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.
Not sure I understand that. Is there an assumption in there of a new strain?
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...
What joys would that be? The joy of being harassed by a sales bod more intent on selling you what gets him more commission than what you actually need? The joy of being browbeat towards buying insurance or warranty schemes you neither want nor need? Quite frankly if I never have to set foot in a high street store for anything electronic I will feel I have gone to heaven
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)
PFI is driven by financial engineering rather than value. Hence more complex and expensive than the vanilla alternative.
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.
I do so love when these sorts of things happen, as the person in charge who naturally normally claims they are totally on top of everything (though with the convoluted nature of corporate structures and multiple companies seemingly purely to dodge liability and tax, I doubt they can be) and super great at it too, then have to profess to know nothing at all about the rather obvious failings and illegality that was going on.
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.
Yes. Much as I don't want to blame ourselves, the public, since our political leaders do have to bear some responsibility, the problems seem so ingrained I fear we cannot put all the blame on them. Something about our current approach to big decisions is messed up, we seen unable to look more than 5 minutes ahead on anything.
The Palace of Westminster stuff just pisses me off royally, since as its so obvious that no matter what you were to use it for the place needs fixing up, and it will never be popular to spend money on it, so there was never any point to delay, yet supposedly intelligent MPs and Lords seem not to care.
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’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’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.
PFI itself has well-rehearsed issues, not least contractual inflexibility and complexity. Friend worked in a university dept in a PFI hospital/medical school. She and her colleagues would never join a union - till one day some heavy shelving, craply installed, collapsed, and almost hit them. They all went to join up after I pointed out how many organizations/companies they'd have to sue if any of them had been injured.
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.
We were fourth.
We are fifth absolutely.
I looked at the World Bank source.
Without making any judgement on who was responsible for what, the UK was pretty much top of the league and therefore closing the gap with the USA from 1990 (when records begin in that data set) until the GFC.
(There is some research that suggests this was due to improved service productivity wrought by various liberal reforms started under Thatcher and continued by Blair.)
After the GFC, performance was middling, which is not surprising given the necessary deleveraging.
From Covid/Brexit onwards, performance is dire. We are bottom after Italy and the last forecast from the IMF suggested that this would continue through 2024.
Given that what growth has been achieved has gone disproportionately to the top one or two deciles (which is not so true anywhere outside the USA), the effect is seeming stagnation for many/most.
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.
PFI itself has well-rehearsed issues, not least contractual inflexibility and complexity. Friend worked in a university dept in a PFI hospital/medical school. She and her colleagues would never join a union - till one day some heavy shelving, craply installed, collapsed, and almost hit them. They all went to join up after I pointed out how many organizations/companies they'd have to sue if any of them had been injured.
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.
Just those 5?
That's four by my count.
I'll pretend I thought there was a comma between service and performance, and that that makes sense, rather than admit I cannot count.
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!
Browns went decades ago - maybe 40-50 years? - though the name was still visible on the side.
The £100 lightbulb stories are not an inherent feature of PFI but rather mismanagement of them from an organisational standpoint (through ignorance of the rights under the contract mainly).
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?
In this case no.
It seems likely that he's going to be indicted for the document theft thing pretty soon. I would expect that one to land with an audible boink.
Something seems to be happening with the January 6th investigation which seems to be looking at Trump personally but I don't think we know how they're doing with that one or what might happen when.
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.
PFI itself has well-rehearsed issues, not least contractual inflexibility and complexity. Friend worked in a university dept in a PFI hospital/medical school. She and her colleagues would never join a union - till one day some heavy shelving, craply installed, collapsed, and almost hit them. They all went to join up after I pointed out how many organizations/companies they'd have to sue if any of them had been injured.
You’d sue one - their employer.
In theory. In practice ... ands if you don't have union support ...
I wonder if Ben Stokes is the greatest captain of any significant sport anywhere, at any time
I cannot think of another captain who is simultaneously so transformational in attitude, so capable AS a captain (guiding the team), and so brilliant in his performances (eg he takes one superlative, pivotal catch in this game)
This suggests it will be hard for many teams worldwide to match "Bazball". You need a Ben Stokes. We are very very lucky to have him and we will remember these gilded years
It is this sort of question which I’ve obsessed over since I first arrived in the UK.
My first “proper” job took me around the country and I was astonished at the squalor of major British towns and cities compared with what I saw on my various holidays to Europe.
After looking at this for over twenty years, the simplest answer is that British local government is pretty much the weakest in the OECD, and therefore there are frankly no bodies with the money or will to invest in local infrastructure.
The sole exception to this is of course London, which is pumped with money from TfL and various nominally central government bodies.
As Labour note in their report (and let’s not pretend they are not as guilty as anyone), to the extent anyone has money it’s Treasury, and they’ve been institutionally biased against investment in cities outside London because their business models need existing success to justify new funding.
This dire situation has been going on since at least the early 20th century. A vicious cycle of underinvestment has led to ever decreasing levels of money.
I wonder if Ben Stokes is the greatest captain of any significant sport anywhere, at any time
I cannot think of another captain who is simultaneously so transformational in attitude, so capable AS a captain (guiding the team), and so brilliant in his performances (eg he takes one superlative, pivotal catch in this game)
This suggests it will be hard for many teams worldwide to match "Bazball". You need a Ben Stokes. We are very very lucky to have him and we will remember these gilded years
God bless the jury that (somehow) found him not guilty of affray.
It is this sort of question which I’ve obsessed over since I first arrived in the UK.
My first “proper” job took me around the country and I was astonished at the squalor of major British towns and cities compared with what I saw on my various holidays to Europe.
After looking at this for over twenty years, the simplest answer is that British local government is pretty much the weakest in the OECD, and therefore there are frankly no bodies with the money or will to invest in local infrastructure.
