Brown should have known better - but he was fine with it because it allowed him to meet his political objective of massively increasing spending while pretending to be prudent.
He was either reckless or incompetent.
The initial spending increases in 1999-2000 were the equivalent of force feeding a starving man a banquet. The public services literally couldn't deal with the amounts of money being thrown at them and a lot was wasted. Had Brown gone for a more incremental approach we'd have been in a much better position.
There was a general feeling public services (and especially the NHS but also school buildings) had atrophied badly in the Major years and something needed to be done. We were running a surplus and growth was good so there seemed no reason why some of the funds available shouldn't be directed to improving public services - even the opposition Conservatives supported this at the time.
There was certainly execution issues in the first few years but it wa a opening the taps after the 2001 election that was the problem
Cleverly choosing to get things wrong to lull puny humans into a false sense of security.
DAMN YOU SKYNET
Yes, there’s no way it said the the blue whale is the “largest egg laying mammal” by mistake. It’s trolling us.
Twitter is full of people saying “hahah ChatGPT is shit”
On the other hand, it did THIS
“I’ve been playing with OpenAI’s ChatGPT model recently. Last night, I posted an article about having ChatGPT write fanfiction, and I thought that was impressive. Boy was I wrong.
This morning, I had a better idea. If ChatGPT is optimized for language processing, could I get it to invent a self-consistent new language, speak to me in that language, and write a program to translate that language back to English?
Yes. Yes it can.
I am truly stunned by this capability. This is so far beyond anything I would expect from a model trained to complete text prompts from the user.“
I've started following Meeks and he's well into all this. The politics of it goes against your creed btw. Left to the market it'll be brutal and sad and dangerous. It's going to need lots of woke and nanny state.
It will be brutal and dangerous. Dunno about sad
This beta version has been castrated to be Woke, so it doesn’t get cancelled on day 1
Future iterations will be bigger and less careful. The Chinese will make their own mad Ai and release it to the world to cause grief. Etc
Brace
That is assuming the Chinese can control what they have created before it controls them!
Part of the reason we need proper regulation of AI and globally, on that kinbalu is correct
But it’s mad. It’s like proposing “global regulation of electricity” in 1870, or “the worldwide control of volcanoes”
As Gavin Barwell has tweeted, the Georgia run-off does matter, rather a lot.
1. If the Dems win they will have a majority on Senate committees, speeding up business.
2. They will be able to lose a seat in 2 years' time (when they have 3 seats in normally red states to defend) without losing control.
3.They won't have to depend on Joe Manchin's support for every vote.
It would also be a useful poke in the eye for Trump if Walker loses when Republicans won every other state-wide election in Georgia.
But they don't have the House, so control doesn't mean much outside of judges. And they will almost certainly lose at least 2 Senate seats in two years time.
And all other appointments, of course. And any efforts to impeach Biden.
The ones flagged as vulnerable next time are Montana, Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, Pennsylvania and Arizona. West Virginia is of course Manchin so I would assume he is likely to hold if he runs again, but whether that helps the blue caucus is another question. Montana I think will go. I have to say I would be surprised if Sherrod Brown lost the Ohio seat, although his best chance is if Ohio goes Republican for the Presidency and votes for a split ticket. Wisconsin is very tight however you look at it, as is Nevada. Keep an eye on Vermont too, where if he lives that long Bernie Sanders will be 83 and may retire at the next election. Who would win that is anybody's guess. The Dems should surely be favourites but if there was another radical left independent who split the vote...
About the only faint chance of a Dem pickup is if something dramatic happens in Texas. If Trump and Ted Cruz have another of their spats I suppose it might split the Republican vote and let a Dem in, but I wouldn't be putting money on it.
So holding Georgia is really quite important to them.
Albeit, even that is possibly not as important as keeping a certifiable fucktard like Walker away from the Senate.
Manchin only held on narrowly last time, but he's certainly, the only Democrat who has a chance in West Virginia.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
Trying to pin the GFC on the current government is quite a dishonest use of statistics.
It's richly ironic really as it includes the whole premiership of the author.
Looking at the figures for growth, according to the World Bank, you get 2.2% pa, from 1990-99, 1.6% pa from 2000-09, and 1.6% pa from 2010 to 2021.
Sure, one can argue that Labour's record looks better if one excludes 2008-09, but why should one?
Shareholders are entitled to run businesses as they want. But the Fenwick family had some very specific issues that a high dividend policy helped address
Tax on dividends as if they were earned income (i.e. 20/40/45% + ee's NI) would encourage a bit more investment.
If the Fenwicks had had to pay more tax they would have drained even more money from the business
Don't be dim. Fenwicks don't pay the tax on the dividends, the shareholders do.
Maybe the shareholders would have been a bit more inclined to invest for growth rather than milk the company for dividends if they were paying a fair rate of tax on the dividend income.
Don’t be rude.
If you had read my post carefully you’d have noticed I wrote “the Fenwicks” - the family shareholders - not “Fenwicks” the company.
The family had a number of specific funding needs that had to be paid for out of post tax income.
Apologies, I missed the 'the'.
What were the Fenwicks' specific funding needs?
Not my place to say.
But since you cited them in the Fenwicks' defence, I think you should explain.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened.
It's easy to achieve "investment" if you postpone the expenditure into the never never.
Just as its easy to achieve "growth" if you look at a bubble and stop the clock before it bursts.
A balanced overview needs both. What's spent, and how it was funded. Both the growth and the crash that accompanies it. To look at one but exclude the other is pure dishonesty.
If it’s so east to achieve growth, pls send your ideas to Rishi.
However you cut the data - the economy has toileted under the Tories, and so has education, health and public service performance.
If you cut the data reasonably the UK is exactly middle of the road in the G7 under the Tories. Out of seven you can't get more in the middle than fourth, with three above, and three below.
If the UK has toileted, I wonder what you think of Japan, Canada and Italy?
Cleverly choosing to get things wrong to lull puny humans into a false sense of security.
DAMN YOU SKYNET
Yes, there’s no way it said the the blue whale is the “largest egg laying mammal” by mistake. It’s trolling us.
Twitter is full of people saying “hahah ChatGPT is shit”
On the other hand, it did THIS
“I’ve been playing with OpenAI’s ChatGPT model recently. Last night, I posted an article about having ChatGPT write fanfiction, and I thought that was impressive. Boy was I wrong.
This morning, I had a better idea. If ChatGPT is optimized for language processing, could I get it to invent a self-consistent new language, speak to me in that language, and write a program to translate that language back to English?
Yes. Yes it can.
I am truly stunned by this capability. This is so far beyond anything I would expect from a model trained to complete text prompts from the user.“
I've started following Meeks and he's well into all this. The politics of it goes against your creed btw. Left to the market it'll be brutal and sad and dangerous. It's going to need lots of woke and nanny state.
It will be brutal and dangerous. Dunno about sad
This beta version has been castrated to be Woke, so it doesn’t get cancelled on day 1
Future iterations will be bigger and less careful. The Chinese will make their own mad Ai and release it to the world to cause grief. Etc
Brace
That is assuming the Chinese can control what they have created before it controls them!
Part of the reason we need proper regulation of AI and globally, on that kinbalu is correct
But it’s mad. It’s like proposing “global regulation of electricity” in 1870, or “the worldwide control of volcanoes”
The Palace of Westminster is falling to pieces. Quite literally. Bits of masonry fall off it, hence the nets. It also has 24/7 fire patrols and some of the wiring is so dodgy that electrical fires - that are missed - is a very strong possibility. The House of Commons has also had a major water leak. The estate is a terrible state and wouldn't even get close to passing modern building standards.
Now, what happens if there is a Notre Dame style conflagration, with fatalities, or someone is killed by falling masonry?
There will be an outcry. And an investigation will be launched with the proclamation that "lessons will be learned".
The lessons are right in front of you, plain as the nose on your face, as you are reading this- right now. This second.
Why isn't the government doing anything about it?
Because, like every government, it follows the path of least resistance rather than doing the right thing. To fix this, right now, would require spending a lot of public money and making a difficult political argument, for very little reward.
It is far easier to just chance it, duck the big decision, and then if a calamity happens blame someone else and then grab the mandate to fix it. Even if people tragically die in the process, possibly lots of people with irreparable damage to a national heritage site, that is what is far easier to do. So that is what will be done.
That is why lessons are never learned; it would require people with the courage to apply them.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
Mandelson is - under direction perhaps? - dropping the hint that it will need cross party support to go ahead.
Looks to me like SKS kicking it into the long grass
SKS represents everything wrong with politics. Yes, I hate the Tories but they don't hide what they are. SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense.
You mean, he"s like Corbyn?
Almost exactly the same except SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense, and Corbyn isn't.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened.
It's easy to achieve "investment" if you postpone the expenditure into the never never.
Just as its easy to achieve "growth" if you look at a bubble and stop the clock before it bursts.
A balanced overview needs both. What's spent, and how it was funded. Both the growth and the crash that accompanies it. To look at one but exclude the other is pure dishonesty.
If it’s so east to achieve growth, pls send your ideas to Rishi.
However you cut the data - the economy has toileted under the Tories, and so has education, health and public service performance.
If you cut the data reasonably the UK is exactly middle of the road in the G7 under the Tories. Out of seven you can't get more in the middle than fourth, with three above, and three below.
If the UK has toileted, I wonder what you think of Japan, Canada and Italy?
UK living standard performance *per capita* is the worst, I think, or if not only behind Italy.
Again, you are one of these people who pretend there is no issue. In that sense you are a useful idiot for the declinists.
