The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
Well they shouldn't be bloody asking for it then. This comes from the same stable as 'the EU don't really mean ever closer union'. I've got absolutely no patience with this sort of politics. It lacks seriousness.
Well I tend to agree and life would be a lot easier if everyone asked for what they actually wanted in a negotiation, but nobody does do they, whether it be a union in a pay negotiation or the employer or you and me buying a car or a house.
On the example of cars: that's pretty much how the car supermarkets work. No real negotiation. If you don't want that car at that price, there are plenty of other cars and plenty of other customers. Buying a car is a lot more pleasant as a result.
This is why the west won. We developed a model of commerce which was moderately open and transparent. We didn't treat every interaction as an opportunity to screw the other party.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
Well they shouldn't be bloody asking for it then. This comes from the same stable as 'the EU don't really mean ever closer union'. I've got absolutely no patience with this sort of politics. It lacks seriousness.
Gentleman doesn't want to haggle...
That's just how it works, and I speak as someone who used to litigate for a living. However sure you are that both sides know that a case is worth £1m, you offer 750 and expect a counter of 1.25 before you meet in the middle. Your position is like saying, what's the point of thanking waiters when you are already paying them to do the thing you are thanking them for? A good question if you are an alien observer from the planet Tharg, but for humans our way works best.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
Well they shouldn't be bloody asking for it then. This comes from the same stable as 'the EU don't really mean ever closer union'. I've got absolutely no patience with this sort of politics. It lacks seriousness.
Well I tend to agree and life would be a lot easier if everyone asked for what they actually wanted in a negotiation, but nobody does do they, whether it be a union in a pay negotiation or the employer or you and me buying a car or a house.
On the example of cars: that's pretty much how the car supermarkets work. No real negotiation. If you don't want that car at that price, there are plenty of other cars and plenty of other customers. Buying a car is a lot more pleasant as a result.
This is why the west won. We developed a model of commerce which was moderately open and transparent. We didn't treat every interaction as an opportunity to screw the other party.
It is my experience when negotiating a deal that it should be a win for both sides. Both giving away what is valuable to the other and less valuable to oneself. A deal where one side screws the other usually goes pearshaped sooner or later.
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
January: Bangkok February: Maldives March: Basque and Catalan Pyrenees April: Languedoc May: Dolomites June: northern Russia July: London and Scotland August: Austria/Switzerland September: Pelion Greece October: Japan November: Louisiana December: London and Luxor
Too much moving about. Great list, though, and set of ideas for seasonal getaways.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
When the comment was made about pay rises being below inflation, you pointed out that the nurses wanted a pay rise above inflation (a good point). Then someone else pointed out they would settle for a rise below inflation. That is it. The response that it is still 3.1% above 6.9% in the private sector although accurate has nothing whatsoever to do with the point being made. Even if it is a valid argument for a completely different discussion
Summary: Statement Counter statement Counter counter statement Statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the previous 3 statements.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
When the comment was made about pay rises being below inflation, you pointed out that the nurses wanted a pay rise above inflation (a good point). Then someone else pointed out they would settle for a rise below inflation. That is it. The response that it is still 3.1% above 6.9% in the private sector although accurate has nothing whatsoever to do with the point being made. Even if it is a valid argument for a completely different discussion
Summary: Statement Counter statement Counter counter statement Statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the previous 3 statements.
Of course it does as private sector taxpayers on an average wage little different to nurses would be paying via their taxes for nurses to get a 3% rise more than they are!
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
The overwhelming majority of pay deals for both public AND private sector workers are total shit, and have been for 15 years now - but, over the course of time since the GFC, state employees have suffered even worse. Trying the classic Dementia Press tactic of calling the likes of teachers and nurses greedy because they're asking for more than what 'hard working taxpayers' are getting (as if state employees aren't also 'hard working taxpayers') is classic divide and rule.
The Government's bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over inflation is about as credible as rich businesses' bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over the shareholder interest. This is *entirely* about perpetuating an exploitative economic model that has no purpose other than to steal money from the young and poor and shove it down the throats of the rich and old until they grow fat and greedy on it. Pensioners' welfare is almost always prioritised over that of the young. The taxation of incomes is almost always prioritised over that of assets.
Money for fat pension increases, appropriate social care, nurses' pay awards and to clear down those appalling NHS waiting lists, along with a great many other things besides, would be made available if the Government extracted a fair share of wealth from the assets, especially the properties, of the rich. A quarter of all pensioners are millionaires, for starters. It's past time people like that were forced to cough up more.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
When the comment was made about pay rises being below inflation, you pointed out that the nurses wanted a pay rise above inflation (a good point). Then someone else pointed out they would settle for a rise below inflation. That is it. The response that it is still 3.1% above 6.9% in the private sector although accurate has nothing whatsoever to do with the point being made. Even if it is a valid argument for a completely different discussion
Summary: Statement Counter statement Counter counter statement Statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the previous 3 statements.
Of course it does as private sector taxpayers on an average wage little different to nurses would be paying via their taxes for nurses to get a 3% rise more than they are!
I know you don't get logic but I'l have another go.
What you have just said is completely valid. No argument with you. It is dandy. However that wasn't the discussion. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Nobody was arguing with you about that (they might but they weren't). Try this:
Person a: All the swans in that pond are black Person b: No I can see a white one Person c: That one has been painted white Person d: My dog has 3 legs
Do you see persons A, B, and C were arguing over the colour of the swan, person D was, well talking about something else.
So in the discussion you were having the discussion was whether the nurses pay claim was above or below inflation and each party put in a valid argument including you back and forth. All dandy.
Then at the end you throw in a random comment that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion i.e they still want more than private sector workers.
A true comment and very interesting but what has it got to do with the discussion? Nothing whatsoever.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
Well they shouldn't be bloody asking for it then. This comes from the same stable as 'the EU don't really mean ever closer union'. I've got absolutely no patience with this sort of politics. It lacks seriousness.
Gentleman doesn't want to haggle...
That's just how it works, and I speak as someone who used to litigate for a living. However sure you are that both sides know that a case is worth £1m, you offer 750 and expect a counter of 1.25 before you meet in the middle. Your position is like saying, what's the point of thanking waiters when you are already paying them to do the thing you are thanking them for? A good question if you are an alien observer from the planet Tharg, but for humans our way works best.
The no strike deals popular in the private sector came out of the realisation that the end result of the whole high-low-strike-high-low-strike thing was foreseeable in advance. So simply go to the end of the dance and settle on that.
Both parties win, because without the strikes, the employees don’t lose pay and the companies don’t lose work done.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
The overwhelming majority of pay deals for both public AND private sector workers are total shit, and have been for 15 years now - but, over the course of time since the GFC, state employees have suffered even worse. Trying the classic Dementia Press tactic of calling the likes of teachers and nurses greedy because they're asking for more than what 'hard working taxpayers' are getting (as if state employees aren't also 'hard working taxpayers') is classic divide and rule.
The Government's bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over inflation is about as credible as rich businesses' bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over the shareholder interest. This is *entirely* about perpetuating an exploitative economic model that has no purpose other than to steal money from the young and poor and shove it down the throats of the rich and old until they grow fat and greedy on it. Pensioners' welfare is almost always prioritised over that of the young. The taxation of incomes is almost always prioritised over that of assets.
Money for fat pension increases, appropriate social care, nurses' pay awards and to clear down those appalling NHS waiting lists, along with a great many other things besides, would be made available if the Government extracted a fair share of wealth from the assets, especially the properties, of the rich. A quarter of all pensioners are millionaires, for starters. It's past time people like that were forced to cough up more.
They have paid tax all their life, have to pay income tax, council tax, their estate inheritance tax if over a million etc.
And they are the Tory core vote so obviously the Tory government is not going to tax them even more
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
Well they shouldn't be bloody asking for it then. This comes from the same stable as 'the EU don't really mean ever closer union'. I've got absolutely no patience with this sort of politics. It lacks seriousness.
Gentleman doesn't want to haggle...
That's just how it works, and I speak as someone who used to litigate for a living. However sure you are that both sides know that a case is worth £1m, you offer 750 and expect a counter of 1.25 before you meet in the middle. Your position is like saying, what's the point of thanking waiters when you are already paying them to do the thing you are thanking them for? A good question if you are an alien observer from the planet Tharg, but for humans our way works best.
The no strike deals popular in the private sector came out of the realisation that the end result of the whole high-low-strike-high-low-strike thing was foreseeable in advance. So simply go to the end of the dance and settle on that.
Both parties win, because without the strikes, the employees don’t lose pay and the companies don’t lose work done.
That reminds me of a (true) new story from about 30 years ago.
A French bank had a fire in its trading floor. Initially the shares fell, but later in the day they rose, as investors realized that their traders would no longer be able to lose money if they weren't at their desks.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
When the comment was made about pay rises being below inflation, you pointed out that the nurses wanted a pay rise above inflation (a good point). Then someone else pointed out they would settle for a rise below inflation. That is it. The response that it is still 3.1% above 6.9% in the private sector although accurate has nothing whatsoever to do with the point being made. Even if it is a valid argument for a completely different discussion
Summary: Statement Counter statement Counter counter statement Statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the previous 3 statements.
Of course it does as private sector taxpayers on an average wage little different to nurses would be paying via their taxes for nurses to get a 3% rise more than they are!
I know you don't get logic but I'l have another go.
What you have just said is completely valid. No argument with you. It is dandy. However that wasn't the discussion. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Nobody was arguing with you about that (they might but they weren't). Try this:
Person a: All the swans in that pond are black Person b: No I can see a white one Person c: That one has been painted white Person d: My dog has 3 legs
Do you see persons A, B, and C were arguing over the colour of the swan, person D was, well talking about something else.
So in the discussion you were having the discussion was whether the nurses pay claim was above or below inflation and each party put in a valid argument including you back and forth. All dandy.
Then at the end you throw in a random comment that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion i.e they still want more than private sector workers.
A true comment and very interesting but what has it got to do with the discussion? Nothing whatsoever.
You just don't seem to get any basic logic.
I said nurses want a 19% payrise NOTHING about only a payrise above inflation being unjustified. That is what you inserted so you could go off on another of your tedious beyond belief logic posts.
I said in my earlier posts on this nurses should get no more than 6% in line with the average payrise nationally and that remains my line
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
January: Bangkok February: Maldives March: Basque and Catalan Pyrenees April: Languedoc May: Dolomites June: northern Russia July: London and Scotland August: Austria/Switzerland September: Pelion Greece October: Japan November: Louisiana December: London and Luxor
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
The overwhelming majority of pay deals for both public AND private sector workers are total shit, and have been for 15 years now - but, over the course of time since the GFC, state employees have suffered even worse. Trying the classic Dementia Press tactic of calling the likes of teachers and nurses greedy because they're asking for more than what 'hard working taxpayers' are getting (as if state employees aren't also 'hard working taxpayers') is classic divide and rule.
The Government's bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over inflation is about as credible as rich businesses' bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over the shareholder interest. This is *entirely* about perpetuating an exploitative economic model that has no purpose other than to steal money from the young and poor and shove it down the throats of the rich and old until they grow fat and greedy on it. Pensioners' welfare is almost always prioritised over that of the young. The taxation of incomes is almost always prioritised over that of assets.
Money for fat pension increases, appropriate social care, nurses' pay awards and to clear down those appalling NHS waiting lists, along with a great many other things besides, would be made available if the Government extracted a fair share of wealth from the assets, especially the properties, of the rich. A quarter of all pensioners are millionaires, for starters. It's past time people like that were forced to cough up more.
They have paid tax all their life, have to pay income tax, council tax, their estate inheritance tax if over a million etc.
And they are the Tory core vote so obviously the Tory government is not going to tax them even more
I've no patience with the "but we paid our taxes!" Stickbanger excuse. The costs of paying for the colossal burden of sick old people with complex health needs - inexorably growing as a proportion of the population - as well as the fallout from a pandemic, where we basically crucified the economy (and a generation of schoolkids along with it) to save septuagenarian lives, has to come from somewhere. The more we milk the remaining productive areas of the economy to try to plug the holes, the further into the morass we sink. Property has to be taxed a lot more, regardless of how much homeowners, certainly not limited to but including vast numbers of old people sitting on overpriced houses in Southern England, scream about it.