The sole exception to this is of course London, which is pumped with money from TfL and various nominally central government bodies.
As Labour note in their report (and let’s not pretend they are not as guilty as anyone), to the extent anyone has money it’s Treasury, and they’ve been institutionally biased against investment in cities outside London because their business models need existing success to justify new funding.
This dire situation has been going on since at least the early 20th century. A vicious cycle of underinvestment has led to ever decreasing levels of money.
I think this is a big part of it. Also, much of the UK's cities have been ruined by brutalist architecture. If the neighborhood looks dark and grim anyway, people don't want to look after it. Ex-Soviet cities are similarly grim.
It is this sort of question which I’ve obsessed over since I first arrived in the UK.
My first “proper” job took me around the country and I was astonished at the squalor of major British towns and cities compared with what I saw on my various holidays to Europe.
After looking at this for over twenty years, the simplest answer is that British local government is pretty much the weakest in the OECD, and therefore there are frankly no bodies with the money or will to invest in local infrastructure.
The sole exception to this is of course London, which is pumped with money from TfL and various nominally central government bodies.
As Labour note in their report (and let’s not pretend they are not as guilty as anyone), to the extent anyone has money it’s Treasury, and they’ve been institutionally biased against investment in cities outside London because their business models need existing success to justify new funding.
This dire situation has been going on since at least the early 20th century. A vicious cycle of underinvestment has led to ever decreasing levels of money.
I was the PB-er who introduced Seville as an example of successful urbanism, I believe?
And it is a wonderful city, spellbinding and gracious, with great food and magnificent architecture, and superbly re-urbanised in the last two decades
However on my last day there I got to see the endless suburbs, Not so good at all. Stalinist housing blocks for mile after mile. All the people having a great time in the Old City come back to a mild sunny dystopia
This is true of many continental European cities which look and feel nicer than British cities in the middle (and they are nicer and lovelier - in the middle). Often the places where the people actually live are not so good at all. Cf les banlieues
Britain, as ever, is halfway between the US and the EU. In the US the downtowns are often a disaster, whereas the suburbs are beautiful and opulent; the opposite is true in the EU
Can anyone explain why University Challenge is still shielding the contestants from each other?
Dunno (although when was the series recorded?) but Ho Chi Minh's stint as a London chef, as mentioned by Ghedebrav on this thread, was one of the questions last night.
It is this sort of question which I’ve obsessed over since I first arrived in the UK.
My first “proper” job took me around the country and I was astonished at the squalor of major British towns and cities compared with what I saw on my various holidays to Europe.
After looking at this for over twenty years, the simplest answer is that British local government is pretty much the weakest in the OECD, and therefore there are frankly no bodies with the money or will to invest in local infrastructure.
The sole exception to this is of course London, which is pumped with money from TfL and various nominally central government bodies.
As Labour note in their report (and let’s not pretend they are not as guilty as anyone), to the extent anyone has money it’s Treasury, and they’ve been institutionally biased against investment in cities outside London because their business models need existing success to justify new funding.
This dire situation has been going on since at least the early 20th century. A vicious cycle of underinvestment has led to ever decreasing levels of money.
I was the PB-er who introduced Seville as an example of successful urbanism, I believe?
And it is a wonderful city, spellbinding and gracious, with great food and magnificent architecture, and superbly re-urbanised in the last two decades
However on my last day there I got to see the endless suburbs, Not so good at all. Stalinist housing blocks for mile after mile. All the people having a great time in the Old City come back to a mild sunny dystopia
This is true of many continental European cities which look and feel nicer than British cities in the middle (and they are nicer and lovelier - in the middle). Often the places where the people actually live are not so good at all. Cf les banlieues
Britain, as ever, is halfway between the US and the EU. In the US the downtowns are often a disaster, whereas the suburbs are beautiful and opulent; the opposite is true in the EU
The centre of American cities are increasingly regenerated. It's the public housing areas just outside the real downtown that is grim. And this is only true for northern cities. The fast growing places like Denver, Austin, Orlando, Charlotte etc are all pretty nice. It's the rural areas that are dumps in the South.
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.
It is this sort of question which I’ve obsessed over since I first arrived in the UK.
My first “proper” job took me around the country and I was astonished at the squalor of major British towns and cities compared with what I saw on my various holidays to Europe.
After looking at this for over twenty years, the simplest answer is that British local government is pretty much the weakest in the OECD, and therefore there are frankly no bodies with the money or will to invest in local infrastructure.
The sole exception to this is of course London, which is pumped with money from TfL and various nominally central government bodies.
As Labour note in their report (and let’s not pretend they are not as guilty as anyone), to the extent anyone has money it’s Treasury, and they’ve been institutionally biased against investment in cities outside London because their business models need existing success to justify new funding.
This dire situation has been going on since at least the early 20th century. A vicious cycle of underinvestment has led to ever decreasing levels of money.
I was the PB-er who introduced Seville as an example of successful urbanism, I believe?
And it is a wonderful city, spellbinding and gracious, with great food and magnificent architecture, and superbly re-urbanised in the last two decades
However on my last day there I got to see the endless suburbs, Not so good at all. Stalinist housing blocks for mile after mile. All the people having a great time in the Old City come back to a mild sunny dystopia
This is true of many continental European cities which look and feel nicer than British cities in the middle (and they are nicer and lovelier - in the middle). Often the places where the people actually live are not so good at all. Cf les banlieues
Britain, as ever, is halfway between the US and the EU. In the US the downtowns are often a disaster, whereas the suburbs are beautiful and opulent; the opposite is true in the EU
The centre of American cities are increasingly regenerated. It's the public housing areas just outside the real downtown that is grim. And this is only true for northern cities. The fast growing places like Denver, Austin, Orlando, Charlotte etc are all pretty nice. It's the rural areas that are dumps in the South.