Shareholders are entitled to run businesses as they want. But the Fenwick family had some very specific issues that a high dividend policy helped address
Tax on dividends as if they were earned income (i.e. 20/40/45% + ee's NI) would encourage a bit more investment.
If the Fenwicks had had to pay more tax they would have drained even more money from the business
Don't be dim. Fenwicks don't pay the tax on the dividends, the shareholders do.
Maybe the shareholders would have been a bit more inclined to invest for growth rather than milk the company for dividends if they were paying a fair rate of tax on the dividend income.
Don’t be rude.
If you had read my post carefully you’d have noticed I wrote “the Fenwicks” - the family shareholders - not “Fenwicks” the company.
The family had a number of specific funding needs that had to be paid for out of post tax income.
Apologies, I missed the 'the'.
What were the Fenwicks' specific funding needs?
Not my place to say.
But since you cited them in the Fenwicks' defence, I think you should explain.
Fenwicks still going though after many department stores from BHS to Debenhams have closed down.
Shareholders are entitled to run businesses as they want. But the Fenwick family had some very specific issues that a high dividend policy helped address
Tax on dividends as if they were earned income (i.e. 20/40/45% + ee's NI) would encourage a bit more investment.
If the Fenwicks had had to pay more tax they would have drained even more money from the business
Don't be dim. Fenwicks don't pay the tax on the dividends, the shareholders do.
Maybe the shareholders would have been a bit more inclined to invest for growth rather than milk the company for dividends if they were paying a fair rate of tax on the dividend income.
Don’t be rude.
If you had read my post carefully you’d have noticed I wrote “the Fenwicks” - the family shareholders - not “Fenwicks” the company.
The family had a number of specific funding needs that had to be paid for out of post tax income.
Apologies, I missed the 'the'.
What were the Fenwicks' specific funding needs?
Not my place to say
But since you cited them in the Fenwicks' defence, I think you should explain.
It was an explanation not a defence. But that still doesn’t mean that I should share that information in a public forum. No matter how nicely you ask.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
Mandelson is - under direction perhaps? - dropping the hint that it will need cross party support to go ahead.
Looks to me like SKS kicking it into the long grass
SKS represents everything wrong with politics. Yes, I hate the Tories but they don't hide what they are. SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense.
You mean, he"s like Corbyn?
Almost exactly the same except SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense, and Corbyn isn't.
Apart from that you are spot on as usual
So you're saying, Corbyn didn't even try to hide the fact he was 'grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense?'
Because I have to disagree with you there. I think he did try to hide it, he just wasn't very good at it.
Cleverly choosing to get things wrong to lull puny humans into a false sense of security.
DAMN YOU SKYNET
Yes, there’s no way it said the the blue whale is the “largest egg laying mammal” by mistake. It’s trolling us.
Twitter is full of people saying “hahah ChatGPT is shit”
On the other hand, it did THIS
“I’ve been playing with OpenAI’s ChatGPT model recently. Last night, I posted an article about having ChatGPT write fanfiction, and I thought that was impressive. Boy was I wrong.
This morning, I had a better idea. If ChatGPT is optimized for language processing, could I get it to invent a self-consistent new language, speak to me in that language, and write a program to translate that language back to English?
Yes. Yes it can.
I am truly stunned by this capability. This is so far beyond anything I would expect from a model trained to complete text prompts from the user.“
I've started following Meeks and he's well into all this. The politics of it goes against your creed btw. Left to the market it'll be brutal and sad and dangerous. It's going to need lots of woke and nanny state.
It will be brutal and dangerous. Dunno about sad
This beta version has been castrated to be Woke, so it doesn’t get cancelled on day 1
Future iterations will be bigger and less careful. The Chinese will make their own mad Ai and release it to the world to cause grief. Etc
Brace
That is assuming the Chinese can control what they have created before it controls them!
Part of the reason we need proper regulation of AI and globally, on that kinbalu is correct
But it’s mad. It’s like proposing “global regulation of electricity” in 1870, or “the worldwide control of volcanoes”
AI is a momentous force about to surge over us
Electricity did not threaten humanity if not properly controlled unlike AI, volcanoes are natural not man made but scientists still closely monitor them for potential eruptions
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
Mandelson is - under direction perhaps? - dropping the hint that it will need cross party support to go ahead.
Looks to me like SKS kicking it into the long grass
SKS represents everything wrong with politics. Yes, I hate the Tories but they don't hide what they are. SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense.
You mean, he"s like Corbyn?
Almost exactly the same except SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense, and Corbyn isn't.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened.
It's easy to achieve "investment" if you postpone the expenditure into the never never.
Just as its easy to achieve "growth" if you look at a bubble and stop the clock before it bursts.
A balanced overview needs both. What's spent, and how it was funded. Both the growth and the crash that accompanies it. To look at one but exclude the other is pure dishonesty.
If it’s so east to achieve growth, pls send your ideas to Rishi.
However you cut the data - the economy has toileted under the Tories, and so has education, health and public service performance.
If you cut the data reasonably the UK is exactly middle of the road in the G7 under the Tories. Out of seven you can't get more in the middle than fourth, with three above, and three below.
If the UK has toileted, I wonder what you think of Japan, Canada and Italy?
UK living standard performance *per capita* is the worst, I think, or if not only behind Italy.
Again, you are one of these people who pretend there is no issue. In that sense you are a useful idiot for the declinists.
Wrong. I just gave you the data, put into a spreadsheet and showing full numbers and calculations for the rankings for full and clear transparency. The UK is 4th not 6th or 7th in the 2010s.
To combine the themes: does this stodgy but worthy Labour document have at least 40 pages dedicated to new technology, especially AI?
If it doesn’t it is beyond useless. It is misleading piffle. It is like a report on the future of Celtic governance in Britain in AD 48 which doesn’t mention the Romans
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
Mandelson is - under direction perhaps? - dropping the hint that it will need cross party support to go ahead.
Looks to me like SKS kicking it into the long grass
SKS represents everything wrong with politics. Yes, I hate the Tories but they don't hide what they are. SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense.
You mean, he"s like Corbyn?
Almost exactly the same except SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense, and Corbyn isn't.
Apart from that you are spot on as usual
Race-baiting? Everything else I can understand
BJO thinks Starmer is a raving antisemite because he criticised a Jewish Labour affiliated group, merely for being a bunch of Fascist nutters who thought the EHRC was controlled by an international conspiracy against the workers (or something).
The horror.
What's more amusing is he doesn't see the irony that what he's accusing Starmer of being is what Corbyn actually is.
Although TBF if he's right Starmer is just a slightly more coherent and somewhat more intelligent version of Corbyn, that's a good reason to not vote for him.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
That’s rather unusual shooting from the hip from you.
Read the exec summary and skim the first 30 pages.
Cyclefree is correct that there’s a risk of government effort been channelled uselessly. And you said yourself the report mixes up three different matters best treated separately.
Fenwicks in Newcastle did my wife's wedding dress and made the wedding cake - that was in 1969
Fenwicks in Leicester closed 5 years ago, but it was a great but shambolically quirky store, with all sorts of hidden corners. The staff really knew their products. I rather miss its eccentricity. I bought a chocolate teapot there once. Really!
Fenwicks in Newcastle did my wife's wedding dress and made the wedding cake - that was in 1969
Fenwicks in Leicester closed 5 years ago, but it was a great but shambolically quirky store, with all sorts of hidden corners. The staff really knew their products. I rather miss its eccentricity. I bought a chocolate teapot there once. Really!
Any suggestions for where to watch the England-France game close to Piccadilly Circus?
I have a long-standing family commitment to attend a West End show on Saturday afternoon, followed by dinner at Zédel at 6pm. Bad timing. I'm hoping for a short dinner followed by drinks at a bar that happens to be showing the match.
Because it’s the World Cup and therefore free-to-air TV, more places will show it beyond the usual football pubs. However there’s a pub called the Two Sportsmen which isn’t quite as horrible as the sports bar monstrosities in Leicester Square or the one on Haymarket (which does/did interestingly have a blue plaque commemorating Ho Chi Minh’s stint as a chef).
Cheers!
(Also fascinated that Ho Chi Minh was once a chef in the West End.)
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened.
It's easy to achieve "investment" if you postpone the expenditure into the never never.
Just as its easy to achieve "growth" if you look at a bubble and stop the clock before it bursts.
A balanced overview needs both. What's spent, and how it was funded. Both the growth and the crash that accompanies it. To look at one but exclude the other is pure dishonesty.
If it’s so east to achieve growth, pls send your ideas to Rishi.
However you cut the data - the economy has toileted under the Tories, and so has education, health and public service performance.
If you cut the data reasonably the UK is exactly middle of the road in the G7 under the Tories. Out of seven you can't get more in the middle than fourth, with three above, and three below.
If the UK has toileted, I wonder what you think of Japan, Canada and Italy?
UK living standard performance *per capita* is the worst, I think, or if not only behind Italy.
Again, you are one of these people who pretend there is no issue. In that sense you are a useful idiot for the declinists.
Wrong. I just gave you the data, put into a spreadsheet and showing full numbers and calculations for the rankings for full and clear transparency. The UK is 4th not 6th or 7th in the 2010s.
Data Source: World Bank GDP per capita, by PPP.
OK now we are getting somewhere. I accept your numbers and the transparency is good. I would still prefer them to be cut per my suggestion upthread.
I note we are still 5 (out of 7) and that the gap appears to be growing.