Will that happen? Obviously not yet. Your comments about the Tory core vote are, of course, completely valid. The Tories are of fuck all use to anyone in this country except for the people they continue to do their best to enrich at everyone else's expense. Unfortunately this includes well-off pensioners, who are very numerous and also the most likely demographic to bother to turn out to vote. Will Labour show any more willingness to desist from going to the well of earnings over and over and over again, and extract more money from assets instead?
The signs aren't encouraging. All the noises emanating from Starmer's camp right now suggest that they're going to run as the party most competent to manage an endless age of austerity (except for pensioners, for the triple lock will be maintained for all time.) And thus, round the plughole we continue to circle. The only hope for those of us already in the afternoon of our lives is that the country can stagger on for long enough for us to perish of old age before everything completely falls apart. The young are royally screwed.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
When the comment was made about pay rises being below inflation, you pointed out that the nurses wanted a pay rise above inflation (a good point). Then someone else pointed out they would settle for a rise below inflation. That is it. The response that it is still 3.1% above 6.9% in the private sector although accurate has nothing whatsoever to do with the point being made. Even if it is a valid argument for a completely different discussion
Summary: Statement Counter statement Counter counter statement Statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the previous 3 statements.
Of course it does as private sector taxpayers on an average wage little different to nurses would be paying via their taxes for nurses to get a 3% rise more than they are!
I know you don't get logic but I'l have another go.
What you have just said is completely valid. No argument with you. It is dandy. However that wasn't the discussion. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Nobody was arguing with you about that (they might but they weren't). Try this:
Person a: All the swans in that pond are black Person b: No I can see a white one Person c: That one has been painted white Person d: My dog has 3 legs
Do you see persons A, B, and C were arguing over the colour of the swan, person D was, well talking about something else.
So in the discussion you were having the discussion was whether the nurses pay claim was above or below inflation and each party put in a valid argument including you back and forth. All dandy.
Then at the end you throw in a random comment that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion i.e they still want more than private sector workers.
A true comment and very interesting but what has it got to do with the discussion? Nothing whatsoever.
You just don't seem to get any basic logic.
I said nurses want a 19% payrise NOTHING about only a payrise above inflation being unjustified. That is what you inserted so you could go off on another of your tedious beyond belief logic posts.
I said in my earlier posts on this nurses should get no more than 6% in line with the average payrise nationally and that remains my line
Oh for goodness sake read the posts. It is like banging your head against a wall. I inserted nothing.
Someone made a comment about payrises not being above inflation
You correctly and astutely pointed out that nurses wanted a 19% rise (ie in response to pay rises not being above inflation you pointed out theirs was). Take credit where it is due. It was a valid and appropriate point by you.
Then it was discussed that they would probably settle for a below inflation rise.
Then you came out with a perfectly valid statement in response, but that had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Completely unrelated and you can't see that is irrational.
Your line re nurses pay is fine. I have no issue with it. It is a perfectly valid opinion. Not sure why you have brought that up. I'm not saying I agree, but it is a valid point of view.
You are the only person on this site that does not understand very basic logic.
In wind record attempt News were now at 19gw with a bit more strengthening to go during the evening. Record to beat is 20.91gw set on 30th December.
Where are you getting these numbers from? Gridwatch currently have wind at 15.16gw (which is pretty impressive in itself). According to them we are currently importing nearly 20% of our energy through various interconnectors, something that seems to be more attractive than burning gas which is as low as 7%. https://gridwatch.co.uk/
In wind record attempt News were now at 19gw with a bit more strengthening to go during the evening. Record to beat is 20.91gw set on 30th December.
Where are you getting these numbers from? Gridwatch currently have wind at 15.16gw (which is pretty impressive in itself). According to them we are currently importing nearly 20% of our energy through various interconnectors, something that seems to be more attractive than burning gas which is as low as 7%. https://gridwatch.co.uk/
according to gridwatch.iamkate.com it's at 18.9GW.
In wind record attempt News were now at 19gw with a bit more strengthening to go during the evening. Record to beat is 20.91gw set on 30th December.
Where are you getting these numbers from? Gridwatch currently have wind at 15.16gw (which is pretty impressive in itself). According to them we are currently importing nearly 20% of our energy through various interconnectors, something that seems to be more attractive than burning gas which is as low as 7%. https://gridwatch.co.uk/
I think the higher figure includes embedded generation, which isn't explicitly included in the Gridwatch data, where it appears instead as reduced demand.
In wind record attempt News were now at 19gw with a bit more strengthening to go during the evening. Record to beat is 20.91gw set on 30th December.
Where are you getting these numbers from? Gridwatch currently have wind at 15.16gw (which is pretty impressive in itself). According to them we are currently importing nearly 20% of our energy through various interconnectors, something that seems to be more attractive than burning gas which is as low as 7%. https://gridwatch.co.uk/
according to gridwatch.iamkate.com it's at 18.9GW.
We’ve had these odd differences between Gridwatch and other sites before. It’s a bit odd. Given the very strong winds across the whole country and the recent records above 20gw I am inclined to believe the other sites.
Any chance Gridwatch covers a different territory eg ex-Scotland?
In wind record attempt News were now at 19gw with a bit more strengthening to go during the evening. Record to beat is 20.91gw set on 30th December.
Where are you getting these numbers from? Gridwatch currently have wind at 15.16gw (which is pretty impressive in itself). According to them we are currently importing nearly 20% of our energy through various interconnectors, something that seems to be more attractive than burning gas which is as low as 7%. https://gridwatch.co.uk/
I think the higher figure includes embedded generation, which isn't explicitly included in the Gridwatch data, where it appears instead as reduced demand.
As in off-grid generation? That would explain the different solar amounts in daytime too.
I lived in Milan for two years and explored much of northern Italy and Switzerland. There are some staggeringly beautiful places - but also some overcrowded tat. Locarno (top of Lake Maggiore) and Sirmione (bottom of Lake Garda) were excellent. Lucerne probably my favourite in Switzerland.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
The overwhelming majority of pay deals for both public AND private sector workers are total shit, and have been for 15 years now - but, over the course of time since the GFC, state employees have suffered even worse. Trying the classic Dementia Press tactic of calling the likes of teachers and nurses greedy because they're asking for more than what 'hard working taxpayers' are getting (as if state employees aren't also 'hard working taxpayers') is classic divide and rule.
The Government's bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over inflation is about as credible as rich businesses' bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over the shareholder interest. This is *entirely* about perpetuating an exploitative economic model that has no purpose other than to steal money from the young and poor and shove it down the throats of the rich and old until they grow fat and greedy on it. Pensioners' welfare is almost always prioritised over that of the young. The taxation of incomes is almost always prioritised over that of assets.
Money for fat pension increases, appropriate social care, nurses' pay awards and to clear down those appalling NHS waiting lists, along with a great many other things besides, would be made available if the Government extracted a fair share of wealth from the assets, especially the properties, of the rich. A quarter of all pensioners are millionaires, for starters. It's past time people like that were forced to cough up more.
They have paid tax all their life, have to pay income tax, council tax, their estate inheritance tax if over a million etc.
And they are the Tory core vote so obviously the Tory government is not going to tax them even more
I've no patience with the "but we paid our taxes!" Stickbanger excuse. The costs of paying for the colossal burden of sick old people with complex health needs - inexorably growing as a proportion of the population - as well as the fallout from a pandemic, where we basically crucified the economy (and a generation of schoolkids along with it) to save septuagenarian lives, has to come from somewhere. The more we milk the remaining productive areas of the economy to try to plug the holes, the further into the morass we sink. Property has to be taxed a lot more, regardless of how much homeowners, certainly not limited to but including vast numbers of old people sitting on overpriced houses in Southern England, scream about it.
Will that happen? Obviously not yet. Your comments about the Tory core vote are, of course, completely valid. The Tories are of fuck all use to anyone in this country except for the people they continue to do their best to enrich at everyone else's expense. Unfortunately this includes well-off pensioners, who are very numerous and also the most likely demographic to bother to turn out to vote. Will Labour show any more willingness to desist from going to the well of earnings over and over and over again, and extract more money from assets instead?
The signs aren't encouraging. All the noises emanating from Starmer's camp right now suggest that they're going to run as the party most competent to manage an endless age of austerity (except for pensioners, for the triple lock will be maintained for all time.) And thus, round the plughole we continue to circle. The only hope for those of us already in the afternoon of our lives is that the country can stagger on for long enough for us to perish of old age before everything completely falls apart. The young are royally screwed.
Labour will no doubt impose a wealth tax and restore the 50% top rate of income tax the last Labour government left. It would then use that to expand its public sector core vote like Brown did with New Labour leaving the average public sector worker paid more than those in the private sector.
Labour were also even more pro lockdown than the Tories
Been to a footy game. World class performance by the visiting goalie btw. Home crowd cheered him off. (May not have done if we hadn't won 2-1). Come back. HYUFD still isn't getting the difference between asking for and will settle for.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
The overwhelming majority of pay deals for both public AND private sector workers are total shit, and have been for 15 years now - but, over the course of time since the GFC, state employees have suffered even worse. Trying the classic Dementia Press tactic of calling the likes of teachers and nurses greedy because they're asking for more than what 'hard working taxpayers' are getting (as if state employees aren't also 'hard working taxpayers') is classic divide and rule.
The Government's bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over inflation is about as credible as rich businesses' bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over the shareholder interest. This is *entirely* about perpetuating an exploitative economic model that has no purpose other than to steal money from the young and poor and shove it down the throats of the rich and old until they grow fat and greedy on it. Pensioners' welfare is almost always prioritised over that of the young. The taxation of incomes is almost always prioritised over that of assets.
Money for fat pension increases, appropriate social care, nurses' pay awards and to clear down those appalling NHS waiting lists, along with a great many other things besides, would be made available if the Government extracted a fair share of wealth from the assets, especially the properties, of the rich. A quarter of all pensioners are millionaires, for starters. It's past time people like that were forced to cough up more.
They have paid tax all their life, have to pay income tax, council tax, their estate inheritance tax if over a million etc.
And they are the Tory core vote so obviously the Tory government is not going to tax them even more
I've no patience with the "but we paid our taxes!" Stickbanger excuse. The costs of paying for the colossal burden of sick old people with complex health needs - inexorably growing as a proportion of the population - as well as the fallout from a pandemic, where we basically crucified the economy (and a generation of schoolkids along with it) to save septuagenarian lives, has to come from somewhere. The more we milk the remaining productive areas of the economy to try to plug the holes, the further into the morass we sink. Property has to be taxed a lot more, regardless of how much homeowners, certainly not limited to but including vast numbers of old people sitting on overpriced houses in Southern England, scream about it.
Will that happen? Obviously not yet. Your comments about the Tory core vote are, of course, completely valid. The Tories are of fuck all use to anyone in this country except for the people they continue to do their best to enrich at everyone else's expense. Unfortunately this includes well-off pensioners, who are very numerous and also the most likely demographic to bother to turn out to vote. Will Labour show any more willingness to desist from going to the well of earnings over and over and over again, and extract more money from assets instead?
The signs aren't encouraging. All the noises emanating from Starmer's camp right now suggest that they're going to run as the party most competent to manage an endless age of austerity (except for pensioners, for the triple lock will be maintained for all time.) And thus, round the plughole we continue to circle. The only hope for those of us already in the afternoon of our lives is that the country can stagger on for long enough for us to perish of old age before everything completely falls apart. The young are royally screwed.
Labour will no doubt impose a wealth tax and restore the 50% top rate of income tax the last Labour government left. It would then use that to expand its public sector core vote like Brown did with New Labour leaving the average public sector worker paid more than those in the private sector.
Labour were also even more pro lockdown than the Tories
I think you are right. There are already wealth tax proposals. Either as a one off or ongoing. The self appointed wealth tax commission found, by some happy coincidence, the general public were largely in favour of a policy they were advocating.
I suspect most people support it as they don’t think it would affect them.
An interesting addition to the discussion on conatraint payments for wind and interconnectors to Europe. I remember discussing this with @DavidL the other week - he in favour of interconnectors to the continent, myself against.