This, I am afraid, is not my recent experience of post-Covid America
Have you been?
A lot of cities have been terrible hollowed out by Covid, and workers are not returning. Crime is surging. Homelessness and addiction are endemic. So those downtowns that were reviving in 2019 are now often in reverse, and those that were struggling are now fucked
I was in Denver six weeks ago. The downtown is bleak and deserted, but sunny
It is this sort of question which I’ve obsessed over since I first arrived in the UK.
My first “proper” job took me around the country and I was astonished at the squalor of major British towns and cities compared with what I saw on my various holidays to Europe.
After looking at this for over twenty years, the simplest answer is that British local government is pretty much the weakest in the OECD, and therefore there are frankly no bodies with the money or will to invest in local infrastructure.
The sole exception to this is of course London, which is pumped with money from TfL and various nominally central government bodies.
As Labour note in their report (and let’s not pretend they are not as guilty as anyone), to the extent anyone has money it’s Treasury, and they’ve been institutionally biased against investment in cities outside London because their business models need existing success to justify new funding.
This dire situation has been going on since at least the early 20th century. A vicious cycle of underinvestment has led to ever decreasing levels of money.
I was the PB-er who introduced Seville as an example of successful urbanism, I believe?
And it is a wonderful city, spellbinding and gracious, with great food and magnificent architecture, and superbly re-urbanised in the last two decades
However on my last day there I got to see the endless suburbs, Not so good at all. Stalinist housing blocks for mile after mile. All the people having a great time in the Old City come back to a mild sunny dystopia
This is true of many continental European cities which look and feel nicer than British cities in the middle (and they are nicer and lovelier - in the middle). Often the places where the people actually live are not so good at all. Cf les banlieues
Britain, as ever, is halfway between the US and the EU. In the US the downtowns are often a disaster, whereas the suburbs are beautiful and opulent; the opposite is true in the EU
The centre of American cities are increasingly regenerated. It's the public housing areas just outside the real downtown that is grim. And this is only true for northern cities. The fast growing places like Denver, Austin, Orlando, Charlotte etc are all pretty nice. It's the rural areas that are dumps in the South.
This, I am afraid, is not my recent experience of post-Covid America
Have you been?
A lot of cities have been terrible hollowed out by Covid, and workers are not returning. Crime is surging. Homelessness and addiction are endemic. So those downtowns that were reviving in 2019 are now often in reverse, and those that were struggling are now fucked
I was in Denver six weeks ago. The downtown is bleak and deserted, but sunny
I am coming up to a year in Manhattan, so I have seen it and lived it in all seasons.
New Yorkers believe that crime and homelessness are up. The subway is a squalid hellhole. The overall ambience is better than it was when I arrived, but it is not quite yet “back”.
To the extent that young people don’t think London is cool anymore, it is not New York they are looking to either.
It is this sort of question which I’ve obsessed over since I first arrived in the UK.
My first “proper” job took me around the country and I was astonished at the squalor of major British towns and cities compared with what I saw on my various holidays to Europe.
After looking at this for over twenty years, the simplest answer is that British local government is pretty much the weakest in the OECD, and therefore there are frankly no bodies with the money or will to invest in local infrastructure.
The sole exception to this is of course London, which is pumped with money from TfL and various nominally central government bodies.
As Labour note in their report (and let’s not pretend they are not as guilty as anyone), to the extent anyone has money it’s Treasury, and they’ve been institutionally biased against investment in cities outside London because their business models need existing success to justify new funding.
This dire situation has been going on since at least the early 20th century. A vicious cycle of underinvestment has led to ever decreasing levels of money.
I was the PB-er who introduced Seville as an example of successful urbanism, I believe?
And it is a wonderful city, spellbinding and gracious, with great food and magnificent architecture, and superbly re-urbanised in the last two decades
However on my last day there I got to see the endless suburbs, Not so good at all. Stalinist housing blocks for mile after mile. All the people having a great time in the Old City come back to a mild sunny dystopia
This is true of many continental European cities which look and feel nicer than British cities in the middle (and they are nicer and lovelier - in the middle). Often the places where the people actually live are not so good at all. Cf les banlieues
Britain, as ever, is halfway between the US and the EU. In the US the downtowns are often a disaster, whereas the suburbs are beautiful and opulent; the opposite is true in the EU
The centre of American cities are increasingly regenerated. It's the public housing areas just outside the real downtown that is grim. And this is only true for northern cities. The fast growing places like Denver, Austin, Orlando, Charlotte etc are all pretty nice. It's the rural areas that are dumps in the South.
This, I am afraid, is not my recent experience of post-Covid America
Have you been?
A lot of cities have been terrible hollowed out by Covid, and workers are not returning. Crime is surging. Homelessness and addiction are endemic. So those downtowns that were reviving in 2019 are now often in reverse, and those that were struggling are now fucked
I was in Denver six weeks ago. The downtown is bleak and deserted, but sunny
I am coming up to a year in Manhattan, so I have seen it and lived it in all seasons.
New Yorkers believe that crime and homelessness are up. The subway is a squalid hellhole. The overall ambience is better than it was when I arrived, but it is not quite yet “back”.
To the extent that young people don’t think London is cool anymore, it is not New York they are looking to either.
Bizarrely, I am hearing good things about Paris.
Paris has really grim problems with crime and migrants, tho it is undoubtedly benefiting from the relative decline of London, LA and NYC - but it is relative
I don't believe any city in the West is absolutely doing well. That time has passed, for now. We are like the late Roman Empire in the 4th century AD, when everyone rich decamped to their villas in the exurbs
@elonmusk In light of concerns about Baker’s possible role in suppression of information important to the public dialogue, he was exited from Twitter today
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.