There are also interesting distributional issues with make the picture far worse than the overall numbers suggest because the UK is uniquely skewed by London/SE and because the tax system is not as progressive as all but the USA.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
Mandelson is - under direction perhaps? - dropping the hint that it will need cross party support to go ahead.
Looks to me like SKS kicking it into the long grass
SKS represents everything wrong with politics. Yes, I hate the Tories but they don't hide what they are. SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense.
You mean, he"s like Corbyn?
Almost exactly the same except SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense, and Corbyn isn't.
Apart from that you are spot on as usual
So you're saying, Corbyn didn't even try to hide the fact he was 'grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense?'
Because I have to disagree with you there. I think he did try to hide it, he just wasn't very good at it.
Fenwicks in Newcastle did my wife's wedding dress and made the wedding cake - that was in 1969
Fenwicks in Leicester closed 5 years ago, but it was a great but shambolically quirky store, with all sorts of hidden corners. The staff really knew their products. I rather miss its eccentricity. I bought a chocolate teapot there once. Really!
Kids today will have no idea the joys of buying physical objects from a real expert person in a bricks and mortar store
People lament change, but you can chart the decline of the nation through the closure of your favourite stores...
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
That’s rather unusual shooting from the hip from you.
Read the exec summary and skim the first 30 pages.
Cyclefree is correct that there’s a risk of government effort been channelled uselessly. And you said yourself the report mixes up three different matters best treated separately.
Yes, but then she seems upset that the governance report does not address paying for social care.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
Mandelson is - under direction perhaps? - dropping the hint that it will need cross party support to go ahead.
Looks to me like SKS kicking it into the long grass
SKS represents everything wrong with politics. Yes, I hate the Tories but they don't hide what they are. SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense.
You mean, he"s like Corbyn?
Almost exactly the same except SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense, and Corbyn isn't.
Apart from that you are spot on as usual
So you're saying, Corbyn didn't even try to hide the fact he was 'grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense?'
Because I have to disagree with you there. I think he did try to hide it, he just wasn't very good at it.
An establishment stooge!
I bet he hears that all the time.
I doubt if he listens, as he doesn't like hearing facts that conflict with his fantasies. But he very definitely is one.
To combine the themes: does this stodgy but worthy Labour document have at least 40 pages dedicated to new technology, especially AI?
If it doesn’t it is beyond useless. It is misleading piffle. It is like a report on the future of Celtic governance in Britain in AD 48 which doesn’t mention the Romans
Why would they mention AI in a report on governance?
On the other hand, it certainly could have been put through AI to be condensed and rewritten “in the style of George Orwell”.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
That’s rather unusual shooting from the hip from you.
Read the exec summary and skim the first 30 pages.
Cyclefree is correct that there’s a risk of government effort been channelled uselessly. And you said yourself the report mixes up three different matters best treated separately.
Yes, but then she seems upset that the governance report does not address paying for social care.
Surely that is a separate report to be seen sometime?
Having a serious government will be a novelty after the corrupt clown show of the last few years, but by gum it is boring.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
Mandelson is - under direction perhaps? - dropping the hint that it will need cross party support to go ahead.
Looks to me like SKS kicking it into the long grass
SKS represents everything wrong with politics. Yes, I hate the Tories but they don't hide what they are. SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense.
Shareholders are entitled to run businesses as they want. But the Fenwick family had some very specific issues that a high dividend policy helped address
Tax on dividends as if they were earned income (i.e. 20/40/45% + ee's NI) would encourage a bit more investment.
If the Fenwicks had had to pay more tax they would have drained even more money from the business
Don't be dim. Fenwicks don't pay the tax on the dividends, the shareholders do.
Maybe the shareholders would have been a bit more inclined to invest for growth rather than milk the company for dividends if they were paying a fair rate of tax on the dividend income.
Don’t be rude.
If you had read my post carefully you’d have noticed I wrote “the Fenwicks” - the family shareholders - not “Fenwicks” the company.
The family had a number of specific funding needs that had to be paid for out of post tax income.
Apologies, I missed the 'the'.
What were the Fenwicks' specific funding needs?
Not my place to say.
But since you cited them in the Fenwicks' defence, I think you should explain.
Fenwicks still going though after many department stores from BHS to Debenhams have closed down.
This is fascinating. I had always associated Fenwick's with Newcastle - I'm slightly startled there are others, and that the geography is so non-North-Eastern. I also didn't know it was still independent. Well done them. Time was, every big city had its flagship independent department store: Manchester had Kendall Milne's, Sheffield had Cole Brothers, and so on. Gradually they all became John Lewis, or, worse, House of Fraser. I'm very pleased to see Fenwick's is still Fenwick's.
The Palace of Westminster is falling to pieces. Quite literally. Bits of masonry fall off it, hence the nets. It also has 24/7 fire patrols and some of the wiring is so dodgy that electrical fires - that are missed - is a very strong possibility. The House of Commons has also had a major water leak. The estate is a terrible state and wouldn't even get close to passing modern building standards.
Now, what happens if there is a Notre Dame style conflagration, with fatalities, or someone is killed by falling masonry?
There will be an outcry. And an investigation will be launched with the proclamation that "lessons will be learned".
The lessons are right in front of you, plain as the nose on your face, as you are reading this- right now. This second.
Why isn't the government doing anything about it?
Because, like every government, it follows the path of least resistance rather than doing the right thing. To fix this, right now, would require spending a lot of public money and making a difficult political argument, for very little reward.
It is far easier to just chance it, duck the big decision, and then if a calamity happens blame someone else and then grab the mandate to fix it. Even if people tragically die in the process, possibly lots of people with irreparable damage to a national heritage site, that is what is far easier to do. So that is what will be done.
That is why lessons are never learned; it would require people with the courage to apply them.
But why? Why does Britain keep taking rubbish short-term decisions?
Some of it is fallen human nature, but there's also something that seems distinctive about Britain in my lifetime. It's not just political (see the soon to be ex-department store), but there seems to be a political-cultural aspect.
So in the Palace of Westminster case, anyone who proposes spending money to fix the problems will be howled down by "let's spend it on our NHS instead".
I don't know if the Brown report will help, but something's not working right now.
Cleverly choosing to get things wrong to lull puny humans into a false sense of security.
DAMN YOU SKYNET
Yes, there’s no way it said the the blue whale is the “largest egg laying mammal” by mistake. It’s trolling us.
Twitter is full of people saying “hahah ChatGPT is shit”
On the other hand, it did THIS
“I’ve been playing with OpenAI’s ChatGPT model recently. Last night, I posted an article about having ChatGPT write fanfiction, and I thought that was impressive. Boy was I wrong.
This morning, I had a better idea. If ChatGPT is optimized for language processing, could I get it to invent a self-consistent new language, speak to me in that language, and write a program to translate that language back to English?
Yes. Yes it can.
I am truly stunned by this capability. This is so far beyond anything I would expect from a model trained to complete text prompts from the user.“
I've started following Meeks and he's well into all this. The politics of it goes against your creed btw. Left to the market it'll be brutal and sad and dangerous. It's going to need lots of woke and nanny state.
It will be brutal and dangerous. Dunno about sad
This beta version has been castrated to be Woke, so it doesn’t get cancelled on day 1
Future iterations will be bigger and less careful. The Chinese will make their own mad Ai and release it to the world to cause grief. Etc
Brace
That is assuming the Chinese can control what they have created before it controls them!
Part of the reason we need proper regulation of AI and globally, on that kinbalu is correct
But it’s mad. It’s like proposing “global regulation of electricity” in 1870, or “the worldwide control of volcanoes”
AI is a momentous force about to surge over us
Electricity did not threaten humanity if not properly controlled unlike AI, volcanoes are natural not man made but scientists still closely monitor them for potential eruptions
The advent of AGI is somewhere between volcanic activity and the discovery and usage of electricity. One is an entirely natural force the other needs humans
I suspect AI will arise with/from any advanced civilisation in the universe, it is the obvious evolution, it simply happens - like volcanoes
But we are accelerating the process and utilising it - more like electricity
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
Mandelson is - under direction perhaps? - dropping the hint that it will need cross party support to go ahead.
Looks to me like SKS kicking it into the long grass
SKS represents everything wrong with politics. Yes, I hate the Tories but they don't hide what they are. SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense.
Okay, but are you going to vote Labour or not?
This is my first draft of what i intend to write on my ballot paper in the Labour box
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
In 1992 PFI was implemented for the first time in the UK by the Conservative Government led by John Major.
Despite being critical of PFI while in opposition and promising reform, once in power George Osborne progressed 61 PFI schemes worth a total of £6.9bn in his first year as Chancellor.
PFI has a role, especially in infrastructure. It should be used for complex operational activities like schools’n’hospitals.
Why ? Government can borrow more cheaply. And if it is capable if negotiating a good PFI contract, then it’s equally capable of negotiating one funded directly.
The real problem is that government is manifestly consistently poor at managing procurement and investment, whether PFI or otherwise,
Fenwicks in Newcastle did my wife's wedding dress and made the wedding cake - that was in 1969
There is also one in Tunbridge Wells where I grew up my grandparents used to take me to lunch in
Fancy that.
The Christmas window displays at Fenwicks in Newcastle is a local institution.
Indeed. I was most surprised to find a whole section of Northumberland Street sealed off a few Sundays back. A VIP all ticket party to unveil the new window. I've never been overly impressed tbh.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
Speaking as somebody who worked in a number of those PFI structures, how they looked and how they actually functioned were two very different matters.
The only school PFI I have direct knowledge of was an unmitigated disaster.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
Speaking as somebody who worked in a number of those PFI structures, how they looked and how they actually functioned were two very different matters.