A comment on John Redwood's blog says this - citing the Renewable Energy Foundation - I've asked for a link:
"That despite the increase in interconnector capacity, which has allowed much more export of surplus wind, often at low or even negative prices while being heavily subsidised by UK consumers. This is a major scandal, with subsidies of the full strike price of up to £187.47/MWh on CFDs and over £200/MWh for floating wind on ROCs for the benefit of other countries."
So interconnectors mean the UK consumer is not only subsidising the foreign owners of UK wind farms for providing power (and not providing power) to the UK, but for providing it at bargain bin prices to everyone else. The more you look at the system, the more putrid it reveals itself to be.
The intermittency of wind means that there will be some strange market behaviour at both extremes, when they're is lots of wind and when there isn't very much.
These sorts of price signals are useful information to the market to ensure that as much of the wind power generated is used or stored when it's available, and that we still have enough supply when there isn't much wind. If people abroad are being paid to use our wind energy across the interconnectors then that means there's a big price signal for people to invest in energy storage in Britain. The market will work it out. Transition periods can always be a bit messy.
I wouldn't get too hung up on what happens in isolation at these extremes. It's the aggregate effect that matters.
Correct, and a slightly lower price would have to be offset against the cost of batteries.
No it is not correct! Suppliers of wind energy still receive the full subsidy from the UK taxpayer (which we pay on our bill); there's no incentive whatsoever to avoid either constraining (which is richly subsidised) or providing the continent with cut price energy. I dread to even ask what 'negative prices' means - we pay them for using our energy?
Far from being incentivised in any way to store power or ensure that more of it reaches the grid, the current regime ensures that the owners of wind capacity are richly compensated for doing the opposite.
The market is incentivised to provide storage. Pretty much anyone can do it. It doesn't have to be the same people who build the wind turbines.
What exactly do you mean by 'the market' then? The Government hurls money at renewables providers like it is going out of fashion. Companies with wind farms are trousering hundreds of millions a year in subsidy - more when they're constraining than when they're operating as they should be. The public has to pay this as a levy on energy bills like it or lump it. Who exactly has the incentive and/or the ability to change absolutely anything at all in this scenario?
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
January: Bangkok February: Maldives March: Basque and Catalan Pyrenees April: Languedoc May: Dolomites June: northern Russia July: London and Scotland August: Austria/Switzerland September: Pelion Greece October: Japan November: Louisiana December: London and Luxor
You are a one man AGW wave, all on your own.
I would be perfectly happy to live in Britain all the time, albeit with a bit of a winter sun break somewhere sunny for a few weeks. I don't want to live out of suitcase.
I lived in Milan for two years and explored much of northern Italy and Switzerland. There are some staggeringly beautiful places - but also some overcrowded tat. Locarno (top of Lake Maggiore) and Sirmione (bottom of Lake Garda) were excellent. Lucerne probably my favourite in Switzerland.
My all-time favourite holiday was probably the one I spent cycling with my wife over the Alps from Constance to Florence. Just the two of us, carrying everything on the bikes, setting up the tent each evening and sampling the local cuisine with appetites like horses. Two weeks of beautiful simplicity.
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
January: Bangkok February: Maldives March: Basque and Catalan Pyrenees April: Languedoc May: Dolomites June: northern Russia July: London and Scotland August: Austria/Switzerland September: Pelion Greece October: Japan November: Louisiana December: London and Luxor
You are a one man AGW wave, all on your own.
I would be perfectly happy to live in Britain all the time, albeit with a bit of a winter sun break somewhere sunny for a few weeks. I don't want to live out of suitcase.
Yes, me too. I was pondering this challenge, and the best I've come up with is: Jan-Dec: Windermere.
I would, if money were no object, have several holidays a year - winter snow, Cornwall, Scotland, city break, exotic trip - but they'd be holidays, not relocations. I'm usually ready to come home after a week. (Though I can stretch a trip to the southwest out to a week and a half.)
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
The overwhelming majority of pay deals for both public AND private sector workers are total shit, and have been for 15 years now - but, over the course of time since the GFC, state employees have suffered even worse. Trying the classic Dementia Press tactic of calling the likes of teachers and nurses greedy because they're asking for more than what 'hard working taxpayers' are getting (as if state employees aren't also 'hard working taxpayers') is classic divide and rule.
The Government's bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over inflation is about as credible as rich businesses' bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over the shareholder interest. This is *entirely* about perpetuating an exploitative economic model that has no purpose other than to steal money from the young and poor and shove it down the throats of the rich and old until they grow fat and greedy on it. Pensioners' welfare is almost always prioritised over that of the young. The taxation of incomes is almost always prioritised over that of assets.
Money for fat pension increases, appropriate social care, nurses' pay awards and to clear down those appalling NHS waiting lists, along with a great many other things besides, would be made available if the Government extracted a fair share of wealth from the assets, especially the properties, of the rich. A quarter of all pensioners are millionaires, for starters. It's past time people like that were forced to cough up more.
They have paid tax all their life, have to pay income tax, council tax, their estate inheritance tax if over a million etc.
And they are the Tory core vote so obviously the Tory government is not going to tax them even more
I've no patience with the "but we paid our taxes!" Stickbanger excuse. The costs of paying for the colossal burden of sick old people with complex health needs - inexorably growing as a proportion of the population - as well as the fallout from a pandemic, where we basically crucified the economy (and a generation of schoolkids along with it) to save septuagenarian lives, has to come from somewhere. The more we milk the remaining productive areas of the economy to try to plug the holes, the further into the morass we sink. Property has to be taxed a lot more, regardless of how much homeowners, certainly not limited to but including vast numbers of old people sitting on overpriced houses in Southern England, scream about it.
Will that happen? Obviously not yet. Your comments about the Tory core vote are, of course, completely valid. The Tories are of fuck all use to anyone in this country except for the people they continue to do their best to enrich at everyone else's expense. Unfortunately this includes well-off pensioners, who are very numerous and also the most likely demographic to bother to turn out to vote. Will Labour show any more willingness to desist from going to the well of earnings over and over and over again, and extract more money from assets instead?
The signs aren't encouraging. All the noises emanating from Starmer's camp right now suggest that they're going to run as the party most competent to manage an endless age of austerity (except for pensioners, for the triple lock will be maintained for all time.) And thus, round the plughole we continue to circle. The only hope for those of us already in the afternoon of our lives is that the country can stagger on for long enough for us to perish of old age before everything completely falls apart. The young are royally screwed.
Labour will no doubt impose a wealth tax and restore the 50% top rate of income tax the last Labour government left. It would then use that to expand its public sector core vote like Brown did with New Labour leaving the average public sector worker paid more than those in the private sector.
Labour were also even more pro lockdown than the Tories
I think you are right. There are already wealth tax proposals. Either as a one off or ongoing. The self appointed wealth tax commission found, by some happy coincidence, the general public were largely in favour of a policy they were advocating. I suspect most people support it as they don’t think it would affect them.
No government would dare impose a wealth tax that included the family home.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
The overwhelming majority of pay deals for both public AND private sector workers are total shit, and have been for 15 years now - but, over the course of time since the GFC, state employees have suffered even worse. Trying the classic Dementia Press tactic of calling the likes of teachers and nurses greedy because they're asking for more than what 'hard working taxpayers' are getting (as if state employees aren't also 'hard working taxpayers') is classic divide and rule.
The Government's bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over inflation is about as credible as rich businesses' bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over the shareholder interest. This is *entirely* about perpetuating an exploitative economic model that has no purpose other than to steal money from the young and poor and shove it down the throats of the rich and old until they grow fat and greedy on it. Pensioners' welfare is almost always prioritised over that of the young. The taxation of incomes is almost always prioritised over that of assets.
Money for fat pension increases, appropriate social care, nurses' pay awards and to clear down those appalling NHS waiting lists, along with a great many other things besides, would be made available if the Government extracted a fair share of wealth from the assets, especially the properties, of the rich. A quarter of all pensioners are millionaires, for starters. It's past time people like that were forced to cough up more.
They have paid tax all their life, have to pay income tax, council tax, their estate inheritance tax if over a million etc.
And they are the Tory core vote so obviously the Tory government is not going to tax them even more
I've no patience with the "but we paid our taxes!" Stickbanger excuse. The costs of paying for the colossal burden of sick old people with complex health needs - inexorably growing as a proportion of the population - as well as the fallout from a pandemic, where we basically crucified the economy (and a generation of schoolkids along with it) to save septuagenarian lives, has to come from somewhere. The more we milk the remaining productive areas of the economy to try to plug the holes, the further into the morass we sink. Property has to be taxed a lot more, regardless of how much homeowners, certainly not limited to but including vast numbers of old people sitting on overpriced houses in Southern England, scream about it.
Will that happen? Obviously not yet. Your comments about the Tory core vote are, of course, completely valid. The Tories are of fuck all use to anyone in this country except for the people they continue to do their best to enrich at everyone else's expense. Unfortunately this includes well-off pensioners, who are very numerous and also the most likely demographic to bother to turn out to vote. Will Labour show any more willingness to desist from going to the well of earnings over and over and over again, and extract more money from assets instead?
The signs aren't encouraging. All the noises emanating from Starmer's camp right now suggest that they're going to run as the party most competent to manage an endless age of austerity (except for pensioners, for the triple lock will be maintained for all time.) And thus, round the plughole we continue to circle. The only hope for those of us already in the afternoon of our lives is that the country can stagger on for long enough for us to perish of old age before everything completely falls apart. The young are royally screwed.
Labour will no doubt impose a wealth tax and restore the 50% top rate of income tax the last Labour government left. It would then use that to expand its public sector core vote like Brown did with New Labour leaving the average public sector worker paid more than those in the private sector.
Labour were also even more pro lockdown than the Tories
I think you are right. There are already wealth tax proposals. Either as a one off or ongoing. The self appointed wealth tax commission found, by some happy coincidence, the general public were largely in favour of a policy they were advocating.
I suspect most people support it as they don’t think it would affect them.
Sadly, I think you're right. Sadly because I think it would be disastrous financially, driving our biggest taxpayers abroad. Only one way to find out though.
I lived in Milan for two years and explored much of northern Italy and Switzerland. There are some staggeringly beautiful places - but also some overcrowded tat. Locarno (top of Lake Maggiore) and Sirmione (bottom of Lake Garda) were excellent. Lucerne probably my favourite in Switzerland.
My all-time favourite holiday was probably the one I spent cycling with my wife over the Alps from Constance to Florence. Just the two of us, carrying everything on the bikes, setting up the tent each evening and sampling the local cuisine with appetites like horses. Two weeks of beautiful simplicity.
To me, a holiday is a state of mind. The more clutter you have, the less holiday. Clutter also includes too many choices. So, yes, cycle camping with a planned destination is perfect. That or heading into some empty lands on foot.
Re: Cross country skiing. Nothing scarier than going downhill on edgeless skis, particularly when there's not much room. It is no surprise that even the Olympic competitors have the odd crash. It gets a lot easier with metal edges but if you are racing, that's just extra weight.
I've always fancied a tour across the Hardangervidda, Heroes of Telemark style. April is the month to go, I believe.
I lived in Milan for two years and explored much of northern Italy and Switzerland. There are some staggeringly beautiful places - but also some overcrowded tat. Locarno (top of Lake Maggiore) and Sirmione (bottom of Lake Garda) were excellent. Lucerne probably my favourite in Switzerland.
My all-time favourite holiday was probably the one I spent cycling with my wife over the Alps from Constance to Florence. Just the two of us, carrying everything on the bikes, setting up the tent each evening and sampling the local cuisine with appetites like horses. Two weeks of beautiful simplicity.
Yes. I’ve done a lot of indulgent travel, it’s one of my jobs, yet the simplest holidays are often the best
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
January: Bangkok February: Maldives March: Basque and Catalan Pyrenees April: Languedoc May: Dolomites June: northern Russia July: London and Scotland August: Austria/Switzerland September: Pelion Greece October: Japan November: Louisiana December: London and Luxor
You are a one man AGW wave, all on your own.
I would be perfectly happy to live in Britain all the time, albeit with a bit of a winter sun break somewhere sunny for a few weeks. I don't want to live out of suitcase.