What have the Conservatives actually achieved in office this time, what are they actually for now?
There’s Nothing. Except achieved Brexit, must defend Brexit.
No growth, no plan for the future, no consistent Conservative position on any policy area, from economy, environment to crime, liberalism to authoritarianism. No story to tell, no record to defend, with their MPs wandering the Lobby wondering what the point is.
There’s a strong argument Brexit and Boris may have killed the Tory’s for good. Not just a temporary switching from the the old brand that served em well for a century - but being party of Brexit and the party of business and growth at same time, is utterly impossible going forward.
It is this sort of question which I’ve obsessed over since I first arrived in the UK.
My first “proper” job took me around the country and I was astonished at the squalor of major British towns and cities compared with what I saw on my various holidays to Europe.
After looking at this for over twenty years, the simplest answer is that British local government is pretty much the weakest in the OECD, and therefore there are frankly no bodies with the money or will to invest in local infrastructure.
The sole exception to this is of course London, which is pumped with money from TfL and various nominally central government bodies.
As Labour note in their report (and let’s not pretend they are not as guilty as anyone), to the extent anyone has money it’s Treasury, and they’ve been institutionally biased against investment in cities outside London because their business models need existing success to justify new funding.
This dire situation has been going on since at least the early 20th century. A vicious cycle of underinvestment has led to ever decreasing levels of money.
I was the PB-er who introduced Seville as an example of successful urbanism, I believe?
And it is a wonderful city, spellbinding and gracious, with great food and magnificent architecture, and superbly re-urbanised in the last two decades
However on my last day there I got to see the endless suburbs, Not so good at all. Stalinist housing blocks for mile after mile. All the people having a great time in the Old City come back to a mild sunny dystopia
This is true of many continental European cities which look and feel nicer than British cities in the middle (and they are nicer and lovelier - in the middle). Often the places where the people actually live are not so good at all. Cf les banlieues
Britain, as ever, is halfway between the US and the EU. In the US the downtowns are often a disaster, whereas the suburbs are beautiful and opulent; the opposite is true in the EU
The centre of American cities are increasingly regenerated. It's the public housing areas just outside the real downtown that is grim. And this is only true for northern cities. The fast growing places like Denver, Austin, Orlando, Charlotte etc are all pretty nice. It's the rural areas that are dumps in the South.
This, I am afraid, is not my recent experience of post-Covid America
Have you been?
A lot of cities have been terrible hollowed out by Covid, and workers are not returning. Crime is surging. Homelessness and addiction are endemic. So those downtowns that were reviving in 2019 are now often in reverse, and those that were struggling are now fucked
I was in Denver six weeks ago. The downtown is bleak and deserted, but sunny
I am coming up to a year in Manhattan, so I have seen it and lived it in all seasons.
New Yorkers believe that crime and homelessness are up. The subway is a squalid hellhole. The overall ambience is better than it was when I arrived, but it is not quite yet “back”.
To the extent that young people don’t think London is cool anymore, it is not New York they are looking to either.
Bizarrely, I am hearing good things about Paris.
Admittedly that was not my experience as a tourist on Manhattan. Bars were crowded with young folks, the subway was a bit worn but was generally clean and orderly. The thing that really stood out to me was the number of people on the streets appearing to be having full blown mental health crises. There seemed, to me, to be quite a lot of that. I have to emphasise that I was a tourist, but I really loved the city. I should probably also emphasise that, in my early 30s, I'm also not young anymore.
It is this sort of question which I’ve obsessed over since I first arrived in the UK.
My first “proper” job took me around the country and I was astonished at the squalor of major British towns and cities compared with what I saw on my various holidays to Europe.
After looking at this for over twenty years, the simplest answer is that British local government is pretty much the weakest in the OECD, and therefore there are frankly no bodies with the money or will to invest in local infrastructure.
The sole exception to this is of course London, which is pumped with money from TfL and various nominally central government bodies.
As Labour note in their report (and let’s not pretend they are not as guilty as anyone), to the extent anyone has money it’s Treasury, and they’ve been institutionally biased against investment in cities outside London because their business models need existing success to justify new funding.
This dire situation has been going on since at least the early 20th century. A vicious cycle of underinvestment has led to ever decreasing levels of money.
I was the PB-er who introduced Seville as an example of successful urbanism, I believe?
And it is a wonderful city, spellbinding and gracious, with great food and magnificent architecture, and superbly re-urbanised in the last two decades
However on my last day there I got to see the endless suburbs, Not so good at all. Stalinist housing blocks for mile after mile. All the people having a great time in the Old City come back to a mild sunny dystopia
This is true of many continental European cities which look and feel nicer than British cities in the middle (and they are nicer and lovelier - in the middle). Often the places where the people actually live are not so good at all. Cf les banlieues
Britain, as ever, is halfway between the US and the EU. In the US the downtowns are often a disaster, whereas the suburbs are beautiful and opulent; the opposite is true in the EU
The centre of American cities are increasingly regenerated. It's the public housing areas just outside the real downtown that is grim. And this is only true for northern cities. The fast growing places like Denver, Austin, Orlando, Charlotte etc are all pretty nice. It's the rural areas that are dumps in the South.
This, I am afraid, is not my recent experience of post-Covid America
Have you been?
A lot of cities have been terrible hollowed out by Covid, and workers are not returning. Crime is surging. Homelessness and addiction are endemic. So those downtowns that were reviving in 2019 are now often in reverse, and those that were struggling are now fucked
I was in Denver six weeks ago. The downtown is bleak and deserted, but sunny
I am coming up to a year in Manhattan, so I have seen it and lived it in all seasons.
New Yorkers believe that crime and homelessness are up. The subway is a squalid hellhole. The overall ambience is better than it was when I arrived, but it is not quite yet “back”.