The only school PFI I have direct knowledge of was an unmitigated disaster.
I'd welcome a new school. PFI or not. Ours is falling to bits.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
That’s rather unusual shooting from the hip from you.
Read the exec summary and skim the first 30 pages.
Cyclefree is correct that there’s a risk of government effort been channelled uselessly. And you said yourself the report mixes up three different matters best treated separately.
Yes, but then she seems upset that the governance report does not address paying for social care.
No. I'm saying that if this is what Labour's priorities are then other stuff which I think more important and which are probably more important to many voters will not get the time, energy and attention they need.
I would rather have 1 thing done well than lots of stuff done badly. I have explained what I would prioritise on the governance front.
The Palace of Westminster is falling to pieces. Quite literally. Bits of masonry fall off it, hence the nets. It also has 24/7 fire patrols and some of the wiring is so dodgy that electrical fires - that are missed - is a very strong possibility. The House of Commons has also had a major water leak. The estate is a terrible state and wouldn't even get close to passing modern building standards.
Now, what happens if there is a Notre Dame style conflagration, with fatalities, or someone is killed by falling masonry?
There will be an outcry. And an investigation will be launched with the proclamation that "lessons will be learned".
The lessons are right in front of you, plain as the nose on your face, as you are reading this- right now. This second.
Why isn't the government doing anything about it?
Because, like every government, it follows the path of least resistance rather than doing the right thing. To fix this, right now, would require spending a lot of public money and making a difficult political argument, for very little reward.
It is far easier to just chance it, duck the big decision, and then if a calamity happens blame someone else and then grab the mandate to fix it. Even if people tragically die in the process, possibly lots of people with irreparable damage to a national heritage site, that is what is far easier to do. So that is what will be done.
That is why lessons are never learned; it would require people with the courage to apply them.
But why? Why does Britain keep taking rubbish short-term decisions?
Some of it is fallen human nature, but there's also something that seems distinctive about Britain in my lifetime. It's not just political (see the soon to be ex-department store), but there seems to be a political-cultural aspect.
So in the Palace of Westminster case, anyone who proposes spending money to fix the problems will be howled down by "let's spend it on our NHS instead".
I don't know if the Brown report will help, but something's not working right now.
The former CEO at my Trust spent a few million on a new multistorey carpark, and braced himself for the brickbats "you should have spent the money on the children's hospital/cancer/diabetes etc".
It was universally praised and his most popular decision ever.
Fenwicks in Newcastle did my wife's wedding dress and made the wedding cake - that was in 1969
Fenwicks in Leicester closed 5 years ago, but it was a great but shambolically quirky store, with all sorts of hidden corners. The staff really knew their products. I rather miss its eccentricity. I bought a chocolate teapot there once. Really!
Kids today will have no idea the joys of buying physical objects from a real expert person in a bricks and mortar store
People lament change, but you can chart the decline of the nation through the closure of your favourite stores...
Scott, I don't mean to be rude when I say that this is a pleasantly personal post - your own views on a subject rather than someone else's. To dig deeper: what favourite stores do you lament closing?
I can't think of any large stores I lament the passing of, but Foxy's description of Fenwick's in Leicester reminds me of a different sort of a store that is happily still with us: Arighi Bianchi in Macclesfield. It's a furniture shop - a well established one, dating back to the nineteenth century, set up by Italian immigrants from Como who came to Macclesfield because it shared with Como the silk industry. Again: hidden corners and weirdly quirky. Worth a visit if you're ever passing through.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
Mandelson is - under direction perhaps? - dropping the hint that it will need cross party support to go ahead.
Looks to me like SKS kicking it into the long grass
SKS represents everything wrong with politics. Yes, I hate the Tories but they don't hide what they are. SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense.
You mean, he"s like Corbyn?
Almost exactly the same except SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense, and Corbyn isn't.
Apart from that you are spot on as usual
So you're saying, Corbyn didn't even try to hide the fact he was 'grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense?'
Because I have to disagree with you there. I think he did try to hide it, he just wasn't very good at it.
An establishment stooge!
I bet he hears that all the time.
I doubt if he listens, as he doesn't like hearing facts that conflict with his fantasies. But he very definitely is one.
The Palace of Westminster is falling to pieces. Quite literally. Bits of masonry fall off it, hence the nets. It also has 24/7 fire patrols and some of the wiring is so dodgy that electrical fires - that are missed - is a very strong possibility. The House of Commons has also had a major water leak. The estate is a terrible state and wouldn't even get close to passing modern building standards.
Now, what happens if there is a Notre Dame style conflagration, with fatalities, or someone is killed by falling masonry?
There will be an outcry. And an investigation will be launched with the proclamation that "lessons will be learned".
The lessons are right in front of you, plain as the nose on your face, as you are reading this- right now. This second.
Why isn't the government doing anything about it?
Because, like every government, it follows the path of least resistance rather than doing the right thing. To fix this, right now, would require spending a lot of public money and making a difficult political argument, for very little reward.
It is far easier to just chance it, duck the big decision, and then if a calamity happens blame someone else and then grab the mandate to fix it. Even if people tragically die in the process, possibly lots of people with irreparable damage to a national heritage site, that is what is far easier to do. So that is what will be done.
That is why lessons are never learned; it would require people with the courage to apply them.
But why? Why does Britain keep taking rubbish short-term decisions?
Some of it is fallen human nature, but there's also something that seems distinctive about Britain in my lifetime. It's not just political (see the soon to be ex-department store), but there seems to be a political-cultural aspect.
So in the Palace of Westminster case, anyone who proposes spending money to fix the problems will be howled down by "let's spend it on our NHS instead".
I don't know if the Brown report will help, but something's not working right now.
Whilst I agree with that I think familiarity breeds contempt.
There will be similar conversations going on in France, Germany, Japan, Italy and the USA about how they're all doomed too.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
Speaking as somebody who worked in a number of those PFI structures, how they looked and how they actually functioned were two very different matters.
PFI also spawned a whole genre of really shite public buildings, that were value engineered into awfulness.
There was certainly quite a poor knicker to fur coat ratio in a lot of PFI buildings. Impressive looking, if you like that sort of thing, but not always doing what was needed.
Some bright spark noted that not every part of every science lesson involves practical work, so you could reduce the lab space in schools by 50% or so. If everyone planned labwork simultaneously, tough. And don't get me started on soundproofing.
An example of the strengths and weaknesses of early Gove. He was right to say there were problems with the PFI schools programme he inherited. Cutting it and not really replacing it caused all sorts of trouble.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
That’s rather unusual shooting from the hip from you.
Read the exec summary and skim the first 30 pages.
Cyclefree is correct that there’s a risk of government effort been channelled uselessly. And you said yourself the report mixes up three different matters best treated separately.
Yes, but then she seems upset that the governance report does not address paying for social care.
No. I'm saying that if this is what Labour's priorities are then other stuff which I think more important and which are probably more important to many voters will not get the time, energy and attention they need.
I would rather have 1 thing done well than lots of stuff done badly. I have explained what I would prioritise on the governance front.
Yes but governments can do more than one thing at a time, and when budgets are tight, so big spending not possible, a bit of constitutional tinkering is a cheap way to fill the space.
The Palace of Westminster is falling to pieces. Quite literally. Bits of masonry fall off it, hence the nets. It also has 24/7 fire patrols and some of the wiring is so dodgy that electrical fires - that are missed - is a very strong possibility. The House of Commons has also had a major water leak. The estate is a terrible state and wouldn't even get close to passing modern building standards.
Now, what happens if there is a Notre Dame style conflagration, with fatalities, or someone is killed by falling masonry?
There will be an outcry. And an investigation will be launched with the proclamation that "lessons will be learned".
The lessons are right in front of you, plain as the nose on your face, as you are reading this- right now. This second.
Why isn't the government doing anything about it?
Because, like every government, it follows the path of least resistance rather than doing the right thing. To fix this, right now, would require spending a lot of public money and making a difficult political argument, for very little reward.
It is far easier to just chance it, duck the big decision, and then if a calamity happens blame someone else and then grab the mandate to fix it. Even if people tragically die in the process, possibly lots of people with irreparable damage to a national heritage site, that is what is far easier to do. So that is what will be done.
That is why lessons are never learned; it would require people with the courage to apply them.
But why? Why does Britain keep taking rubbish short-term decisions?
Some of it is fallen human nature, but there's also something that seems distinctive about Britain in my lifetime. It's not just political (see the soon to be ex-department store), but there seems to be a political-cultural aspect.
So in the Palace of Westminster case, anyone who proposes spending money to fix the problems will be howled down by "let's spend it on our NHS instead".
I don't know if the Brown report will help, but something's not working right now.
Probably cheaper, and better, to build a new parliament building. And spend enough to preserve the existing buildings as a heritage site.
Fenwicks in Newcastle did my wife's wedding dress and made the wedding cake - that was in 1969
Fenwicks in Leicester closed 5 years ago, but it was a great but shambolically quirky store, with all sorts of hidden corners. The staff really knew their products. I rather miss its eccentricity. I bought a chocolate teapot there once. Really!
Kids today will have no idea the joys of buying physical objects from a real expert person in a bricks and mortar store
People lament change, but you can chart the decline of the nation through the closure of your favourite stores...
Scott, I don't mean to be rude when I say that this is a pleasantly personal post - your own views on a subject rather than someone else's. To dig deeper: what favourite stores do you lament closing?