Yes, me too. I was pondering this challenge, and the best I've come up with is: Jan-Dec: Windermere.
I would, if money were no object, have several holidays a year - winter snow, Cornwall, Scotland, city break, exotic trip - but they'd be holidays, not relocations. I'm usually ready to come home after a week. (Though I can stretch a trip to the southwest out to a week and a half.)
Isle of Wight, London for brief periods, Norfolk, The Peak District, The South Hams, East Leicestershire, Scotland (winter excepted). There are lots of parts of the country that I could happily live.
An interesting addition to the discussion on conatraint payments for wind and interconnectors to Europe. I remember discussing this with @DavidL the other week - he in favour of interconnectors to the continent, myself against.
A comment on John Redwood's blog says this - citing the Renewable Energy Foundation - I've asked for a link:
"That despite the increase in interconnector capacity, which has allowed much more export of surplus wind, often at low or even negative prices while being heavily subsidised by UK consumers. This is a major scandal, with subsidies of the full strike price of up to £187.47/MWh on CFDs and over £200/MWh for floating wind on ROCs for the benefit of other countries."
So interconnectors mean the UK consumer is not only subsidising the foreign owners of UK wind farms for providing power (and not providing power) to the UK, but for providing it at bargain bin prices to everyone else. The more you look at the system, the more putrid it reveals itself to be.
The intermittency of wind means that there will be some strange market behaviour at both extremes, when they're is lots of wind and when there isn't very much.
These sorts of price signals are useful information to the market to ensure that as much of the wind power generated is used or stored when it's available, and that we still have enough supply when there isn't much wind. If people abroad are being paid to use our wind energy across the interconnectors then that means there's a big price signal for people to invest in energy storage in Britain. The market will work it out. Transition periods can always be a bit messy.
I wouldn't get too hung up on what happens in isolation at these extremes. It's the aggregate effect that matters.
Correct, and a slightly lower price would have to be offset against the cost of batteries.
No it is not correct! Suppliers of wind energy still receive the full subsidy from the UK taxpayer (which we pay on our bill); there's no incentive whatsoever to avoid either constraining (which is richly subsidised) or providing the continent with cut price energy. I dread to even ask what 'negative prices' means - we pay them for using our energy?
Far from being incentivised in any way to store power or ensure that more of it reaches the grid, the current regime ensures that the owners of wind capacity are richly compensated for doing the opposite.
The market is incentivised to provide storage. Pretty much anyone can do it. It doesn't have to be the same people who build the wind turbines.
What exactly do you mean by 'the market' then? The Government hurls money at renewables providers like it is going out of fashion. Companies with wind farms are trousering hundreds of millions a year in subsidy - more when they're constraining than when they're operating as they should be. The public has to pay this as a levy on energy bills like it or lump it. Who exactly has the incentive and/or the ability to change absolutely anything at all in this scenario?
We're spending money to encourage people to build wind turbines, yes, though the amount of subsidy has decreased a lot in recent years as the technology has matured.
The market price swings provide an incentive for anyone, literally anyone, to invest money in energy storage technology to store excess wind energy on windy days and sell it on calm days. There are lots of companies, spending lots of money, on different technology for this purpose.
The government had ensured that there are financial incentives to meet its two main objectives - that a lot of wind energy is installed so that we burn less fossil fuel, and that the market provides an efficient means of providing supply when the wind doesn't blow.
There's not a scandal here. It's the policy working as intended. What part of it do you still not understand?
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
The overwhelming majority of pay deals for both public AND private sector workers are total shit, and have been for 15 years now - but, over the course of time since the GFC, state employees have suffered even worse. Trying the classic Dementia Press tactic of calling the likes of teachers and nurses greedy because they're asking for more than what 'hard working taxpayers' are getting (as if state employees aren't also 'hard working taxpayers') is classic divide and rule.
The Government's bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over inflation is about as credible as rich businesses' bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over the shareholder interest. This is *entirely* about perpetuating an exploitative economic model that has no purpose other than to steal money from the young and poor and shove it down the throats of the rich and old until they grow fat and greedy on it. Pensioners' welfare is almost always prioritised over that of the young. The taxation of incomes is almost always prioritised over that of assets.
Money for fat pension increases, appropriate social care, nurses' pay awards and to clear down those appalling NHS waiting lists, along with a great many other things besides, would be made available if the Government extracted a fair share of wealth from the assets, especially the properties, of the rich. A quarter of all pensioners are millionaires, for starters. It's past time people like that were forced to cough up more.
They have paid tax all their life, have to pay income tax, council tax, their estate inheritance tax if over a million etc.
And they are the Tory core vote so obviously the Tory government is not going to tax them even more
I've no patience with the "but we paid our taxes!" Stickbanger excuse. The costs of paying for the colossal burden of sick old people with complex health needs - inexorably growing as a proportion of the population - as well as the fallout from a pandemic, where we basically crucified the economy (and a generation of schoolkids along with it) to save septuagenarian lives, has to come from somewhere. The more we milk the remaining productive areas of the economy to try to plug the holes, the further into the morass we sink. Property has to be taxed a lot more, regardless of how much homeowners, certainly not limited to but including vast numbers of old people sitting on overpriced houses in Southern England, scream about it.
Will that happen? Obviously not yet. Your comments about the Tory core vote are, of course, completely valid. The Tories are of fuck all use to anyone in this country except for the people they continue to do their best to enrich at everyone else's expense. Unfortunately this includes well-off pensioners, who are very numerous and also the most likely demographic to bother to turn out to vote. Will Labour show any more willingness to desist from going to the well of earnings over and over and over again, and extract more money from assets instead?
The signs aren't encouraging. All the noises emanating from Starmer's camp right now suggest that they're going to run as the party most competent to manage an endless age of austerity (except for pensioners, for the triple lock will be maintained for all time.) And thus, round the plughole we continue to circle. The only hope for those of us already in the afternoon of our lives is that the country can stagger on for long enough for us to perish of old age before everything completely falls apart. The young are royally screwed.
Labour will no doubt impose a wealth tax and restore the 50% top rate of income tax the last Labour government left. It would then use that to expand its public sector core vote like Brown did with New Labour leaving the average public sector worker paid more than those in the private sector.
Labour were also even more pro lockdown than the Tories
I think you are right. There are already wealth tax proposals. Either as a one off or ongoing. The self appointed wealth tax commission found, by some happy coincidence, the general public were largely in favour of a policy they were advocating.
I suspect most people support it as they don’t think it would affect them.
Sadly, I think you're right. Sadly because I think it would be disastrous financially, driving our biggest taxpayers abroad. Only one way to find out though.
Tricky downside of making your national USP low tax to attract the globally mobile financial services set.
They're globally mobile in a way that factories aren't so much.
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
January: Bangkok February: Maldives March: Basque and Catalan Pyrenees April: Languedoc May: Dolomites June: northern Russia July: London and Scotland August: Austria/Switzerland September: Pelion Greece October: Japan November: Louisiana December: London and Luxor
You are a one man AGW wave, all on your own.
I would be perfectly happy to live in Britain all the time, albeit with a bit of a winter sun break somewhere sunny for a few weeks. I don't want to live out of suitcase.
Yes, me too. I was pondering this challenge, and the best I've come up with is: Jan-Dec: Windermere.
I would, if money were no object, have several holidays a year - winter snow, Cornwall, Scotland, city break, exotic trip - but they'd be holidays, not relocations. I'm usually ready to come home after a week. (Though I can stretch a trip to the southwest out to a week and a half.)
Isle of Wight, London for brief periods, Norfolk, The Peak District, The South Hams, East Leicestershire, Scotland (winter excepted). There are lots of parts of the country that I could happily live.
Oh, me too. Lake District, York, the Yorkshire Dales, Northumberland, Ilkley, North Lancashire, Sheffield, Cheshire, Edinburgh. But I wouldn't move around. I'd settle, get to know people, put down roots... Which, as it happens, is what I've done in Manchester. Which ranks pretty highly. And also happens to be where family and friends are. Things have worked out pretty well, all things considered.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Absolute simplicity. Breakfast on a houseboat on the Loire. I slept there one night, rocked by the river. Woke to this. Absolute bliss. The bread was magnifique
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
January: Bangkok February: Maldives March: Basque and Catalan Pyrenees April: Languedoc May: Dolomites June: northern Russia July: London and Scotland August: Austria/Switzerland September: Pelion Greece October: Japan November: Louisiana December: London and Luxor
You are a one man AGW wave, all on your own.
I would be perfectly happy to live in Britain all the time, albeit with a bit of a winter sun break somewhere sunny for a few weeks. I don't want to live out of suitcase.
Yes, me too. I was pondering this challenge, and the best I've come up with is: Jan-Dec: Windermere.
I would, if money were no object, have several holidays a year - winter snow, Cornwall, Scotland, city break, exotic trip - but they'd be holidays, not relocations. I'm usually ready to come home after a week. (Though I can stretch a trip to the southwest out to a week and a half.)
Isle of Wight, London for brief periods, Norfolk, The Peak District, The South Hams, East Leicestershire, Scotland (winter excepted). There are lots of parts of the country that I could happily live.
Oh, me too. Lake District, York, the Yorkshire Dales, Northumberland, Ilkley, North Lancashire, Sheffield, Cheshire, Edinburgh. But I wouldn't move around. I'd settle, get to know people, put down roots... Which, as it happens, is what I've done in Manchester. Which ranks pretty highly. And also happens to be where family and friends are. Things have worked out pretty well, all things considered.
I'd go for Scotland in the winter and spring, the Dales in high summer (not the busy parts, though!), and Cornwall in the autumn.
I'm not sure I'd choose the Flatlands, but there are worse places.
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
January: Bangkok February: Maldives March: Basque and Catalan Pyrenees April: Languedoc May: Dolomites June: northern Russia July: London and Scotland August: Austria/Switzerland September: Pelion Greece October: Japan November: Louisiana December: London and Luxor
You are a one man AGW wave, all on your own.
I would be perfectly happy to live in Britain all the time, albeit with a bit of a winter sun break somewhere sunny for a few weeks. I don't want to live out of suitcase.
Yes, me too. I was pondering this challenge, and the best I've come up with is: Jan-Dec: Windermere.
I would, if money were no object, have several holidays a year - winter snow, Cornwall, Scotland, city break, exotic trip - but they'd be holidays, not relocations. I'm usually ready to come home after a week. (Though I can stretch a trip to the southwest out to a week and a half.)
Isle of Wight, London for brief periods, Norfolk, The Peak District, The South Hams, East Leicestershire, Scotland (winter excepted). There are lots of parts of the country that I could happily live.
Oh, me too. Lake District, York, the Yorkshire Dales, Northumberland, Ilkley, North Lancashire, Sheffield, Cheshire, Edinburgh. But I wouldn't move around. I'd settle, get to know people, put down roots... Which, as it happens, is what I've done in Manchester. Which ranks pretty highly. And also happens to be where family and friends are. Things have worked out pretty well, all things considered.
It's taken a few years but my wife has got me back on her turf in West Cork. The family here hasn't so much as put down roots, as laid down geological deposits. I don't have all the details yet, but part of the family has been on the same patch of land for at least one hundred and twenty years.
Given how bad the famine was in these parts it's possible that there's been some deliberate forgetting of the family history before that. Wouldn't want to ask too many questions about how the family survived and ended up with land when so many starved to death and emigrated.
As I seem to have stumbled into politicaltravelling.com I'd only offer I loved the Ticino area of Switzerland as well.
Locarno and Lugano were both lovely as were the islands on Lake Maggiore and some of the Italian towns. The gelato was excellent on both sides of the border and I did enjoy a particularly nice Swiss Merlot.
Again, it’s the simple pleasures of travel which really stick in the mind
All you need is your own private pool in a six star resort overlooking a massive canyon near the Empty Quarter in Ad Dhakhiliya in Oman, and some free bubbles. The wife won’t even need her Daisy Dukes
I suspect we may be due an Opinium survey this evening. The last one had Labour ahead 44-29 and a similar result this time would get some of the Conservative inclined excited.
A 2-point swing in the latest Omnisis which has the Con-Lab share a bit higher than other pollsters.