To the extent that young people don’t think London is cool anymore, it is not New York they are looking to either.
Bizarrely, I am hearing good things about Paris.
Paris has really grim problems with crime and migrants, tho it is undoubtedly benefiting from the relative decline of London, LA and NYC - but it is relative
I don't believe any city in the West is absolutely doing well. That time has passed, for now. We are like the late Roman Empire in the 4th century AD, when everyone rich decamped to their villas in the exurbs
Are you not seeing a collapse into wanton debauchery yet?
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.
What have the Conservatives actually achieved in office this time, what are they actually for now?
There’s Nothing. Except achieved Brexit, must defend Brexit.
No growth, no plan for the future, no consistent Conservative position on any policy area, from economy, environment to crime, liberalism to authoritarianism. No story to tell, no record to defend, with their MPs wandering the Lobby wondering what the point is.
There’s a strong argument Brexit and Boris may have killed the Tory’s for good. Not just a temporary switching from the the old brand that served em well for a century - but being party of Brexit and the party of business and growth at same time, is utterly impossible going forward.
Vote Tory because… What have I missed?
But that is always the way. People will vote Labour into power because they are not the Tories. Then in 5 or, more likely, 10 year's time they will vote the Tories back into power because they are not Labour. It has always been the way and always will be. What the Tory party will be like in 5 or 10 year's time I have no idea. Just as we had no idea what Labour would look like now when Cameron became PM in 2010. But (sadly IMO) each party - or something very much like them - will still be here in a decade or so and we will be talking about how Labour have failed to achieve much in their second term and are looking tired and unfit for Government.
@elonmusk In light of concerns about Baker’s possible role in suppression of information important to the public dialogue, he was exited from Twitter today
The NYPost article is an interesting one, not least because it has moved from "there was a deliberate conspiracy to suppress something harmful to Biden" to
"Baker’s exit from the social media giant comes after independent journalist Matt Taibbi revealed internal documents showing Baker and other top Twitter execs deliberating over what to do about The Post’s October 2020 story on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop and his alleged influence peddling schemes. "
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.
What have the Conservatives actually achieved in office this time, what are they actually for now?
There’s Nothing. Except achieved Brexit, must defend Brexit.
No growth, no plan for the future, no consistent Conservative position on any policy area, from economy, environment to crime, liberalism to authoritarianism. No story to tell, no record to defend, with their MPs wandering the Lobby wondering what the point is.
There’s a strong argument Brexit and Boris may have killed the Tory’s for good. Not just a temporary switching from the the old brand that served em well for a century - but being party of Brexit and the party of business and growth at same time, is utterly impossible going forward.
Vote Tory because… What have I missed?
But that is always the way. People will vote Labour into power because they are not the Tories. Then in 5 or, more likely, 10 year's time they will vote the Tories back into power because they are not Labour. It has always been the way and always will be. What the Tory party will be like in 5 or 10 year's time I have no idea. Just as we had no idea what Labour would look like now when Cameron became PM in 2010. But (sadly IMO) each party - or something very much like them - will still be here in a decade or so and we will be talking about how Labour have failed to achieve much in their second term and are looking tired and unfit for Government.
I’m saying if Tories continue to back Brexit they don’t come back ever, unless they make Brexit brand a success, as anti growth and anti business is incompatible with their old successful brand. Which you could rely on them for. Fair enough if you don’t see it like that. But Christ! How do you get up to 27000 posts?
I lurk a lot of sites, but I never comment. Don’t know how often I’ll post, I’m busy trawling round the web. As I’m here now, it’s working, can I offer congrats to Putin and Truss for entering themselves in the history books, as two of the biggest losers of all time. And come on England, I believe our time has come at last! Don’t you? Earwig ho! 🏴
PS Although I’m from Eltham and still live on Court Road, I ain’t no Alf Garnett type. But though the japs are well drilled, as a race just too short for football ain’t they?
If I was Japan coach, I’d have played Java in the middle and Krakatoa to the West of him.
I’m saying if Tories continue to back Brexit they don’t come back ever, unless they make Brexit brand a success, as anti growth and anti business is incompatible with their old successful brand. Which you could rely on them for. Fair enough if you don’t see it like that. But Christ! How do you get up to 27000 posts?
I lurk a lot of sites, but I never comment. Don’t know how often I’ll post, I’m busy trawling round the web. As I’m here now, it’s working, can I offer congrats to Putin and Truss for entering themselves in the history books, as two of the biggest losers of all time. And come on England, I believe our time has come at last! Don’t you? Earwig ho! 🏴
PS Although I’m from Eltham and still live on Court Road, I ain’t no Alf Garnett type. But though the japs are well drilled, as a race just too short for football ain’t they?
If I was Japan coach, I’d have played Java in the middle and Krakatoa to the West of him.
Posting stuff generated by ChatGPT has been banned at Stack Exchange. There is delicious irony in that being the site where so many saddo programmer types hang out. A case of "Did one of us do this or did one of our contraptions do it? Better ban ourselves from using our contraptions."
I’m saying if Tories continue to back Brexit they don’t come back ever, unless they make Brexit brand a success, as anti growth and anti business is incompatible with their old successful brand. Which you could rely on them for. Fair enough if you don’t see it like that. But Christ! How do you get up to 27000 posts?
I lurk a lot of sites, but I never comment. Don’t know how often I’ll post, I’m busy trawling round the web. As I’m here now, it’s working, can I offer congrats to Putin and Truss for entering themselves in the history books, as two of the biggest losers of all time. And come on England, I believe our time has come at last! Don’t you? Earwig ho! 🏴
PS Although I’m from Eltham and still live on Court Road, I ain’t no Alf Garnett type. But though the japs are well drilled, as a race just too short for football ain’t they?