I can't think of any large stores I lament the passing of, but Foxy's description of Fenwick's in Leicester reminds me of a different sort of a store that is happily still with us: Arighi Bianchi in Macclesfield. It's a furniture shop - a well established one, dating back to the nineteenth century, set up by Italian immigrants from Como who came to Macclesfield because it shared with Como the silk industry. Again: hidden corners and weirdly quirky. Worth a visit if you're ever passing through.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
That’s rather unusual shooting from the hip from you.
Read the exec summary and skim the first 30 pages.
Cyclefree is correct that there’s a risk of government effort been channelled uselessly. And you said yourself the report mixes up three different matters best treated separately.
Yes, but then she seems upset that the governance report does not address paying for social care.
Surely that is a separate report to be seen sometime?
Having a serious government will be a novelty after the corrupt clown show of the last few years, but by gum it is boring.
Starmer nominated Tom Watson for the Lords. The idea that he is more ethical than the Tories needs some revision. An utterly disgraceful nomination especially from someone who likes to parade his credentials as the former head of the CPS. Watson abused his position as an MP in a vile way to distort the criminal justice process. If Starmer had any real care for his former employers he would have told Watson to get stuffed not made him part of our legislature.
The Palace of Westminster is falling to pieces. Quite literally. Bits of masonry fall off it, hence the nets. It also has 24/7 fire patrols and some of the wiring is so dodgy that electrical fires - that are missed - is a very strong possibility. The House of Commons has also had a major water leak. The estate is a terrible state and wouldn't even get close to passing modern building standards.
Now, what happens if there is a Notre Dame style conflagration, with fatalities, or someone is killed by falling masonry?
There will be an outcry. And an investigation will be launched with the proclamation that "lessons will be learned".
The lessons are right in front of you, plain as the nose on your face, as you are reading this- right now. This second.
Why isn't the government doing anything about it?
Because, like every government, it follows the path of least resistance rather than doing the right thing. To fix this, right now, would require spending a lot of public money and making a difficult political argument, for very little reward.
It is far easier to just chance it, duck the big decision, and then if a calamity happens blame someone else and then grab the mandate to fix it. Even if people tragically die in the process, possibly lots of people with irreparable damage to a national heritage site, that is what is far easier to do. So that is what will be done.
That is why lessons are never learned; it would require people with the courage to apply them.
But why? Why does Britain keep taking rubbish short-term decisions?
Some of it is fallen human nature, but there's also something that seems distinctive about Britain in my lifetime. It's not just political (see the soon to be ex-department store), but there seems to be a political-cultural aspect.
So in the Palace of Westminster case, anyone who proposes spending money to fix the problems will be howled down by "let's spend it on our NHS instead".
I don't know if the Brown report will help, but something's not working right now.
Is Britain unique in this?
We often hold up Germany as an exemplar, but have they done any better?
1. Abandoned nuclear 2. Willingly relied on Putin 3. Willingly relied on exports to China 4. Wilkommenskultur: 1m Syrian refugees and chaos across Europe 5. Ignored defence, parasitically relied on NATO 6. Shit football team
Germany is a more orderly society than the UK, so it can often appear better governed. But on examination I'm not sure it is wholly true. They have done better at levelling up East Germany than we've done with post-industrial northern England/Wales, however they have worse demographics
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
Speaking as somebody who worked in a number of those PFI structures, how they looked and how they actually functioned were two very different matters.
The only school PFI I have direct knowledge of was an unmitigated disaster.
I'd welcome a new school. PFI or not. Ours is falling to bits.
Indeed. There’s always a need for investment, but the rush of PFI back then meant the money rarely matched the need very well.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
That’s rather unusual shooting from the hip from you.
Read the exec summary and skim the first 30 pages.
Cyclefree is correct that there’s a risk of government effort been channelled uselessly. And you said yourself the report mixes up three different matters best treated separately.
Yes, but then she seems upset that the governance report does not address paying for social care.
No. I'm saying that if this is what Labour's priorities are then other stuff which I think more important and which are probably more important to many voters will not get the time, energy and attention they need.
I would rather have 1 thing done well than lots of stuff done badly. I have explained what I would prioritise on the governance front.
With due respect, I think you're wrong on this. Yesterday's report had a specific focus on governance and decentralisation, and was pretty dense (cue jokes). But it isn't the priority - it's just one of them. In due course, there will be detailed policies on social care (actually there already is one), student tuition fees etc., and the details of other stuff that has already been trailed (Great British Energy, the Green New Deal etc. etc.) will be published.
Don't you think a government should have the bandwidth, as well as the duty, to focus on a range of policy imperatives? Or are you happy with the vacuous 'Get Brexit done' and not much else apart from lip service to levelling up that we've seen in recent times?
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
That’s rather unusual shooting from the hip from you.
Read the exec summary and skim the first 30 pages.
Cyclefree is correct that there’s a risk of government effort been channelled uselessly. And you said yourself the report mixes up three different matters best treated separately.
Yes, but then she seems upset that the governance report does not address paying for social care.
No. I'm saying that if this is what Labour's priorities are then other stuff which I think more important and which are probably more important to many voters will not get the time, energy and attention they need.
I would rather have 1 thing done well than lots of stuff done badly. I have explained what I would prioritise on the governance front.
Yes but governments can do more than one thing at a time, and when budgets are tight, so big spending not possible, a bit of constitutional tinkering is a cheap way to fill the space.
You make my point - "tinkering" ...."cheap way to fill the space".
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
I'll grant that investment was needed, but PFI was the wrong route and utterly dishonest. Most people don't realise that we are still paying the costs now, 12 years on from a labour government.
PFI has been a cross-party albatross around Britain's finances. Started under Major, expanded by Brown, continued by Osborne. It's an example of the way in which the wealth of the country has been sucked out by rent-seeking, where PFI was the means of converting vast amounts of Exchequer tax revenue into safe and generous investment returns for foreign capital.
It would be wrong to try to turn it into a party-political tribal issue as both parties are implicated, and neither will make the hard decisions in the short-term that would be necessary to improve the situation for the future.
Fenwicks in Newcastle did my wife's wedding dress and made the wedding cake - that was in 1969
Fenwicks in Leicester closed 5 years ago, but it was a great but shambolically quirky store, with all sorts of hidden corners. The staff really knew their products. I rather miss its eccentricity. I bought a chocolate teapot there once. Really!
Kids today will have no idea the joys of buying physical objects from a real expert person in a bricks and mortar store
People lament change, but you can chart the decline of the nation through the closure of your favourite stores...
Scott, I don't mean to be rude when I say that this is a pleasantly personal post - your own views on a subject rather than someone else's. To dig deeper: what favourite stores do you lament closing?
I can't think of any large stores I lament the passing of, but Foxy's description of Fenwick's in Leicester reminds me of a different sort of a store that is happily still with us: Arighi Bianchi in Macclesfield. It's a furniture shop - a well established one, dating back to the nineteenth century, set up by Italian immigrants from Como who came to Macclesfield because it shared with Como the silk industry. Again: hidden corners and weirdly quirky. Worth a visit if you're ever passing through.
Leicester used to have a marvellous rabbit warren of a toy shop called Dominoes. Airfix kits, board games, a vast train set department and great arts and crafts dept as well as the more usual stuff. I found Hamleys a bit disappointing after knowing Dominoes.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
In 1992 PFI was implemented for the first time in the UK by the Conservative Government led by John Major.
Despite being critical of PFI while in opposition and promising reform, once in power George Osborne progressed 61 PFI schemes worth a total of £6.9bn in his first year as Chancellor.
PFI has a role, especially in infrastructure. It should be used for complex operational activities like schools’n’hospitals.
Why ? Government can borrow more cheaply. And if it is capable if negotiating a good PFI contract, then it’s equally capable of negotiating one funded directly.
The real problem is that government is manifestly consistently poor at managing procurement and investment, whether PFI or otherwise,
I dunno, it made some extremely profitable PPE procurement deals during Covid.
Fenwicks in Newcastle did my wife's wedding dress and made the wedding cake - that was in 1969
Fenwicks in Leicester closed 5 years ago, but it was a great but shambolically quirky store, with all sorts of hidden corners. The staff really knew their products. I rather miss its eccentricity. I bought a chocolate teapot there once. Really!
Kids today will have no idea the joys of buying physical objects from a real expert person in a bricks and mortar store
People lament change, but you can chart the decline of the nation through the closure of your favourite stores...
Scott, I don't mean to be rude when I say that this is a pleasantly personal post - your own views on a subject rather than someone else's. To dig deeper: what favourite stores do you lament closing?
I can't think of any large stores I lament the passing of, but Foxy's description of Fenwick's in Leicester reminds me of a different sort of a store that is happily still with us: Arighi Bianchi in Macclesfield. It's a furniture shop - a well established one, dating back to the nineteenth century, set up by Italian immigrants from Como who came to Macclesfield because it shared with Como the silk industry. Again: hidden corners and weirdly quirky. Worth a visit if you're ever passing through.
Leicester used to have a marvellous rabbit Wwarren of a toy shop called Dominoes. Airfix kits, board games, a vast train set department and great arts and crafts dept as well as the more usual stuff. I found Hamleys a bit disappointing after knowing Dominoes.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
I'll grant that investment was needed, but PFI was the wrong route and utterly dishonest. Most people don't realise that we are still paying the costs now, 12 years on from a labour government.
PFI has been a cross-party albatross around Britain's finances. Started under Major, expanded by Brown, continued by Osborne. It's an example of the way in which the wealth of the country has been sucked out by rent-seeking, where PFI was the means of converting vast amounts of Exchequer tax revenue into safe and generous investment returns for foreign capital.