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
January: Bangkok February: Maldives March: Basque and Catalan Pyrenees April: Languedoc May: Dolomites June: northern Russia July: London and Scotland August: Austria/Switzerland September: Pelion Greece October: Japan November: Louisiana December: London and Luxor
You are a one man AGW wave, all on your own.
I would be perfectly happy to live in Britain all the time, albeit with a bit of a winter sun break somewhere sunny for a few weeks. I don't want to live out of suitcase.
Yes, me too. I was pondering this challenge, and the best I've come up with is: Jan-Dec: Windermere.
I would, if money were no object, have several holidays a year - winter snow, Cornwall, Scotland, city break, exotic trip - but they'd be holidays, not relocations. I'm usually ready to come home after a week. (Though I can stretch a trip to the southwest out to a week and a half.)
Isle of Wight, London for brief periods, Norfolk, The Peak District, The South Hams, East Leicestershire, Scotland (winter excepted). There are lots of parts of the country that I could happily live.
Oh, me too. Lake District, York, the Yorkshire Dales, Northumberland, Ilkley, North Lancashire, Sheffield, Cheshire, Edinburgh. But I wouldn't move around. I'd settle, get to know people, put down roots... Which, as it happens, is what I've done in Manchester. Which ranks pretty highly. And also happens to be where family and friends are. Things have worked out pretty well, all things considered.
It's taken a few years but my wife has got me back on her turf in West Cork. The family here hasn't so much as put down roots, as laid down geological deposits. I don't have all the details yet, but part of the family has been on the same patch of land for at least one hundred and twenty years.
Given how bad the famine was in these parts it's possible that there's been some deliberate forgetting of the family history before that. Wouldn't want to ask too many questions about how the family survived and ended up with land when so many starved to death and emigrated.
I might give you a shout the next time I am down that way
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
January: Bangkok February: Maldives March: Basque and Catalan Pyrenees April: Languedoc May: Dolomites June: northern Russia July: London and Scotland August: Austria/Switzerland September: Pelion Greece October: Japan November: Louisiana December: London and Luxor
You are a one man AGW wave, all on your own.
I would be perfectly happy to live in Britain all the time, albeit with a bit of a winter sun break somewhere sunny for a few weeks. I don't want to live out of suitcase.
Yes, me too. I was pondering this challenge, and the best I've come up with is: Jan-Dec: Windermere.
I would, if money were no object, have several holidays a year - winter snow, Cornwall, Scotland, city break, exotic trip - but they'd be holidays, not relocations. I'm usually ready to come home after a week. (Though I can stretch a trip to the southwest out to a week and a half.)
Isle of Wight, London for brief periods, Norfolk, The Peak District, The South Hams, East Leicestershire, Scotland (winter excepted). There are lots of parts of the country that I could happily live.
Oh, me too. Lake District, York, the Yorkshire Dales, Northumberland, Ilkley, North Lancashire, Sheffield, Cheshire, Edinburgh. But I wouldn't move around. I'd settle, get to know people, put down roots... Which, as it happens, is what I've done in Manchester. Which ranks pretty highly. And also happens to be where family and friends are. Things have worked out pretty well, all things considered.
It's taken a few years but my wife has got me back on her turf in West Cork. The family here hasn't so much as put down roots, as laid down geological deposits. I don't have all the details yet, but part of the family has been on the same patch of land for at least one hundred and twenty years.
Given how bad the famine was in these parts it's possible that there's been some deliberate forgetting of the family history before that. Wouldn't want to ask too many questions about how the family survived and ended up with land when so many starved to death and emigrated.
Half my family is living about five miles from where our ancestors are known to have lived in the 13th century. Falmouth, Cornwall
Indeed my Cornish family has probably lived in the same tiny part of Cornwall since the Celts came to Britain around 1000 BC. The Cornish don’t move much
Politico.com - Two lawmakers nearly come to blows — and other crazy moments from McCarthy’s final speaker votes - Friday night on the House floor was a spectacle to behold. . . .
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) lunged at Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and had to be pulled away by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.). It happened after Gaetz blocked Kevin McCarthy from clinching the final vote to be elected speaker in the fourteenth round of voting . . . .
Several GOP members said they believed the animosity between Rogers and Gaetz reached a boiling point over talk that GOP leadership might offer Gaetz the chairmanship of a House Armed Services subcommittee. Rogers, who is set to lead that panel, had grown increasingly angry at the holdouts during the week, and he had initially threatened to try to strip anti-McCarthy members of committee assignments.
Gaetz appeared to revel in the drama. He left the chamber and headed to the restroom right before his name was first called during the roll call. That meant when he returned, he would cast one of the final votes — and McCarthy’s fate would come down to him. . . .
Rogers declined to comment when asked about the altercation, but Hudson later told reporters, in an understatement: “It was a very tense moment, and I was just trying to play a role to keep the tensions down.”
“Through all of this, people’s emotions go up and down,” McCarthy later told reporters. “But at the end of the night, Matt got everybody there … it actually helped unite people."
[SSI - if you say so, Speaky!]
“Nothing like a little more chaos to go with the chaos,” said Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), before solemnly adding: “Tempers are short, particularly when it’s late at night. You’ve been here a long time and you think you’ve got a deal done.”
“It’s painful to watch. It’s embarrassing. The country deserves better,” he added.
The member-on-member scuffle wasn’t the only “wow” moment. Some others as the speaker race drew to a close:
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a McCarthy supporter, was photograped trying to hand her phone to holdout Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.). The person apparently on the line? Donald Trump, who was also pulling for McCarthy. Rosendale waved his hand like he wasn’t interested in chatting with the ex-president.
Throughout the whole evening, Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) was reading the “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck” while waiting on votes.
Tired children laid out on the overstuffed chairs in the Speaker’s Lobby in front of roaring fires. A small girl with a yellow bow in her hair kept asking if her family could go home as the clock passed midnight.
An hour later, during his first speech as speaker, McCarthy seemed to acknowledge the pandemonium that had overtaken his workplace the past week.
“I’ll be honest,” he said, “it’s not how I had it planned.”
An interesting addition to the discussion on conatraint payments for wind and interconnectors to Europe. I remember discussing this with @DavidL the other week - he in favour of interconnectors to the continent, myself against.
A comment on John Redwood's blog says this - citing the Renewable Energy Foundation - I've asked for a link:
"That despite the increase in interconnector capacity, which has allowed much more export of surplus wind, often at low or even negative prices while being heavily subsidised by UK consumers. This is a major scandal, with subsidies of the full strike price of up to £187.47/MWh on CFDs and over £200/MWh for floating wind on ROCs for the benefit of other countries."
So interconnectors mean the UK consumer is not only subsidising the foreign owners of UK wind farms for providing power (and not providing power) to the UK, but for providing it at bargain bin prices to everyone else. The more you look at the system, the more putrid it reveals itself to be.
The intermittency of wind means that there will be some strange market behaviour at both extremes, when they're is lots of wind and when there isn't very much.
These sorts of price signals are useful information to the market to ensure that as much of the wind power generated is used or stored when it's available, and that we still have enough supply when there isn't much wind. If people abroad are being paid to use our wind energy across the interconnectors then that means there's a big price signal for people to invest in energy storage in Britain. The market will work it out. Transition periods can always be a bit messy.
I wouldn't get too hung up on what happens in isolation at these extremes. It's the aggregate effect that matters.
Correct, and a slightly lower price would have to be offset against the cost of batteries.
No it is not correct! Suppliers of wind energy still receive the full subsidy from the UK taxpayer (which we pay on our bill); there's no incentive whatsoever to avoid either constraining (which is richly subsidised) or providing the continent with cut price energy. I dread to even ask what 'negative prices' means - we pay them for using our energy?
Far from being incentivised in any way to store power or ensure that more of it reaches the grid, the current regime ensures that the owners of wind capacity are richly compensated for doing the opposite.
The market is incentivised to provide storage. Pretty much anyone can do it. It doesn't have to be the same people who build the wind turbines.
What exactly do you mean by 'the market' then? The Government hurls money at renewables providers like it is going out of fashion. Companies with wind farms are trousering hundreds of millions a year in subsidy - more when they're constraining than when they're operating as they should be. The public has to pay this as a levy on energy bills like it or lump it. Who exactly has the incentive and/or the ability to change absolutely anything at all in this scenario?
We're spending money to encourage people to build wind turbines, yes, though the amount of subsidy has decreased a lot in recent years as the technology has matured.
The market price swings provide an incentive for anyone, literally anyone, to invest money in energy storage technology to store excess wind energy on windy days and sell it on calm days. There are lots of companies, spending lots of money, on different technology for this purpose.
The government had ensured that there are financial incentives to meet its two main objectives - that a lot of wind energy is installed so that we burn less fossil fuel, and that the market provides an efficient means of providing supply when the wind doesn't blow.
There's not a scandal here. It's the policy working as intended. What part of it do you still not understand?
There is no part of it that I don't understand thanks, what is now clear is that you don't understand it; either that or you're making a rather pitiable attempt to prevent others from understanding it.
The installation of 'a lot' of wind energy capacity bakes coal oil and gas into the system. Storage is nowhere - battery storage will only ever be able to store power for 24 hours, hydrogen only works at 31% efficiency so you need vast overcapacity in wind - about 8 times what we have currently, to make the relevant amount. Pumped hydro, the best option, is limited by geography, and current projects are nowhere, because they require large upfront investment, and where is the incentive to do so when the renewables industry is making more money from constraining than they would from providing power?
As for your 'incentivising the market', where's the commercial window for anyone who might want to purchase, store, and re-sell that power, when the consumer has already paid an overinflated price for the energy whether they get it or not? All your fatuous praise for the Government's 'policy working as intended' actually means is that the Government should be congratulated for putting in place an eye-wateringly shit system that no country in their right mind would sign up to, because the shitness in the system is a good 'incentive' to make things better. On that basis you must also be a big fan of our handling of the NHS and our assylum and immigration system.
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
Not sure about January in the Canaries. The worst holiday I ever had was in Fuertaventura in January. The icy wind nearly knocked you off your feet and was so cold it chilled the marrow in your bones, even if you were wearing a fleece.
It’s the same with food. You don’t need luxuries like foie gras and oysters. Keep it simple. A basic fry up for breakfast can be as good as Michelin cuisine. Like this brekkie I had in Anse Boileau in the Seychelles. Nothing fancy. Just good honest tucker
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
Economists have been calling the governments position economically illiterate, negotiating and settling with the public sector WONT prolong the inflation pain. It’s been a stupid political error by the Sunak government. Fall in incomes is by far the bigger threat to Tory seats than inflation.
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
January: Bangkok February: Maldives March: Basque and Catalan Pyrenees April: Languedoc May: Dolomites June: northern Russia July: London and Scotland August: Austria/Switzerland September: Pelion Greece October: Japan November: Louisiana December: London and Luxor
You are a one man AGW wave, all on your own.
I would be perfectly happy to live in Britain all the time, albeit with a bit of a winter sun break somewhere sunny for a few weeks. I don't want to live out of suitcase.
Yes, me too. I was pondering this challenge, and the best I've come up with is: Jan-Dec: Windermere.
I would, if money were no object, have several holidays a year - winter snow, Cornwall, Scotland, city break, exotic trip - but they'd be holidays, not relocations. I'm usually ready to come home after a week. (Though I can stretch a trip to the southwest out to a week and a half.)
Isle of Wight, London for brief periods, Norfolk, The Peak District, The South Hams, East Leicestershire, Scotland (winter excepted). There are lots of parts of the country that I could happily live.
Oh, me too. Lake District, York, the Yorkshire Dales, Northumberland, Ilkley, North Lancashire, Sheffield, Cheshire, Edinburgh. But I wouldn't move around. I'd settle, get to know people, put down roots... Which, as it happens, is what I've done in Manchester. Which ranks pretty highly. And also happens to be where family and friends are. Things have worked out pretty well, all things considered.
It's taken a few years but my wife has got me back on her turf in West Cork. The family here hasn't so much as put down roots, as laid down geological deposits. I don't have all the details yet, but part of the family has been on the same patch of land for at least one hundred and twenty years.