If I was Japan coach, I’d have played Java in the middle and Krakatoa to the West of him.
Welcome aboard, John!
Cheers. Weird like, going from one dimensions to three. I’ve already had replies.
And as I can post, on behalf of politics lurkers can I say big thank you for clearing a lot of dead wood from the site recently. Drama queen Horse Battery, “nasty Nick” Ismael, that rabbiting Moon Rabbit. Too many pointless posts, too many pointless pictures posted here were just ruining the place.
Obviously still a few pointless posters and their look at me posts and pictures to weed out, but this sites getting more on topic so better to pop in and read and out.
Posting stuff generated by ChatGPT has been banned at Stack Exchange. There is delicious irony in that being the site where so many saddo programmer types hang out. A case of "Did one of us do this or did one of our contraptions do it? Better ban ourselves from using our contraptions."
It's been banned because it produces too many wrong answers. But it's written in a very plausible way.
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.
What have the Conservatives actually achieved in office this time, what are they actually for now?
There’s Nothing. Except achieved Brexit, must defend Brexit.
No growth, no plan for the future, no consistent Conservative position on any policy area, from economy, environment to crime, liberalism to authoritarianism. No story to tell, no record to defend, with their MPs wandering the Lobby wondering what the point is.
There’s a strong argument Brexit and Boris may have killed the Tory’s for good. Not just a temporary switching from the the old brand that served em well for a century - but being party of Brexit and the party of business and growth at same time, is utterly impossible going forward.
Vote Tory because… What have I missed?
The Tories have b*llsed the country further up, shoved it further down the plughole - that's what they've achieved.
What are they actually for now? Obedience, mostly. False hope among the naive. Greed. "F*** you, I'm all right Jack". Caste. The army. The monarchy. A bit of bureaucratic "let's turn things around" hockeysticks bullsh*t chickenfeed for the administrative middle classes. Does it matter? There's not an election on.
What will they be for in the next election? You seem to think they'll fight it mostly on Brexit but they won't. Bre-what? They will strive to continue to be seen as tougher on immigration than Labour and tougher than all the smaller parties that Labour would supposedly imperil the country by possibly entering into a woky, rainbowy, allow-the-foreigners-to-take-over coalition with - that's what they will do.
Facts about immigration or reasonable arguments about what happens when this or that lever is pulled or not pulled are mostly beside the point. An election isn't a debate.
@elonmusk In light of concerns about Baker’s possible role in suppression of information important to the public dialogue, he was exited from Twitter today
The NYPost article is an interesting one, not least because it has moved from "there was a deliberate conspiracy to suppress something harmful to Biden" to
"Baker’s exit from the social media giant comes after independent journalist Matt Taibbi revealed internal documents showing Baker and other top Twitter execs deliberating over what to do about The Post’s October 2020 story on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop and his alleged influence peddling schemes. "
The allegation is that Baker, still employed, was in charge of sending the documents to Taibbi, and he censored them (some of the emails involved him):
@elonmusk In light of concerns about Baker’s possible role in suppression of information important to the public dialogue, he was exited from Twitter today
I’m saying if Tories continue to back Brexit they don’t come back ever, unless they make Brexit brand a success, as anti growth and anti business is incompatible with their old successful brand. Which you could rely on them for. Fair enough if you don’t see it like that. But Christ! How do you get up to 27000 posts?
I lurk a lot of sites, but I never comment. Don’t know how often I’ll post, I’m busy trawling round the web. As I’m here now, it’s working, can I offer congrats to Putin and Truss for entering themselves in the history books, as two of the biggest losers of all time. And come on England, I believe our time has come at last! Don’t you? Earwig ho! 🏴
PS Although I’m from Eltham and still live on Court Road, I ain’t no Alf Garnett type. But though the japs are well drilled, as a race just too short for football ain’t they?
If I was Japan coach, I’d have played Java in the middle and Krakatoa to the West of him.
Welcome aboard, John!
Cheers. Weird like, going from one dimensions to three. I’ve already had replies.
And as I can post, on behalf of politics lurkers can I say big thank you for clearing a lot of dead wood from the site recently. Drama queen Horse Battery, “nasty Nick” Ismael, that rabbiting Moon Rabbit. Too many pointless posts, too many pointless pictures posted here were just ruining the place.
Obviously still a few pointless posters and their look at me posts and pictures to weed out, but this sites getting more on topic so better to pop in and read and out.
I’m not here for likes, but it’s nice to get em
As this a proper grown up site all these recent pile-ons and bans been long overdue - one endlessly ramping polls as though Tory’s storming back to popularity when every other pollster bar the Observer one got them falling back for God’s sake? Yeah sure we can just ignore the bots the best we can, but the risible rabbit one was doing that on a proper betting site, evermore shrill like the CONHQ bot but without ever one intelligent post. Should’ve been banned long ago.
What is very funny though, I read all the political sites for shit and giggles and think I found her repeating same crap to ingratiate herself on Conservatives home, and it’s just not going down well there either “hey! What’s with all the dislikes”
52-48 with I'd think nearly all the early votes in. But you can get 100-1 on Walker. People must be calculating that the Republicans voted more than last time in early voting.
52-48 with I'd think nearly all the early votes in. But you can get 100-1 on Walker. People must be calculating that the Republicans voted more than last time in early voting.
Pretty much all the counties that have completed counting are showing small moves to Warnock, which is presumably behind the current odds.
According to the Washington Post's model (about which I know nothing) "Warnock is behind in the vote count, but favored to win after all votes are counted. Walker still has a slight chance."
According to the Washington Post's model (about which I know nothing) "Warnock is behind in the vote count, but favored to win after all votes are counted. Walker still has a slight chance."