It would be wrong to try to turn it into a party-political tribal issue as both parties are implicated, and neither will make the hard decisions in the short-term that would be necessary to improve the situation for the future.
Of course one ex Labour leader was on the right side of the PFI argument
The Palace of Westminster is falling to pieces. Quite literally. Bits of masonry fall off it, hence the nets. It also has 24/7 fire patrols and some of the wiring is so dodgy that electrical fires - that are missed - is a very strong possibility. The House of Commons has also had a major water leak. The estate is a terrible state and wouldn't even get close to passing modern building standards.
Now, what happens if there is a Notre Dame style conflagration, with fatalities, or someone is killed by falling masonry?
There will be an outcry. And an investigation will be launched with the proclamation that "lessons will be learned".
The lessons are right in front of you, plain as the nose on your face, as you are reading this- right now. This second.
Why isn't the government doing anything about it?
Because, like every government, it follows the path of least resistance rather than doing the right thing. To fix this, right now, would require spending a lot of public money and making a difficult political argument, for very little reward.
It is far easier to just chance it, duck the big decision, and then if a calamity happens blame someone else and then grab the mandate to fix it. Even if people tragically die in the process, possibly lots of people with irreparable damage to a national heritage site, that is what is far easier to do. So that is what will be done.
That is why lessons are never learned; it would require people with the courage to apply them.
But why? Why does Britain keep taking rubbish short-term decisions?
Some of it is fallen human nature, but there's also something that seems distinctive about Britain in my lifetime. It's not just political (see the soon to be ex-department store), but there seems to be a political-cultural aspect.
So in the Palace of Westminster case, anyone who proposes spending money to fix the problems will be howled down by "let's spend it on our NHS instead".
I don't know if the Brown report will help, but something's not working right now.
Is Britain unique in this?
We often hold up Germany as an exemplar, but have they done any better?
1. Abandoned nuclear 2. Willingly relied on Putin 3. Willingly relied on exports to China 4. Wilkommenskultur: 1m Syrian refugees and chaos across Europe 5. Ignored defence, parasitically relied on NATO 6. Shit football team
Germany is a more orderly society than the UK, so it can often appear better governed. But on examination I'm not sure it is wholly true. They have done better at levelling up East Germany than we've done with post-industrial northern England/Wales, however they have worse demographics
Or to take another example, Seville.
The early investment, the stuff done for 1992, was questioned at the time, Felipe Gonzalez favouring his hometown.
But the more recent stuff, the metro, the car-free centre, the general gloss, is seen as a good thing.
It can go badly wrong (see that unused airport), but equivalent British cities are just shabby, because something is stopping the UK looking ahead optimistically.
I can't think of any large stores I lament the passing of, but Foxy's description of Fenwick's in Leicester reminds me of a different sort of a store that is happily still with us: Arighi Bianchi in Macclesfield. It's a furniture shop - a well established one, dating back to the nineteenth century, set up by Italian immigrants from Como who came to Macclesfield because it shared with Como the silk industry. Again: hidden corners and weirdly quirky. Worth a visit if you're ever passing through.
I was in T R Hayes in Bath last weekend. Such a maze the stairs are colour coded and signed on every floor.
Anyway, to your question, the first would be Browns of George IVth bridge. Started life as a radio spares shop, but sold all manner of electronic components and wire by the yard, measured in brass on the countertop. Staffed by an old guy in a brown shop coat.
Dunns metal went not long after. They had shelves of random hardware through the back you could rummage for choice bargains.
Followed by Murray's tool store (all 3 branches). I bought my favourite screwdriver, and many others, there.
More recently, the excellent cookshop in Bath is now a branch of ProCook (FFS)
And the equally excellent homeware shop in Winchester is now a cafe!
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
In 1992 PFI was implemented for the first time in the UK by the Conservative Government led by John Major.
Despite being critical of PFI while in opposition and promising reform, once in power George Osborne progressed 61 PFI schemes worth a total of £6.9bn in his first year as Chancellor.
PFI has a role, especially in infrastructure. It should be used for complex operational activities like schools’n’hospitals.
Why ? Government can borrow more cheaply. And if it is capable if negotiating a good PFI contract, then it’s equally capable of negotiating one funded directly.
The real problem is that government is manifestly consistently poor at managing procurement and investment, whether PFI or otherwise,
If is doing a lot of work there!
PFI is a funding source of balance sheet. Simple things like street lighting are fine.
Where you need operational flexibility the contracts become massive complex and inflexible - and hence expensive (the whole £x hundred to change of lightbulb class of story)
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
That’s rather unusual shooting from the hip from you.
Read the exec summary and skim the first 30 pages.
Cyclefree is correct that there’s a risk of government effort been channelled uselessly. And you said yourself the report mixes up three different matters best treated separately.
Yes, but then she seems upset that the governance report does not address paying for social care.
No. I'm saying that if this is what Labour's priorities are then other stuff which I think more important and which are probably more important to many voters will not get the time, energy and attention they need.
I would rather have 1 thing done well than lots of stuff done badly. I have explained what I would prioritise on the governance front.
Yes but governments can do more than one thing at a time, and when budgets are tight, so big spending not possible, a bit of constitutional tinkering is a cheap way to fill the space.
You make my point - "tinkering" ...."cheap way to fill the space".
Parsimonious budgets don't take much legislative time, indeed not much of executive government does.
Starmer strikes me as the sort to rule by executive decree rather than extensive debate. That's the way he runs the party.
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
So another 5 years wasted on constitutional faffing about while the country's real problems go unaddressed. Great.
That’s rather unusual shooting from the hip from you.
Read the exec summary and skim the first 30 pages.
Cyclefree is correct that there’s a risk of government effort been channelled uselessly. And you said yourself the report mixes up three different matters best treated separately.
Yes, but then she seems upset that the governance report does not address paying for social care.
No. I'm saying that if this is what Labour's priorities are then other stuff which I think more important and which are probably more important to many voters will not get the time, energy and attention they need.
I would rather have 1 thing done well than lots of stuff done badly. I have explained what I would prioritise on the governance front.
With due respect, I think you're wrong on this. Yesterday's report had a specific focus on governance and decentralisation, and was pretty dense (cue jokes). But it isn't the priority - it's just one of them. In due course, there will be detailed policies on social care (actually there already is one), student tuition fees etc., and the details of other stuff that has already been trailed (Great British Energy, the Green New Deal etc. etc.) will be published.
Don't you think a government should have the bandwidth, as well as the duty, to focus on a range of policy imperatives? Or are you happy with the vacuous 'Get Brexit done' and not much else apart from lip service to levelling up that we've seen in recent times?
And if these come, great and I'll review and revise my opinion.
Labour's apparent decentralisation to various cities seems to me to be their version of levelling up - and probably about as vacuous and ineffective.
Yes there should be bandwidth. But there needs to be focus and, above all, really effective thinking about the consequences of change plus effective implementation. We have not seen the latter two for some time now. I remain to be convinced that Labour will be good at these two.
But let's see.
My current view is that the Tories deserve to be out. But I am not persuaded that Labour deserve to be in.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
Speaking as somebody who worked in a number of those PFI structures, how they looked and how they actually functioned were two very different matters.
The only school PFI I have direct knowledge of was an unmitigated disaster.
I'd welcome a new school. PFI or not. Ours is falling to bits.
Even one with L shaped classrooms? Or greenhouse like windows?
Leicester used to have a marvellous rabbit warren of a toy shop called Dominoes. Airfix kits, board games, a vast train set department and great arts and crafts dept as well as the more usual stuff. I found Hamleys a bit disappointing after knowing Dominoes.
There was a model shop in Stratford, a tiny hole in the wall, crammed with marvellous stuff.
They moved to a huge new site nearer the centre of town and a couple of years later were gone completely
Leicester used to have a marvellous rabbit warren of a toy shop called Dominoes. Airfix kits, board games, a vast train set department and great arts and crafts dept as well as the more usual stuff. I found Hamleys a bit disappointing after knowing Dominoes.
There was a model shop in Stratford, a tiny hole in the wall, crammed with marvellous stuff.
They moved to a huge new site nearer the centre of town and a couple of years later were gone completely
Yes, I remember it. There was a good one on Shirley too. My brothers and I were Airfix and Tamiya mad.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
I'll grant that investment was needed, but PFI was the wrong route and utterly dishonest. Most people don't realise that we are still paying the costs now, 12 years on from a labour government.
PFI has been a cross-party albatross around Britain's finances. Started under Major, expanded by Brown, continued by Osborne. It's an example of the way in which the wealth of the country has been sucked out by rent-seeking, where PFI was the means of converting vast amounts of Exchequer tax revenue into safe and generous investment returns for foreign capital.
It would be wrong to try to turn it into a party-political tribal issue as both parties are implicated, and neither will make the hard decisions in the short-term that would be necessary to improve the situation for the future.
Of course one ex Labour leader was on the right side of the PFI argument
Yes. Such a shame he was such a twit in so many other ways.
A jury in New York has convicted the Trump Organization of criminal tax fraud in a major blow for the former president.
Although Donald Trump was not personally on trial, prosecutors insisted he was fully aware of the 15-year scheme in which they said executives were enriched by off-the-books perks to make up for lower salaries, reducing the company’s tax liabilities.
The 12-person jury in New York’s state court was sent out to deliberate on Monday morning after a six-week trial in which Trump Organization lawyers pinned blame for the fraud solely on the greed of longtime chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg.
The former close ally of Trump accepted a plea deal earlier this year admitting fraud in exchange for a five-month prison sentence. Prosecutors laid out a case heavily reliant on Weisselberg’s testimony.