Given how bad the famine was in these parts it's possible that there's been some deliberate forgetting of the family history before that. Wouldn't want to ask too many questions about how the family survived and ended up with land when so many starved to death and emigrated.
Half my family is living about five miles from where our ancestors are known to have lived in the 13th century. Falmouth, Cornwall
Indeed my Cornish family has probably lived in the same tiny part of Cornwall since the Celts came to Britain around 1000 BC. The Cornish don’t move much
Again, it’s the simple pleasures of travel which really stick in the mind
All you need is your own private pool in a six star resort overlooking a massive canyon near the Empty Quarter in Ad Dhakhiliya in Oman, and some free bubbles. The wife won’t even need her Daisy Dukes
Just keep it simple. Basic
Nice table. {ignoring the clear sign you’ve taken your kegs off}
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
January: Bangkok February: Maldives March: Basque and Catalan Pyrenees April: Languedoc May: Dolomites June: northern Russia July: London and Scotland August: Austria/Switzerland September: Pelion Greece October: Japan November: Louisiana December: London and Luxor
You are a one man AGW wave, all on your own.
I would be perfectly happy to live in Britain all the time, albeit with a bit of a winter sun break somewhere sunny for a few weeks. I don't want to live out of suitcase.
Yes, me too. I was pondering this challenge, and the best I've come up with is: Jan-Dec: Windermere.
I would, if money were no object, have several holidays a year - winter snow, Cornwall, Scotland, city break, exotic trip - but they'd be holidays, not relocations. I'm usually ready to come home after a week. (Though I can stretch a trip to the southwest out to a week and a half.)
Isle of Wight, London for brief periods, Norfolk, The Peak District, The South Hams, East Leicestershire, Scotland (winter excepted). There are lots of parts of the country that I could happily live.
Oh, me too. Lake District, York, the Yorkshire Dales, Northumberland, Ilkley, North Lancashire, Sheffield, Cheshire, Edinburgh. But I wouldn't move around. I'd settle, get to know people, put down roots... Which, as it happens, is what I've done in Manchester. Which ranks pretty highly. And also happens to be where family and friends are. Things have worked out pretty well, all things considered.
It's taken a few years but my wife has got me back on her turf in West Cork. The family here hasn't so much as put down roots, as laid down geological deposits. I don't have all the details yet, but part of the family has been on the same patch of land for at least one hundred and twenty years.
Given how bad the famine was in these parts it's possible that there's been some deliberate forgetting of the family history before that. Wouldn't want to ask too many questions about how the family survived and ended up with land when so many starved to death and emigrated.
Half my family is living about five miles from where our ancestors are known to have lived in the 13th century. Falmouth, Cornwall
Indeed my Cornish family has probably lived in the same tiny part of Cornwall since the Celts came to Britain around 1000 BC. The Cornish don’t move much
I think it's been shown to be the case that most people don't move around much. Genetic testing of iron age corpses dragged from bogs tend to throw up numerous relatives in the immediate vicinity. Not my family's experience. Hard to pin down any branch to a specific patch of land, though I think you might be able to get one lot back to the Staffordshire Moorlands, another to Crieff, another to Anglesey... But I think I'm atypical in that regard.
Again, it’s the simple pleasures of travel which really stick in the mind
All you need is your own private pool in a six star resort overlooking a massive canyon near the Empty Quarter in Ad Dhakhiliya in Oman, and some free bubbles. The wife won’t even need her Daisy Dukes
Just keep it simple. Basic
Nice table. {ignoring the clear sign you’ve taken your kegs off}
The wife. The wife took off her denim shorts for a nude swim. I’ll spare you the photos!
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
Economists have been calling the governments position economically illiterate, negotiating and settling with the public sector WONT prolong the inflation pain. It’s been a stupid political error by the Sunak government. Fall in incomes is by far the bigger threat to Tory seats than inflation.
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
The main reason for high inflation is the sanctions and restricted food and energy supplies due to the Ukraine war.
Pushing up wages too high will just lead to an inflationary wage spiral and bigger deficit
Public sector wages act as a benchmark for other wage settlements. The economists who never bothered to learn that are the same ones who never bothered to learn about inflation full stop. Maybe they thought it went away in the 2010s like a miracle.
Saying they don't cause inflation because the government "could increase wages and cut other parts of the budget" is delusional. The government could also force people to work 80 hours a week; it won't.
Last photo - promise - before I go to marks and Spencer. At least these are political. This is the ex chancellor of the exchequer being set on fire in the VIP funeral ghats of Kathmandu, Nepal
Last photo - promise - before I go to marks and Spencer. This is the ex chancellor of the exchequer being set on fire in the VIP funeral ghats of Kathmandu, Nepal
Bit harsh. We only made Kwarteng resign to much ridicule.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
Economists have been calling the governments position economically illiterate, negotiating and settling with the public sector WONT prolong the inflation pain. It’s been a stupid political error by the Sunak government. Fall in incomes is by far the bigger threat to Tory seats than inflation.
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
You say ‘economists’ as if it’s a uniform view and it is not. There are many economists who do say high pay rises would help fuel, or sustain, inflation.
Indeed the bounce in the US markets Friday was partly down to a reduction in the rate of wage growth. Seen as helping to bring inflation under control.
I suspect we may be due an Opinium survey this evening. The last one had Labour ahead 44-29 and a similar result this time would get some of the Conservative inclined excited.
A 2-point swing in the latest Omnisis which has the Con-Lab share a bit higher than other pollsters.
The last Opinium - no increase in Tory share and increase in Labour - was a dire one for the Conservatives, it spearheaded the erosion in their support in late December into this year where pollsters are herding them mid twenties. The next Opinium will have Tory share down to 28 or worse, another dire poll for them. If Labour drop 2 or more and gap seems to close is utterly irrelevant if they are simply sharing that with anti Tory vote.
The best PM rating in next Opinium will be interesting too. perhaps that measure also has swingback with Opnium, or they just over calibrate new leader bounce, but Sunak regularly topping Starmer as best PM has been the best thing for Tories from Opinium. They gave Truss leads there too. If Starmer had any sort of best PM lead from Opnium, then Tory rampers need to taken down to the Blue Peter Garden and exterminated by daleks.
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
January: Bangkok February: Maldives March: Basque and Catalan Pyrenees April: Languedoc May: Dolomites June: northern Russia July: London and Scotland August: Austria/Switzerland September: Pelion Greece October: Japan November: Louisiana December: London and Luxor
You are a one man AGW wave, all on your own.
I would be perfectly happy to live in Britain all the time, albeit with a bit of a winter sun break somewhere sunny for a few weeks. I don't want to live out of suitcase.
Yes, me too. I was pondering this challenge, and the best I've come up with is: Jan-Dec: Windermere.
I would, if money were no object, have several holidays a year - winter snow, Cornwall, Scotland, city break, exotic trip - but they'd be holidays, not relocations. I'm usually ready to come home after a week. (Though I can stretch a trip to the southwest out to a week and a half.)
Isle of Wight, London for brief periods, Norfolk, The Peak District, The South Hams, East Leicestershire, Scotland (winter excepted). There are lots of parts of the country that I could happily live.
Oh, me too. Lake District, York, the Yorkshire Dales, Northumberland, Ilkley, North Lancashire, Sheffield, Cheshire, Edinburgh. But I wouldn't move around. I'd settle, get to know people, put down roots... Which, as it happens, is what I've done in Manchester. Which ranks pretty highly. And also happens to be where family and friends are. Things have worked out pretty well, all things considered.
It's taken a few years but my wife has got me back on her turf in West Cork. The family here hasn't so much as put down roots, as laid down geological deposits. I don't have all the details yet, but part of the family has been on the same patch of land for at least one hundred and twenty years.
Given how bad the famine was in these parts it's possible that there's been some deliberate forgetting of the family history before that. Wouldn't want to ask too many questions about how the family survived and ended up with land when so many starved to death and emigrated.
Half my family is living about five miles from where our ancestors are known to have lived in the 13th century. Falmouth, Cornwall
Indeed my Cornish family has probably lived in the same tiny part of Cornwall since the Celts came to Britain around 1000 BC. The Cornish don’t move much
Know several people from Falmouth, Mass. Or at least within reasonable proxmity.
Amuses me, and irritates them, when I pronounce it "Foul-mouth".
Last photo - promise - before I go to marks and Spencer. This is the ex chancellor of the exchequer being set on fire in the VIP funeral ghats of Kathmandu, Nepal
Bit harsh. We only made Kwarteng resign to much ridicule.
Last photo - promise - before I go to marks and Spencer. This is the ex chancellor of the exchequer being set on fire in the VIP funeral ghats of Kathmandu, Nepal
Bit harsh. We only made Kwarteng resign to much ridicule.
It was a brilliant moment. My guide just casually said “oh look, now they’re burning the finance minister”
Public sector wages act as a benchmark for other wage settlements. The economists who never bothered to learn that are the same ones who never bothered to learn about inflation full stop. Maybe they thought it went away in the 2010s like a miracle.
Saying they don't cause inflation because the government "could increase wages and cut other parts of the budget" is delusional. The government could also force people to work 80 hours a week; it won't.
The article quotes two London based economics Professors. I’m amazed Sky didn’t ask Richard Murphy for his view too.
Public sector wages act as a benchmark for other wage settlements. The economists who never bothered to learn that are the same ones who never bothered to learn about inflation full stop. Maybe they thought it went away in the 2010s like a miracle.
Saying they don't cause inflation because the government "could increase wages and cut other parts of the budget" is delusional. The government could also force people to work 80 hours a week; it won't.
Although the teachers' pay offer is supposed to come out of existing budgets.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
Economists have been calling the governments position economically illiterate, negotiating and settling with the public sector WONT prolong the inflation pain. It’s been a stupid political error by the Sunak government. Fall in incomes is by far the bigger threat to Tory seats than inflation.
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
You say ‘economists’ as if it’s a uniform view and it is not. There are many economists who do say high pay rises would help fuel, or sustain, inflation.
Indeed the bounce in the US markets Friday was partly down to a reduction in the rate of wage growth. Seen as helping to bring inflation under control.
Nah! They made the wrong call on this one. This mistake wasn’t made in fear of their compromise with nurses and others wrecking a budget with no leeway in it, or having any discernible impact continuing the coming big fall in inflation - they made this call simply trying to look tough, tough on militant unions holding country to ra some by with holding vital services, tough defenders of this years, and any years, budget.
Instead they have come out this episode looking like muddled idiots, income surpressers, creators of needless chaos, and shined the super troopers on all the things politically they should have wanted off the news!
The political history books will write this one up as the idiotic stance that decimated the Tory’s at the coming election.
Is this the year the Crypto Bro’s get a rude awakening and Crypto is revealed just to be another Ponzi or is there a future for the established brand names like Bitcoin and Ethereum.
I don’t touch Crypto in my investments. Partly as I don’t understand it and partly as it is ramped to the heavens especially on YouTube (as well as that ‘learn to trade’ Forex guy).
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
Economists have been calling the governments position economically illiterate, negotiating and settling with the public sector WONT prolong the inflation pain. It’s been a stupid political error by the Sunak government. Fall in incomes is by far the bigger threat to Tory seats than inflation.
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
You say ‘economists’ as if it’s a uniform view and it is not. There are many economists who do say high pay rises would help fuel, or sustain, inflation.
Indeed the bounce in the US markets Friday was partly down to a reduction in the rate of wage growth. Seen as helping to bring inflation under control.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
Economists have been calling the governments position economically illiterate, negotiating and settling with the public sector WONT prolong the inflation pain. It’s been a stupid political error by the Sunak government. Fall in incomes is by far the bigger threat to Tory seats than inflation.
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
The main reason for high inflation is the sanctions and restricted food and energy supplies due to the Ukraine war.
Pushing up wages too high will just lead to an inflationary wage spiral and bigger deficit
Is the horrendous record on growth and incomes the fault of anyone but the Tories? Becuase they own it in the eyes of the voters that matter 😆
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
Economists have been calling the governments position economically illiterate, negotiating and settling with the public sector WONT prolong the inflation pain. It’s been a stupid political error by the Sunak government. Fall in incomes is by far the bigger threat to Tory seats than inflation.