Yes, that mass ovtes still to count in urban areas should carry it for Warnock - but I think 50-1 overstates it.
Someone by the name of Rod Crosby was banned permanently a few years back. He'd actually produced a lot of interesting threads on voting systems for the site before that.
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?
Am willing to bet, that the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo ends up indicted for violation of federal laws pertaining to what you Brits call Official Secrets.
This is a charge that he is clearly rotten-ripe for being charged. AND one that he cannot slip easily, seeing as how even a kindergartener can understand the crime(s) he's committed in this realm.
That number testifies to Hershel Walker's truly pathetic showing with Black voters. Who were the key strategic target behind Trump & his fellow Putinist recruiting HW for the Republican nomination in the first place.
Hershel Walker and his puppeteers have manged to transform - or rather trash - his image & record as a great Georgia sports icon, into a freaking freak show and standing embarrassment to his state, his party, his race - and himself.
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?
Am willing to bet, that the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo ends up indicted for violation of federal laws pertaining to what you Brits call Official Secrets.
This is a charge that he is clearly rotten-ripe for being charged. AND one that he cannot slip easily, seeing as how even a kindergartener can understand the crime(s) he's committed in this realm.
Assuming he gets indicted for the document theft, what happens next? Presumably he can stall a trial for a year or two?
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?
Am willing to bet, that the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo ends up indicted for violation of federal laws pertaining to what you Brits call Official Secrets.
This is a charge that he is clearly rotten-ripe for being charged. AND one that he cannot slip easily, seeing as how even a kindergartener can understand the crime(s) he's committed in this realm.
Assuming he gets indicted for the document theft, what happens next? Presumably he can stall a trial for a year or two?
Joe McCarthy 1952 - Throw the security risks out of the White House!
Donald Trump 2024 - Send a security risk to the White House!
At the moment, NYT via AP says Warnock 50.6% versus Walker 49.4%
Which rounds to 51% v 49%
Given that counties with largest stashes of as-yet-uncounted votes are DeKalb, Fulton, Cobb & Gwimmett, reckon that Sen. Warnock will reach 51% without much if any rounding when all the votes are counted.
Comments
The Palace of Westminster stuff just pisses me off royally, since as its so obvious that no matter what you were to use it for the place needs fixing up, and it will never be popular to spend money on it, so there was never any point to delay, yet supposedly intelligent MPs and Lords seem not to care.
She had not only heard of them but said
I once went for a bra fitting in York at Fenwicks
29.5 years married and now I find this out
Thanks PB
I looked at the World Bank source.
Without making any judgement on who was responsible for what, the UK was pretty much top of the league and therefore closing the gap with the USA from 1990 (when records begin in that data set) until the GFC.
(There is some research that suggests this was due to improved service productivity wrought by various liberal reforms started under Thatcher and continued by Blair.)
After the GFC, performance was middling, which is not surprising given the necessary deleveraging.
From Covid/Brexit onwards, performance is dire. We are bottom after Italy and the last forecast from the IMF suggested that this would continue through 2024.
Given that what growth has been achieved has gone disproportionately to the top one or two deciles (which is not so true anywhere outside the USA), the effect is seeming stagnation for many/most.
Edit: still is: https://www.google.com/maps/@55.9476598,-3.1915667,3a,47.6y,24.94h,89.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6XFguXhEvgrOB6iTCCGQnA!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=6XFguXhEvgrOB6iTCCGQnA&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=284.00842&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192
Murrays was still functioning in Morrison St till quite recently, maybe 5-10 years ago? Packed in, alas. Much regret.
It seems likely that he's going to be indicted for the document theft thing pretty soon. I would expect that one to land with an audible boink.
Something seems to be happening with the January 6th investigation which seems to be looking at Trump personally but I don't think we know how they're doing with that one or what might happen when.
I wonder if Ben Stokes is the greatest captain of any significant sport anywhere, at any time
I cannot think of another captain who is simultaneously so transformational in attitude, so capable AS a captain (guiding the team), and so brilliant in his performances (eg he takes one superlative, pivotal catch in this game)
This suggests it will be hard for many teams worldwide to match "Bazball". You need a Ben Stokes. We are very very lucky to have him and we will remember these gilded years
But yes, they went not long after that. For a while Omni Electronics on Dalkeith Road was a viable alternative, but it is long gone as well.
Murrays moved to Leith, but I don't think they lasted long there.
It is this sort of question which I’ve obsessed over since I first arrived in the UK.
My first “proper” job took me around the country and I was astonished at the squalor of major British towns and cities compared with what I saw on my various holidays to Europe.
After looking at this for over twenty years, the simplest answer is that British local government is pretty much the weakest in the OECD, and therefore there are frankly no bodies with the money or will to invest in local infrastructure.
The sole exception to this is of course London, which is pumped with money from TfL and various nominally central government bodies.
As Labour note in their report (and let’s not pretend they are not as guilty as anyone), to the extent anyone has money it’s Treasury, and they’ve been institutionally biased against investment in cities outside London because their business models need existing success to justify new funding.
This dire situation has been going on since at least the early 20th century. A vicious cycle of underinvestment has led to ever decreasing levels of money.
And it is a wonderful city, spellbinding and gracious, with great food and magnificent architecture, and superbly re-urbanised in the last two decades
However on my last day there I got to see the endless suburbs, Not so good at all. Stalinist housing blocks for mile after mile. All the people having a great time in the Old City come back to a mild sunny dystopia
This is true of many continental European cities which look and feel nicer than British cities in the middle (and they are nicer and lovelier - in the middle). Often the places where the people actually live are not so good at all. Cf les banlieues
Britain, as ever, is halfway between the US and the EU. In the US the downtowns are often a disaster, whereas the suburbs are beautiful and opulent; the opposite is true in the EU
Have you been?