The verdict represents a serious blow to Trump and his family who rose to fame as property moguls in New York but whose business practices have long shadowed in secrecy with rumors of ill-doing.
A jury in New York has convicted the Trump Organization of criminal tax fraud in a major blow for the former president.
Although Donald Trump was not personally on trial, prosecutors insisted he was fully aware of the 15-year scheme in which they said executives were enriched by off-the-books perks to make up for lower salaries, reducing the company’s tax liabilities.
The 12-person jury in New York’s state court was sent out to deliberate on Monday morning after a six-week trial in which Trump Organization lawyers pinned blame for the fraud solely on the greed of longtime chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg.
The former close ally of Trump accepted a plea deal earlier this year admitting fraud in exchange for a five-month prison sentence. Prosecutors laid out a case heavily reliant on Weisselberg’s testimony.
The verdict represents a serious blow to Trump and his family who rose to fame as property moguls in New York but whose business practices have long shadowed in secrecy with rumors of ill-doing.
Has Trump personally been indicted for anything, or any indictments likely soon?
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
I'll grant that investment was needed, but PFI was the wrong route and utterly dishonest. Most people don't realise that we are still paying the costs now, 12 years on from a labour government.
PFI has been a cross-party albatross around Britain's finances. Started under Major, expanded by Brown, continued by Osborne. It's an example of the way in which the wealth of the country has been sucked out by rent-seeking, where PFI was the means of converting vast amounts of Exchequer tax revenue into safe and generous investment returns for foreign capital.
It would be wrong to try to turn it into a party-political tribal issue as both parties are implicated, and neither will make the hard decisions in the short-term that would be necessary to improve the situation for the future.
Of course one ex Labour leader was on the right side of the PFI argument
Cases of scarlet fever in Britain are back at ~1910-1950 rates. It's not clear where they will go from here.
There seems to be a bit of a mystery both over why SF cases subsided to a low level, albeit without completely disappearing, and why they rose again in the 2010s. There is no vaccine.
"The most serious infections linked to GAS come from invasive group A strep, known as iGAS."
"This can happen when a person has sores or open wounds that allow the bacteria to get into the tissue, breaches in their respiratory tract after a viral illness, or in a person who has a health condition that decreases their immunity to infection".
Since it's a mystery why SF declined almost to zero and then re-arose, I make no suggestion as to why it's rising right now. But I'd hazard the guess that prior damage to the respiratory tract (unnoticed?) by a virus and the weakening of the immune system for whatever reason may possibly be among the causes of the increase in cases not just of SF but of (the more serious) invasive Strep-A. Can't see any reason why sores and wounds should have become more common, so that probably isn't it.
Leicester used to have a marvellous rabbit warren of a toy shop called Dominoes. Airfix kits, board games, a vast train set department and great arts and crafts dept as well as the more usual stuff. I found Hamleys a bit disappointing after knowing Dominoes.
There was a model shop in Stratford, a tiny hole in the wall, crammed with marvellous stuff.
They moved to a huge new site nearer the centre of town and a couple of years later were gone completely
It wasnt till I visited Stratford that I realised Old Guys Rule wasnt just a Political fact of life
I came out with a "Russian Trappers Hat" with the aforesaid logo
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
I'll grant that investment was needed, but PFI was the wrong route and utterly dishonest. Most people don't realise that we are still paying the costs now, 12 years on from a labour government.
PFI has been a cross-party albatross around Britain's finances. Started under Major, expanded by Brown, continued by Osborne. It's an example of the way in which the wealth of the country has been sucked out by rent-seeking, where PFI was the means of converting vast amounts of Exchequer tax revenue into safe and generous investment returns for foreign capital.
It would be wrong to try to turn it into a party-political tribal issue as both parties are implicated, and neither will make the hard decisions in the short-term that would be necessary to improve the situation for the future.
Of course one ex Labour leader was on the right side of the PFI argument
'ex Labour' being the pertinent phrase.
right side of the argument being more pertinent imo but hey each to their own
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened. The UK looked utterly decrepit when I first arrived, and within 10 years that changed - fully conceding a that in London I experienced the best of it.
People have forgotten how shite Major left the country’s infrastructure.
Speaking as somebody who worked in a number of those PFI structures, how they looked and how they actually functioned were two very different matters.
The only school PFI I have direct knowledge of was an unmitigated disaster.
I'd welcome a new school. PFI or not. Ours is falling to bits.
Even one with L shaped classrooms? Or greenhouse like windows?
I'd settle for toilet doors with locks. And classroom doors which close. Oh. And fire alarms which don't randomly go off for no discernible reason. Reliable Internet would be a boon too. As would working IT and printers.
I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.
It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.
And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.
Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.
There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.
Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.
Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.
Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,
I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint summary for those who want to chase thrills.
There are quite a few decent PPT style charts in the first 30 or so pages.
What a pathetically absurd chart cherrypicking 2007 as the change of decade instead of 2010.
Gee, I wonder why?
Try redoing that chart sticking to actual decades. 🤦♂️
That would be even more misleading, given the GFC. Which you know, but don’t care about, because misleading is your madness.
At the moment you include the financial services bubble but not the crash in the middle period.
Basically the middle column was shift because the earlier growth was a mirage and the crash was the chickens roosting
And the third column was anemic due to the overleverage as a result
But the comparison is us against other countries over time not us against us over time.
That’s not the purpose. It’s to show we were a top performer and now we are not.
It does this by artificially boosting the middle column and deflating the last column
It’s utterly specious. All political knockabout so that’s fine, but serious people shouldn’t take it seriously
However you cut it, the UK economy did have a purple patch pre GFC, and after that - and especially since Brexit - not.
And the projections are for this underperformance to continue.
And, as a result, living standards in much of the country now lag peer economies by some way.
The good news (which few have noted) is that there is a lot of catch up that could happen, in theory.
I disagree. The 2000-07 numbers were never real. Basically the risk tolerance numbers were dialled up to 11.
That one of the reasons I am so critical of Brown. He baked in government sending based on the assumption that the tax revenues were sustainable when he should have known better
Brown’s errors, such as they were, were rather small within the broad story of British macro performance since the war.
The idea that he was the profligate loon of Tory myth-making doesn’t withstand serious analysis.
PFI. The myth of investment that is still being paid for at new hospitals throughout the land. And the worst thing is, it's rarely brought up.
Without wanting to defend PFI, at least investment happened.
It's easy to achieve "investment" if you postpone the expenditure into the never never.
Just as its easy to achieve "growth" if you look at a bubble and stop the clock before it bursts.
A balanced overview needs both. What's spent, and how it was funded. Both the growth and the crash that accompanies it. To look at one but exclude the other is pure dishonesty.
If it’s so east to achieve growth, pls send your ideas to Rishi.
However you cut the data - the economy has toileted under the Tories, and so has education, health and public service performance.
If you cut the data reasonably the UK is exactly middle of the road in the G7 under the Tories. Out of seven you can't get more in the middle than fourth, with three above, and three below.
If the UK has toileted, I wonder what you think of Japan, Canada and Italy?
UK living standard performance *per capita* is the worst, I think, or if not only behind Italy.
Again, you are one of these people who pretend there is no issue. In that sense you are a useful idiot for the declinists.
Wrong. I just gave you the data, put into a spreadsheet and showing full numbers and calculations for the rankings for full and clear transparency. The UK is 4th not 6th or 7th in the 2010s.
Data Source: World Bank GDP per capita, by PPP.
OK now we are getting somewhere. I accept your numbers and the transparency is good. I would still prefer them to be cut per my suggestion upthread.
I note we are still 5 (out of 7) and that the gap appears to be growing.
There are also interesting distributional issues with make the picture far worse than the overall numbers suggest because the UK is uniquely skewed by London/SE and because the tax system is not as progressive as all but the USA.
Cases of scarlet fever in Britain are back at ~1910-1950 rates. It's not clear where they will go from here.
There seems to be a bit of a mystery both over why SF cases subsided to a low level, albeit without completely disappearing, and why they rose again in the 2010s. There is no vaccine.
"The most serious infections linked to GAS come from invasive group A strep, known as iGAS."
"This can happen when a person has sores or open wounds that allow the bacteria to get into the tissue, breaches in their respiratory tract after a viral illness, or in a person who has a health condition that decreases their immunity to infection".
Since it's a mystery why SF declined almost to zero and then re-arose, I make no suggestion as to why it's rising right now. But I'd hazard the guess that prior damage to the respiratory tract (unnoticed?) by a virus and the weakening of the immune system for whatever reason may possibly be among the causes of the increase in cases not just of SF but of (the more serious) invasive Strep-A. Can't see any reason why sores and wounds should have become more common, so that probably isn't it.
Or it's simply that it's a naive population from a immune response point of view.
Fenwicks in Newcastle did my wife's wedding dress and made the wedding cake - that was in 1969
There is also one in Tunbridge Wells where I grew up my grandparents used to take me to lunch in
I lived in Crowborough from 87 - 92. I choose Crowborough over Tunbridge Wells as house prices were cheaper. I would go to TW very often. Might well have bumped into you, but you would have been in short trousers.
Comments
SKS represents everything wrong with politics. Yes, I hate the Tories but they don't hide what they are. SKS disguised himself as a socialist to get elected leader when he's just a grubby, backstabbing, duplicitous, race-baiting, corrupt, establishment stooge. A fraud, in every sense.
PFI has a role, especially in infrastructure. It should be used for complex operational activities like schools’n’hospitals.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1600198804006846466
However you cut the data - the economy has toileted under the Tories, and so has education, health and public service performance.