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
The main reason for high inflation is the sanctions and restricted food and energy supplies due to the Ukraine war.
Pushing up wages too high will just lead to an inflationary wage spiral and bigger deficit
No it would just mean voters might think the Government care about them - the fact this Government seem to wish for people to just become poorer to the extent many have to use food banks means a lot of people won’t be voting Tory for many years to come.
Which is why the Tory’s now sit on 25% of votes while Labour seem comfortably in the 40%s
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
Economists have been calling the governments position economically illiterate, negotiating and settling with the public sector WONT prolong the inflation pain. It’s been a stupid political error by the Sunak government. Fall in incomes is by far the bigger threat to Tory seats than inflation.
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
You say ‘economists’ as if it’s a uniform view and it is not. There are many economists who do say high pay rises would help fuel, or sustain, inflation.
Indeed the bounce in the US markets Friday was partly down to a reduction in the rate of wage growth. Seen as helping to bring inflation under control.
Bad for workers, good for shareholders, and we wonder why folk are pissed off.
Especially when the unemployed are demonised for not being able to get work when unemployment is rising and their circumstances are due to the effect of a deliberate policy of controlling inflation.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
Economists have been calling the governments position economically illiterate, negotiating and settling with the public sector WONT prolong the inflation pain. It’s been a stupid political error by the Sunak government. Fall in incomes is by far the bigger threat to Tory seats than inflation.
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
The main reason for high inflation is the sanctions and restricted food and energy supplies due to the Ukraine war.
Pushing up wages too high will just lead to an inflationary wage spiral and bigger deficit
No it would just mean voters might think the Government care about them - the fact this Government seem to wish for people to just become poorer to the extent many have to use food banks means a lot of people won’t be voting Tory for many years to come.
Which is why the Tory’s now sit on 25% of votes while Labour seem comfortably in the 40%s
Absolutely spot on Eek. How come it takes me paragraphs to say what you said in two sentences.
This horrendous mistake by the Sunak government makes the Tories look like they don’t care about incomes. The inflation problem is about to devour itself, somehow the Tories have made themselves look unnecessarily intransigent and unbothered by suppressed incomes, going into the next general election and as you wisely point out those following.
They have lost voters these last few weeks they are not getting back in generations.
Starmer doesn’t even need a vision, big idea or even a manifesto now the Sunak government have cocked this up.
And here’s the kicker - Boris would not have made these mistakes, his politics would not have made this humungoose mistake. A whole load of other mistakes maybe, but not this one. Nor would Lady Thatcher and her governments have ignored the fall in household incomes in the same way Sunak and Hunt have painted themselves as the enemy of household incomes.
I was thinking the other day where would I live if I could choose anywhere, with no ties from job or family and friends. I decided I’d want variety. A different place each month. Short haul. Something like:
January canaries February Alpujarras March Alps April burgundy May Scottish highlands June London July Stockholm archipelago August Galicia September Crete October Georgia November Morocco December Bavaria
Alps too early, Morocco too late
Leaving the alps until later risks the snow melting, unless you’re in a very high resort.
January and November are the hardest months. Too dark in January in most cold places and too cool in a lot of warm places. Too wet or cold in November in most of the short haul locations but (central and Southern) Morocco is still sunny and pleasant.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
Economists have been calling the governments position economically illiterate, negotiating and settling with the public sector WONT prolong the inflation pain. It’s been a stupid political error by the Sunak government. Fall in incomes is by far the bigger threat to Tory seats than inflation.
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
The main reason for high inflation is the sanctions and restricted food and energy supplies due to the Ukraine war.
Pushing up wages too high will just lead to an inflationary wage spiral and bigger deficit
No it would just mean voters might think the Government care about them - the fact this Government seem to wish for people to just become poorer to the extent many have to use food banks means a lot of people won’t be voting Tory for many years to come.
Which is why the Tory’s now sit on 25% of votes while Labour seem comfortably in the 40%s
I would rather go into opposition and leave Labour to deal with the economy than leave an even bigger deficit and inflationary wage spiral and still likely lose anyway
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
Economists have been calling the governments position economically illiterate, negotiating and settling with the public sector WONT prolong the inflation pain. It’s been a stupid political error by the Sunak government. Fall in incomes is by far the bigger threat to Tory seats than inflation.
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
The main reason for high inflation is the sanctions and restricted food and energy supplies due to the Ukraine war.
Pushing up wages too high will just lead to an inflationary wage spiral and bigger deficit
No it would just mean voters might think the Government care about them - the fact this Government seem to wish for people to just become poorer to the extent many have to use food banks means a lot of people won’t be voting Tory for many years to come.
Which is why the Tory’s now sit on 25% of votes while Labour seem comfortably in the 40%s
Absolutely spot on Eek. How come it takes me paragraphs to say what you said in two sentences.
This horrendous mistake by the Sunak government makes the Tories look like they don’t care about incomes. The inflation problem is about to devour itself, somehow the Tories have made themselves look unnecessarily intransigent and unbothered by suppressed incomes, going into the next general election and as you wisely point out those following.
They have lost voters these last few weeks they are not getting back in generations.
Starmer doesn’t even need a vision, big idea or even a manifesto now the Sunak government have cocked this up.
And here’s the kicker - Boris would not have made these mistakes, his politics would not have made this humungoose mistake. A whole load of other mistakes maybe, but not this one. Nor would Lady Thatcher and her governments have ignored the fall in household incomes in the same way Sunak and Hunt have painted themselves as the enemy of household incomes.
Johnson was noted for his blatant U turns, even when they left the minister on the daily round looking like a prat. A mendacious, lazy clown, but one with very attuned electoral antennae.
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
Economists have been calling the governments position economically illiterate, negotiating and settling with the public sector WONT prolong the inflation pain. It’s been a stupid political error by the Sunak government. Fall in incomes is by far the bigger threat to Tory seats than inflation.
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
You say ‘economists’ as if it’s a uniform view and it is not. There are many economists who do say high pay rises would help fuel, or sustain, inflation.
Indeed the bounce in the US markets Friday was partly down to a reduction in the rate of wage growth. Seen as helping to bring inflation under control.
Bad for workers, good for shareholders, and we wonder why folk are pissed off.
Especially when the unemployed are demonised for not being able to get work when unemployment is rising and their circumstances are due to the effect of a deliberate policy of controlling inflation.
Unemployment still about half the 8% Labour left in 2010
The right (both in the us and U.K.) now resemble the fractured, ideological left of the 1970s. The Republican people’s front vs. The people’s front of the republic. It’s a total mess.
Given the fractured ideological left of 2015 to 2020 in the UK rather pot kettle
The right is worse somehow. On the left this sort of nonsense has always been a thing and is priced in, the right have picked up the infection.
It’s almost as if they have decided to forfeit conservatism in pursuit of factional ideological purity.
Even if it doesn't work for 2024, the calm efficiency with which Labour have ditched Corbyn, his works and his acolytes after the 2019 fiasco is blooming impressive.
It's not obvious that, if they go down to a famous defeat, the Conservatives will have the people or the will to do the same.
Labour have spent 13 years in opposition after they lost power in 2010 getting progressively more leftwing ever since Blair left via Brown, then Ed Miliband and culminating in Corbyn.
The idea they should be applauded for finally electing the relatively centrist Starmer after 4 general election defeats in a row is absurd!
Maybe applaud is the wrong word, but given just how far they went (not even so much on ideology itself, but in unsuitable leadership), with the full backing of the party members, the swift turnaround is rather impressive, even considering circumstances with their opponents will have helped.
Will the Tories be able to turn things around like that as swiftly? It's not necessarily promising.
The Tories haven't even lost a general election yet, let alone 4 general elections in a row like Labour when they elected Starmer in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for…
By the time the Pensioners’ Party returns to power, you might well be a pensioner yourself. By which time they won’t be quite so obsessed with protecting pensioners at everyone else’s expense, as they are now.
The Tories won all voters over 39 in 2019, not just pensioners. Indeed Blair actually won pensioners in 1997, hence his landslide, pensioners vote more than the young do, Labour dismiss them at their peril
Nevertheless, spending our nation’s finances on giving non-productive pensioners a 10% rise, then telling nurses that there isn’t money to give them more than 4% when inflation is 10% plus, and there is a dramatic shortage of nurses, and there’s a huge backlog of people waiting for medical treatment, isn’t a sensible way to run the country.
It was a 10% rise in the state pension only, those who rely just on the state pension have an income less than minimum wage (the minimum wage and other benefits also rose by 10%).
The average nurse has an income at least 3 times the average pensioner on just a state pension. As I have said before I don't have a problem with a 6% rise for nurses in line with the average income rise but no more
I sort of half agree and half disagree with both you and Ian on this one. I agree with the higher pensioners rise for the reason you give at least until the state pension is at a more reasonable level for those that have to rely on it. I would like the rest of us see it taxed away a bit more.
Re the nurses I would also normally agree as we don't want to start pay rise driven inflation, BUT if we have a shortage of nurses doesn't market forces dictate we should pay them more. Isn't that what a good conservative would do and we don't want the NHS collapsing (as it appears to be doing).
Also. Pay rises can't drive inflation if they are below inflation. No one is expecting, not even nurses themselves, an above inflation pay rise. The only examples of possible inflationary pay rises I can think of are in the private sector.
So they are showing some signs of compromise which is a good sign.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Good to see realism kicking in, though it's up to the government to respond.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
Economists have been calling the governments position economically illiterate, negotiating and settling with the public sector WONT prolong the inflation pain. It’s been a stupid political error by the Sunak government. Fall in incomes is by far the bigger threat to Tory seats than inflation.
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
The main reason for high inflation is the sanctions and restricted food and energy supplies due to the Ukraine war.
Pushing up wages too high will just lead to an inflationary wage spiral and bigger deficit
No it would just mean voters might think the Government care about them - the fact this Government seem to wish for people to just become poorer to the extent many have to use food banks means a lot of people won’t be voting Tory for many years to come.
Which is why the Tory’s now sit on 25% of votes while Labour seem comfortably in the 40%s
I would rather go into opposition and leave Labour to deal with the economy than leave an even bigger deficit and inflationary wage spiral and still likely lose anyway
This is the moment Labour have been waiting for. The Tories are so effortlessly the party of permanent government regardless of how crap they are that it’s only when they themselves decide they need a period in opposition that Labour get a go.
Comments
This is why the west won. We developed a model of commerce which was moderately open and transparent. We didn't treat every interaction as an opportunity to screw the other party.
https://www.independentnurse.co.uk/news/rcn-says-it-could-accept-10-pay-rise/249368/
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/banker-bonuses-go-boom-bust-jarring-reversal-2022-12-22/
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/december2022#:~:text=Average regular pay growth was,sector outside the pandemic period.
That's just how it works, and I speak as someone who used to litigate for a living. However sure you are that both sides know that a case is worth £1m, you offer 750 and expect a counter of 1.25 before you meet in the middle. Your position is like saying, what's the point of thanking waiters when you are already paying them to do the thing you are thanking them for? A good question if you are an alien observer from the planet Tharg, but for humans our way works best.
Great list, though, and set of ideas for seasonal getaways.
When the comment was made about pay rises being below inflation, you pointed out that the nurses wanted a pay rise above inflation (a good point). Then someone else pointed out they would settle for a rise below inflation. That is it. The response that it is still 3.1% above 6.9% in the private sector although accurate has nothing whatsoever to do with the point being made. Even if it is a valid argument for a completely different discussion
Summary:
Statement
Counter statement
Counter counter statement
Statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the previous 3 statements.
It is a great policy.
The Government's bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over inflation is about as credible as rich businesses' bullshit about being unable to afford decent pay rises and bellyaching over the shareholder interest. This is *entirely* about perpetuating an exploitative economic model that has no purpose other than to steal money from the young and poor and shove it down the throats of the rich and old until they grow fat and greedy on it. Pensioners' welfare is almost always prioritised over that of the young. The taxation of incomes is almost always prioritised over that of assets.
Money for fat pension increases, appropriate social care, nurses' pay awards and to clear down those appalling NHS waiting lists, along with a great many other things besides, would be made available if the Government extracted a fair share of wealth from the assets, especially the properties, of the rich. A quarter of all pensioners are millionaires, for starters. It's past time people like that were forced to cough up more.