A lot of cities have been terrible hollowed out by Covid, and workers are not returning. Crime is surging. Homelessness and addiction are endemic. So those downtowns that were reviving in 2019 are now often in reverse, and those that were struggling are now fucked
I was in Denver six weeks ago. The downtown is bleak and deserted, but sunny
"Holiday season hits downtown as Denver struggles to control crime, boost safety
"I feel like if we all avoid downtown too much, then it's, you know, things are just gonna kind of perpetuate that," said Dan Gravee.
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock admits that downtown Denver has its share of problems. The proof is in vacant buildings and fewer guests and visitors.
"There's no way to sugarcoat it... downtown has really been impacted by the pandemic," said Hancock."
https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/holiday-season-downtown-denver-crime-safety/
New Yorkers believe that crime and homelessness are up. The subway is a squalid hellhole. The overall ambience is better than it was when I arrived, but it is not quite yet “back”.
To the extent that young people don’t think London is cool anymore, it is not New York they are looking to either.
Bizarrely, I am hearing good things about Paris.
I don't believe any city in the West is absolutely doing well. That time has passed, for now. We are like the late Roman Empire in the 4th century AD, when everyone rich decamped to their villas in the exurbs
https://nypost.com/2022/12/06/elon-musk-fires-twitter-lawyer-james-baker-over-hunter-biden/
@elonmusk
In light of concerns about Baker’s possible role in suppression of information important to the public dialogue, he was exited from Twitter today
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1600237095364096000
There’s Nothing. Except achieved Brexit, must defend Brexit.
No growth, no plan for the future, no consistent Conservative position on any policy area, from economy, environment to crime, liberalism to authoritarianism. No story to tell, no record to defend, with their MPs wandering the Lobby wondering what the point is.
There’s a strong argument Brexit and Boris may have killed the Tory’s for good. Not just a temporary switching from the the old brand that served em well for a century - but being party of Brexit and the party of business and growth at same time, is utterly impossible going forward.
Vote Tory because… What have I missed?
"Baker’s exit from the social media giant comes after independent journalist Matt Taibbi revealed internal documents showing Baker and other top Twitter execs deliberating over what to do about The Post’s October 2020 story on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop and his alleged influence peddling schemes. "
Fair enough if you don’t see it like that. But Christ! How do you get up to 27000 posts?
I lurk a lot of sites, but I never comment. Don’t know how often I’ll post, I’m busy trawling round the web. As I’m here now, it’s working, can I offer congrats to Putin and Truss for entering themselves in the history books, as two of the biggest losers of all time.
And come on England, I believe our time has come at last! Don’t you?
Earwig ho! 🏴
PS Although I’m from Eltham and still live on Court Road, I ain’t no Alf Garnett type. But though the japs are well drilled, as a race just too short for football ain’t they?
If I was Japan coach, I’d have played Java in the middle and Krakatoa to the West of him.
And as I can post, on behalf of politics lurkers can I say big thank you for clearing a lot of dead wood from the site recently. Drama queen Horse Battery, “nasty Nick” Ismael, that rabbiting Moon Rabbit. Too many pointless posts, too many pointless pictures posted here were just ruining the place.
Obviously still a few pointless posters and their look at me posts and pictures to weed out, but this sites getting more on topic so better to pop in and read and out.
That doesn't look that great for Warnock to me.
What are they actually for now? Obedience, mostly. False hope among the naive. Greed. "F*** you, I'm all right Jack". Caste. The army. The monarchy. A bit of bureaucratic "let's turn things around" hockeysticks bullsh*t chickenfeed for the administrative middle classes. Does it matter? There's not an election on.
What will they be for in the next election? You seem to think they'll fight it mostly on Brexit but they won't. Bre-what? They will strive to continue to be seen as tougher on immigration than Labour and tougher than all the smaller parties that Labour would supposedly imperil the country by possibly entering into a woky, rainbowy, allow-the-foreigners-to-take-over coalition with - that's what they will do.
Facts about immigration or reasonable arguments about what happens when this or that lever is pulled or not pulled are mostly beside the point. An election isn't a debate.
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1600243405841666048
But we'll see.
As this a proper grown up site all these recent pile-ons and bans been long overdue - one endlessly ramping polls as though Tory’s storming back to popularity when every other pollster bar the Observer one got them falling back for God’s sake? Yeah sure we can just ignore the bots the best we can, but the risible rabbit one was doing that on a proper betting site, evermore shrill like the CONHQ bot but without ever one intelligent post. Should’ve been banned long ago.
What is very funny though, I read all the political sites for shit and giggles and think I found her repeating same crap to ingratiate herself on Conservatives home, and it’s just not going down well there either
“hey! What’s with all the dislikes”
Warnock 99-1 on Betfair.
I've taken some as insurance so I can go to sleep!
Warnock won it 251k to 42k in November.
I need to get to bed - if Walker wins, I win £364, uif he loses, I lose £5. Good enough.
67.7 percent of votes counted.
source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/election-results/2022/georgia-senate-runoff/
This is a charge that he is clearly rotten-ripe for being charged. AND one that he cannot slip easily, seeing as how even a kindergartener can understand the crime(s) he's committed in this realm.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1600317857081872384
Hershel Walker and his puppeteers have manged to transform - or rather trash - his image & record as a great Georgia sports icon, into a freaking freak show and standing embarrassment to his state, his party, his race - and himself.
*But* if you're a real human being, who doesn't libel people*, then your chances of being permabanned are incredibly small.
Donald Trump 2024 - Send a security risk to the White House!
Which rounds to 51% v 49%
Given that counties with largest stashes of as-yet-uncounted votes are DeKalb, Fulton, Cobb & Gwimmett, reckon that Sen. Warnock will reach 51% without much if any rounding when all the votes are counted.