There was a general feeling public services (and especially the NHS but also school buildings) had atrophied badly in the Major years and something needed to be done. We were running a surplus and growth was good so there seemed no reason why some of the funds available shouldn't be directed to improving public services - even the opposition Conservatives supported this at the time.
AI is a momentous force about to surge over us
Sure, one can argue that Labour's record looks better if one excludes 2008-09, but why should one?
If the UK has toileted, I wonder what you think of Japan, Canada and Italy?
The Palace of Westminster is falling to pieces. Quite literally. Bits of masonry fall off it, hence the nets. It also has 24/7 fire patrols and some of the wiring is so dodgy that electrical fires - that are missed - is a very strong possibility. The House of Commons has also had a major water leak. The estate is a terrible state and wouldn't even get close to passing modern building standards.
Now, what happens if there is a Notre Dame style conflagration, with fatalities, or someone is killed by falling masonry?
There will be an outcry. And an investigation will be launched with the proclamation that "lessons will be learned".
The lessons are right in front of you, plain as the nose on your face, as you are reading this- right now. This second.
Why isn't the government doing anything about it?
Because, like every government, it follows the path of least resistance rather than doing the right thing. To fix this, right now, would require spending a lot of public money and making a difficult political argument, for very little reward.
It is far easier to just chance it, duck the big decision, and then if a calamity happens blame someone else and then grab the mandate to fix it. Even if people tragically die in the process, possibly lots of people with irreparable damage to a national heritage site, that is what is far easier to do. So that is what will be done.
That is why lessons are never learned; it would require people with the courage to apply them.
Apart from that you are spot on as usual
Again, you are one of these people who pretend there is no issue. In that sense you are a useful idiot for the declinists.
Maybe the traditional sometimes does work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenwick_(department_store)
Because I have to disagree with you there. I think he did try to hide it, he just wasn't very good at it.
Data Source: World Bank GDP per capita, by PPP.
If it doesn’t it is beyond useless. It is misleading piffle. It is like a report on the future of Celtic governance in Britain in AD 48 which doesn’t mention the Romans
The horror.
What's more amusing is he doesn't see the irony that what he's accusing Starmer of being is what Corbyn actually is.
Although TBF if he's right Starmer is just a slightly more coherent and somewhat more intelligent version of Corbyn, that's a good reason to not vote for him.
And you said yourself the report mixes up three different matters best treated separately.
(Also fascinated that Ho Chi Minh was once a chef in the West End.)
I accept your numbers and the transparency is good. I would still prefer them to be cut per my suggestion upthread.
I note we are still 5 (out of 7) and that the gap appears to be growing.
There are also interesting distributional issues with make the picture far worse than the overall numbers suggest because the UK is uniquely skewed by London/SE and because the tax system is not as progressive as all but the USA.
I bet he hears that all the time.
People lament change, but you can chart the decline of the nation through the closure of your favourite stores...
On the other hand, it certainly could have been put through AI to be condensed and rewritten “in the style of George Orwell”.
Having a serious government will be a novelty after the corrupt clown show of the last few years, but by gum it is boring.
I also didn't know it was still independent. Well done them. Time was, every big city had its flagship independent department store: Manchester had Kendall Milne's, Sheffield had Cole Brothers, and so on. Gradually they all became John Lewis, or, worse, House of Fraser. I'm very pleased to see Fenwick's is still Fenwick's.
Some of it is fallen human nature, but there's also something that seems distinctive about Britain in my lifetime. It's not just political (see the soon to be ex-department store), but there seems to be a political-cultural aspect.
So in the Palace of Westminster case, anyone who proposes spending money to fix the problems will be howled down by "let's spend it on our NHS instead".
I don't know if the Brown report will help, but something's not working right now.
I suspect AI will arise with/from any advanced civilisation in the universe, it is the obvious evolution, it simply happens - like volcanoes
But we are accelerating the process and utilising it - more like electricity
The Christmas window displays at Fenwicks in Newcastle is a local institution.
It needs refinement I think
Government can borrow more cheaply. And if it is capable if negotiating a good PFI contract, then it’s equally capable of negotiating one funded directly.
The real problem is that government is manifestly consistently poor at managing procurement and investment, whether PFI or otherwise,
A VIP all ticket party to unveil the new window.
I've never been overly impressed tbh.
I would rather have 1 thing done well than lots of stuff done badly. I have explained what I would prioritise on the governance front.
It was universally praised and his most popular decision ever.
I can't think of any large stores I lament the passing of, but Foxy's description of Fenwick's in Leicester reminds me of a different sort of a store that is happily still with us: Arighi Bianchi in Macclesfield. It's a furniture shop - a well established one, dating back to the nineteenth century, set up by Italian immigrants from Como who came to Macclesfield because it shared with Como the silk industry. Again: hidden corners and weirdly quirky. Worth a visit if you're ever passing through.
There will be similar conversations going on in France, Germany, Japan, Italy and the USA about how they're all doomed too.
Some bright spark noted that not every part of every science lesson involves practical work, so you could reduce the lab space in schools by 50% or so. If everyone planned labwork simultaneously, tough. And don't get me started on soundproofing.
An example of the strengths and weaknesses of early Gove. He was right to say there were problems with the PFI schools programme he inherited. Cutting it and not really replacing it caused all sorts of trouble.
We often hold up Germany as an exemplar, but have they done any better?
1. Abandoned nuclear
2. Willingly relied on Putin
3. Willingly relied on exports to China
4. Wilkommenskultur: 1m Syrian refugees and chaos across Europe
5. Ignored defence, parasitically relied on NATO
6. Shit football team
Germany is a more orderly society than the UK, so it can often appear better governed. But on examination I'm not sure it is wholly true. They have done better at levelling up East Germany than we've done with post-industrial northern England/Wales, however they have worse demographics
Where is my nearest Fenwicks?
There’s always a need for investment, but the rush of PFI back then meant the money rarely matched the need very well.
Don't you think a government should have the bandwidth, as well as the duty, to focus on a range of policy imperatives? Or are you happy with the vacuous 'Get Brexit done' and not much else apart from lip service to levelling up that we've seen in recent times?
You make my point - "tinkering" ...."cheap way to fill the space".
It would be wrong to try to turn it into a party-political tribal issue as both parties are implicated, and neither will make the hard decisions in the short-term that would be necessary to improve the situation for the future.
The early investment, the stuff done for 1992, was questioned at the time, Felipe Gonzalez favouring his hometown.
But the more recent stuff, the metro, the car-free centre, the general gloss, is seen as a good thing.
It can go badly wrong (see that unused airport), but equivalent British cities are just shabby, because something is stopping the UK looking ahead optimistically.
Anyway, to your question, the first would be Browns of George IVth bridge. Started life as a radio spares shop, but sold all manner of electronic components and wire by the yard, measured in brass on the countertop. Staffed by an old guy in a brown shop coat.
Dunns metal went not long after. They had shelves of random hardware through the back you could rummage for choice bargains.
Followed by Murray's tool store (all 3 branches). I bought my favourite screwdriver, and many others, there.
More recently, the excellent cookshop in Bath is now a branch of ProCook (FFS)
And the equally excellent homeware shop in Winchester is now a cafe!
PFI is a funding source of balance sheet. Simple things like street lighting are fine.
Where you need operational flexibility the contracts become massive complex and inflexible - and hence expensive (the whole £x hundred to change of lightbulb class of story)
Starmer strikes me as the sort to rule by executive decree rather than extensive debate. That's the way he runs the party.
Labour's apparent decentralisation to various cities seems to me to be their version of levelling up - and probably about as vacuous and ineffective.
Yes there should be bandwidth. But there needs to be focus and, above all, really effective thinking about the consequences of change plus effective implementation. We have not seen the latter two for some time now. I remain to be convinced that Labour will be good at these two.
But let's see.
My current view is that the Tories deserve to be out. But I am not persuaded that Labour deserve to be in.
They moved to a huge new site nearer the centre of town and a couple of years later were gone completely
Although Donald Trump was not personally on trial, prosecutors insisted he was fully aware of the 15-year scheme in which they said executives were enriched by off-the-books perks to make up for lower salaries, reducing the company’s tax liabilities.
The 12-person jury in New York’s state court was sent out to deliberate on Monday morning after a six-week trial in which Trump Organization lawyers pinned blame for the fraud solely on the greed of longtime chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg.
The former close ally of Trump accepted a plea deal earlier this year admitting fraud in exchange for a five-month prison sentence. Prosecutors laid out a case heavily reliant on Weisselberg’s testimony.
The verdict represents a serious blow to Trump and his family who rose to fame as property moguls in New York but whose business practices have long shadowed in secrecy with rumors of ill-doing.
"The most serious infections linked to GAS come from invasive group A strep, known as iGAS."
"This can happen when a person has sores or open wounds that allow the bacteria to get into the tissue, breaches in their respiratory tract after a viral illness, or in a person who has a health condition that decreases their immunity to infection".
Since it's a mystery why SF declined almost to zero and then re-arose, I make no suggestion as to why it's rising right now. But I'd hazard the guess that prior damage to the respiratory tract (unnoticed?) by a virus and the weakening of the immune system for whatever reason may possibly be among the causes of the increase in cases not just of SF but of (the more serious) invasive Strep-A. Can't see any reason why sores and wounds should have become more common, so that probably isn't it.
I came out with a "Russian Trappers Hat" with the aforesaid logo
Reliable Internet would be a boon too. As would working IT and printers.
Oh, wait, no it won't...