What you have just said is completely valid. No argument with you. It is dandy. However that wasn't the discussion. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Nobody was arguing with you about that (they might but they weren't). Try this:
Person a: All the swans in that pond are black
Person b: No I can see a white one
Person c: That one has been painted white
Person d: My dog has 3 legs
Do you see persons A, B, and C were arguing over the colour of the swan, person D was, well talking about something else.
So in the discussion you were having the discussion was whether the nurses pay claim was above or below inflation and each party put in a valid argument including you back and forth. All dandy.
Then at the end you throw in a random comment that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion i.e they still want more than private sector workers.
A true comment and very interesting but what has it got to do with the discussion? Nothing whatsoever.
You just don't seem to get any basic logic.
Both parties win, because without the strikes, the employees don’t lose pay and the companies don’t lose work done.
And they are the Tory core vote so obviously the Tory government is not going to tax them even more
A French bank had a fire in its trading floor. Initially the shares fell, but later in the day they rose, as investors realized that their traders would no longer be able to lose money if they weren't at their desks.
I said in my earlier posts on this nurses should get no more than 6% in line with the average payrise nationally and that remains my line
Will that happen? Obviously not yet. Your comments about the Tory core vote are, of course, completely valid. The Tories are of fuck all use to anyone in this country except for the people they continue to do their best to enrich at everyone else's expense. Unfortunately this includes well-off pensioners, who are very numerous and also the most likely demographic to bother to turn out to vote. Will Labour show any more willingness to desist from going to the well of earnings over and over and over again, and extract more money from assets instead?
The signs aren't encouraging. All the noises emanating from Starmer's camp right now suggest that they're going to run as the party most competent to manage an endless age of austerity (except for pensioners, for the triple lock will be maintained for all time.) And thus, round the plughole we continue to circle. The only hope for those of us already in the afternoon of our lives is that the country can stagger on for long enough for us to perish of old age before everything completely falls apart. The young are royally screwed.
Someone made a comment about payrises not being above inflation
You correctly and astutely pointed out that nurses wanted a 19% rise (ie in response to pay rises not being above inflation you pointed out theirs was). Take credit where it is due. It was a valid and appropriate point by you.
Then it was discussed that they would probably settle for a below inflation rise.
Then you came out with a perfectly valid statement in response, but that had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Completely unrelated and you can't see that is irrational.
Your line re nurses pay is fine. I have no issue with it. It is a perfectly valid opinion. Not sure why you have brought that up. I'm not saying I agree, but it is a valid point of view.
You are the only person on this site that does not understand very basic logic.
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
Any chance Gridwatch covers a different territory eg ex-Scotland?
Labour were also even more pro lockdown than the Tories
World class performance by the visiting goalie btw. Home crowd cheered him off. (May not have done if we hadn't won 2-1).
Come back.
HYUFD still isn't getting the difference between asking for and will settle for.
The govt would really be doing themselves a big favour sorting out the Nurses pay award.
Sunak needs to agree a deal with the nurses as they are a special case and have offered an olive branch
Cutting a deal with the nurses should be a no-brainer.
I suspect most people support it as they don’t think it would affect them.
Jan-Dec: Windermere.
I would, if money were no object, have several holidays a year - winter snow, Cornwall, Scotland, city break, exotic trip - but they'd be holidays, not relocations. I'm usually ready to come home after a week. (Though I can stretch a trip to the southwest out to a week and a half.)
Sadly because I think it would be disastrous financially, driving our biggest taxpayers abroad.
Only one way to find out though.
Re: Cross country skiing. Nothing scarier than going downhill on edgeless skis, particularly when there's not much room. It is no surprise that even the Olympic competitors have the odd crash. It gets a lot easier with metal edges but if you are racing, that's just extra weight.
I've always fancied a tour across the Hardangervidda, Heroes of Telemark style. April is the month to go, I believe.
The market price swings provide an incentive for anyone, literally anyone, to invest money in energy storage technology to store excess wind energy on windy days and sell it on calm days. There are lots of companies, spending lots of money, on different technology for this purpose.
The government had ensured that there are financial incentives to meet its two main objectives - that a lot of wind energy is installed so that we burn less fossil fuel, and that the market provides an efficient means of providing supply when the wind doesn't blow.
There's not a scandal here. It's the policy working as intended. What part of it do you still not understand?
They're globally mobile in a way that factories aren't so much.
Which, as it happens, is what I've done in Manchester. Which ranks pretty highly. And also happens to be where family and friends are. Things have worked out pretty well, all things considered.
Where's the line though? Just nurses? Nurses and junior doctors? What about teachers? (There was a 30k starting salary in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has rather been overtaken by events).
Everyone except train drivers?
I'm not sure I'd choose the Flatlands, but there are worse places.
Given how bad the famine was in these parts it's possible that there's been some deliberate forgetting of the family history before that. Wouldn't want to ask too many questions about how the family survived and ended up with land when so many starved to death and emigrated.
As I seem to have stumbled into politicaltravelling.com I'd only offer I loved the Ticino area of Switzerland as well.
Locarno and Lugano were both lovely as were the islands on Lake Maggiore and some of the Italian towns. The gelato was excellent on both sides of the border and I did enjoy a particularly nice Swiss Merlot.
All you need is your own private pool in a six star resort overlooking a massive canyon near the Empty Quarter in Ad Dhakhiliya in Oman, and some free bubbles. The wife won’t even need her Daisy Dukes
Just keep it simple. Basic
A 2-point swing in the latest Omnisis which has the Con-Lab share a bit higher than other pollsters.
Indeed my Cornish family has probably lived in the same tiny part of Cornwall since the Celts came to Britain around 1000 BC. The Cornish don’t move much
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) lunged at Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and had to be pulled away by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.). It happened after Gaetz blocked Kevin McCarthy from clinching the final vote to be elected speaker in the fourteenth round of voting . . . .
Several GOP members said they believed the animosity between Rogers and Gaetz reached a boiling point over talk that GOP leadership might offer Gaetz the chairmanship of a House Armed Services subcommittee. Rogers, who is set to lead that panel, had grown increasingly angry at the holdouts during the week, and he had initially threatened to try to strip anti-McCarthy members of committee assignments.
Gaetz appeared to revel in the drama. He left the chamber and headed to the restroom right before his name was first called during the roll call. That meant when he returned, he would cast one of the final votes — and McCarthy’s fate would come down to him. . . .
Rogers declined to comment when asked about the altercation, but Hudson later told reporters, in an understatement: “It was a very tense moment, and I was just trying to play a role to keep the tensions down.”
“Through all of this, people’s emotions go up and down,” McCarthy later told reporters. “But at the end of the night, Matt got everybody there … it actually helped unite people."
[SSI - if you say so, Speaky!]
“Nothing like a little more chaos to go with the chaos,” said Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), before solemnly adding: “Tempers are short, particularly when it’s late at night. You’ve been here a long time and you think you’ve got a deal done.”
“It’s painful to watch. It’s embarrassing. The country deserves better,” he added.
The member-on-member scuffle wasn’t the only “wow” moment. Some others as the speaker race drew to a close:
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a McCarthy supporter, was photograped trying to hand her phone to holdout Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.). The person apparently on the line? Donald Trump, who was also pulling for McCarthy. Rosendale waved his hand like he wasn’t interested in chatting with the ex-president.
Throughout the whole evening, Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) was reading the “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck” while waiting on votes.
Tired children laid out on the overstuffed chairs in the Speaker’s Lobby in front of roaring fires. A small girl with a yellow bow in her hair kept asking if her family could go home as the clock passed midnight.
An hour later, during his first speech as speaker, McCarthy seemed to acknowledge the pandemonium that had overtaken his workplace the past week.
“I’ll be honest,” he said, “it’s not how I had it planned.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/07/crazy-moments-mccarthy-speaker-votes-00076887
The installation of 'a lot' of wind energy capacity bakes coal oil and gas into the system. Storage is nowhere - battery storage will only ever be able to store power for 24 hours, hydrogen only works at 31% efficiency so you need vast overcapacity in wind - about 8 times what we have currently, to make the relevant amount. Pumped hydro, the best option, is limited by geography, and current projects are nowhere, because they require large upfront investment, and where is the incentive to do so when the renewables industry is making more money from constraining than they would from providing power?
As for your 'incentivising the market', where's the commercial window for anyone who might want to purchase, store, and re-sell that power, when the consumer has already paid an overinflated price for the energy whether they get it or not? All your fatuous praise for the Government's 'policy working as intended' actually means is that the Government should be congratulated for putting in place an eye-wateringly shit system that no country in their right mind would sign up to, because the shitness in the system is a good 'incentive' to make things better. On that basis you must also be a big fan of our handling of the NHS and our assylum and immigration system.
https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-says-public-sector-pay-rises-will-fuel-inflation-economists-say-they-wont-12779761
The Tories who made this decision to surpress incomes, and be known as income surpressers, are not just economically illiterate but politically Illiterate too. Put simply, they are idiots.
Rishi Sunak’s horrendous record as chancellor, not being on the ball, missing so many things, like the billions of fraud on his watch, making idiot decisions like eat out to help out, has continued into number 10. The teams around him are not up to it. Cabinet meetings and business manager meetings under Sunak are mad hatters having a tea party.
Not my family's experience. Hard to pin down any branch to a specific patch of land, though I think you might be able to get one lot back to the Staffordshire Moorlands, another to Crieff, another to Anglesey... But I think I'm atypical in that regard.
Pushing up wages too high will just lead to an inflationary wage spiral and bigger deficit
Saying they don't cause inflation because the government "could increase wages and cut other parts of the budget" is delusional. The government could also force people to work 80 hours a week; it won't.
We only made Kwarteng resign to much ridicule.
Indeed the bounce in the US markets Friday was partly down to a reduction in the rate of wage growth. Seen as helping to bring inflation under control.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-06/fed-seen-leaning-toward-smaller-hikes-after-wage-growth-cools
The best PM rating in next Opinium will be interesting too. perhaps that measure also has swingback with Opnium, or they just over calibrate new leader bounce, but Sunak regularly topping Starmer as best PM has been the best thing for Tories from Opinium. They gave Truss leads there too. If Starmer had any sort of best PM lead from Opnium, then Tory rampers need to taken down to the Blue Peter Garden and exterminated by daleks.
Amuses me, and irritates them, when I pronounce it "Foul-mouth".
Instead they have come out this episode looking like muddled idiots, income surpressers, creators of needless chaos, and shined the super troopers on all the things politically they should have wanted off the news!
The political history books will write this one up as the idiotic stance that decimated the Tory’s at the coming election.
I don’t touch Crypto in my investments. Partly as I don’t understand it and partly as it is ramped to the heavens especially on YouTube (as well as that ‘learn to trade’ Forex guy).
https://twitter.com/johnreedstark/status/1611697326891966465?s=61&t=M4MLkcvq3jrS-fWigYn7ng
I think he will end up doing this.
If the nursing union is now publicly negotiating with itself then it should only be a matter of time.
What a waste of Saudi blood money.
Which is why the Tory’s now sit on 25% of votes while Labour seem comfortably in the 40%s
This horrendous mistake by the Sunak government makes the Tories look like they don’t care about incomes. The inflation problem is about to devour itself, somehow the Tories have made themselves look unnecessarily intransigent and unbothered by suppressed incomes, going into the next general election and as you wisely point out those following.
They have lost voters these last few weeks they are not getting back in generations.
Starmer doesn’t even need a vision, big idea or even a manifesto now the Sunak government have cocked this up.
And here’s the kicker - Boris would not have made these mistakes, his politics would not have made this humungoose mistake. A whole load of other mistakes maybe, but not this one. Nor would Lady Thatcher and her governments have ignored the fall in household incomes in the same way Sunak and Hunt have painted themselves as the enemy of household incomes.
January and November are the hardest months. Too dark in January in most cold places and too cool in a lot of warm places. Too wet or cold in November in most of the short haul locations but (central and Southern) Morocco is still sunny and pleasant.
Disappointing for Lishi.
https://twitter.com/paddypower/status/1611803226554380288