Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
You seem to be mixing up Labour and the Conservatives. It is the latter driving the rich out of the country, and who have increased the tax take to record levels, along with borrowing.
The combination of incompetence and, to be polite, dubious means of self-enrichment is not acceptable and is leading to well-deserved bad headlines. What I'm saying is that claiming this is somehow entirely new or 'o tempora, o mores' when the previous (if we don't count the Coalition) administration broke manifesto commitments and lead us into war on a false prospectus is to overegg the current situation. The NHS database blew billions for nothing. Political incompetence should be highlighted by the media but the idea it's some sort of new thing or unique and special to the current lot is fiction.
You’re whatabouting the indefensible, then. I can understand Tory ministers making like panicked squid, but you’re usually better than that.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
9% now is not more than 8% in the summer unless it is backdated. What I find frustrating, and not just with the nurses, was that the government pay review body line was never ever going to work when inflation had soared from about 4% to more than 10% by the time the award came to be implemented. That was so obvious that it should have been acknowledged in a grown up way and resolved.
Would be amazed if the govt can get 9% not backdated - yes that is probably a narrow win, although less of a win than getting ahead of this when they knew inflation was rising in the summer and autumn. It will be 9% backdated I expect.
Although I’m more sympathetic than most to Zahawi’s tax affairs (a 30% penalty is not imposed for dishonesty) the overall level of sleaze in government is sickening.
I couldn't agree more.
The obvious response is not to vote for it. One does have to wonder how anyone thought a Boris Johnson led party would turn out any differently. Dogs that look like their owners.
Nice try, but I think Sunak/Hunt are competent, intelligent and rational people - they are pretty uninspiring and a bit limited in vision but will steer us through the rocks of the next few years well enough.
I probably agree the Conservatives need a period in opposition (and I'm well aware just how hard that will be to come back from) and they will need a decent number of votes and seats to retain a meaningful presence in Parliament and hold the Government to account, which I expect to be a poor one.
Have just played that clip. Wifey says "who is that stupid woman talking such utter shite. There's virtually no cases of men dressing up as women to assault them in toilets, but stacks of men dressing up as men to assault women in toilets."
Leon old luv, if fear of lady cock is all the right wing have left, they deserve to be smashed at the election.
Just chiming in to say how wonderful it is that the chatbot passed an MBA exam but failed a bunch of others. Maybe we can replace the MBAs with chatbots and save billions.
I've never done an MBA and never been impressed by those that have.
The best way to learn how to run a business is to be mentored directly by successful leaders who have.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
Feels like he has made a lot of mistakes in less than 4 months in office.
Braverman, Zahawi, Williamson, Jenrick Strikes - nurses in particular Levelling up - amounts too low, not enough localism and allocate poorly Triple lock Silly things like seatbelt gate, Charles to the climate conference
He is clearly a weak leader with poor judgment. I thought he was (relatively) good as Chancellor.
I've been a Rishi backer ever since I met him on a CalMac ferry in 2020. What I saw was a guy who was doing both a great job politically and with communicating those policies. I saw a guy who quite effortlessly chatted with the normals on the back of the boat. Who had a great team around him who were organised and effective.
But that was then. I expected him to bring that same feel into his new office. And its been the opposite. So either he is a prisoner of the different tribes in the party, or it was all a shiny veneer, a bullshit bubble protecting the rather weak / insecure reality, or both.
I like Sunak - always have - and I just think he's been given an impossible set of cards to play.
He's restored solvency of the public finances, is sorting the NI protocol, led a reapproachment with France (even the cross Channel crossings are slightly better this month), and is serious about education.
He's a bit slow on strikes but I've no doubt he's working on it in the background.
My main criticism is the lack of strategic vision. But he's a very competent administrator.
Just chiming in to say how wonderful it is that the chatbot passed an MBA exam but failed a bunch of others. Maybe we can replace the MBAs with chatbots and save billions.
I've never done an MBA and never been impressed by those that have.
The best way to learn how to run a business is to be mentored directly by successful leaders who have.
Hear hear. Strip out the MBAs and management consultants.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
There's a move to get Clarkson sacked and dismissed from every media outlet and source of income over his Meghan Markle article which, whilst I thought was boorish and unpleasant, represents exactly the sort of cancel culture which is now a problem.
No apology is ever good enough or big enough - revenge and exile is want people want pour encourager les autres.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
Feels like he has made a lot of mistakes in less than 4 months in office.
Braverman, Zahawi, Williamson, Jenrick Strikes - nurses in particular Levelling up - amounts too low, not enough localism and allocate poorly Triple lock Silly things like seatbelt gate, Charles to the climate conference
He is clearly a weak leader with poor judgment. I thought he was (relatively) good as Chancellor.
I've been a Rishi backer ever since I met him on a CalMac ferry in 2020. What I saw was a guy who was doing both a great job politically and with communicating those policies. I saw a guy who quite effortlessly chatted with the normals on the back of the boat. Who had a great team around him who were organised and effective.
But that was then. I expected him to bring that same feel into his new office. And its been the opposite. So either he is a prisoner of the different tribes in the party, or it was all a shiny veneer, a bullshit bubble protecting the rather weak / insecure reality, or both.
I like Sunak - always have - and I just think he's been given an impossible set of cards to play.
He's restored solvency of the public finances, is sorting the NI protocol, led a reapproachment with France (even the cross Channel crossings are slightly better this month), and is serious about education.
He's a bit slow on strikes but I've no doubt he's working on it in the background.
My main criticism is the lack of strategic vision. But he's a very competent administrator.
Braverman? Zahawi? Williamson? Why were these people appointed when far from essential or with core followings in the Commons? Why are two of them still here giving a stench of corruption that is going to cost the Tories perhaps a further 2-5% at the GE beyond that which is inevitable from the economic situation.
Have just played that clip. Wifey says "who is that stupid woman talking such utter shite. There's virtually no cases of men dressing up as women to assault them in toilets, but stacks of men dressing up as men to assault women in toilets."
Leon old luv, if fear of lady cock is all the right wing have left, they deserve to be smashed at the election.
The polls on the trans issue suggest I’m with the majority. I agree it is highly unlikely to swing an election, however
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
No doubt if Rishi had not done any deal, you'd have criticised him for his intractability, obstinacy and said the Tories were totally out of touch and had no political ability whatsoever.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
There's a move to get Clarkson sacked and dismissed from every media outlet and source of income over his Meghan Markle article which, whilst I thought was boorish and unpleasant, represents exactly the sort of cancel culture which is now a problem.
No apology is ever good enough or big enough - revenge and exile is want people want pour encourager les autres.
I’m not sure it’s even ‘pour encourager’ any more. Much of it is now like denunciations under Stalin or Pol Pot, or during the witch craze. You denounce others first so that you are not denounced yourself
Also, add in a dash of pure sadism. Lord of the Flies and all that
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
9% now is not more than 8% in the summer unless it is backdated. What I find frustrating, and not just with the nurses, was that the government pay review body line was never ever going to work when inflation had soared from about 4% to more than 10% by the time the award came to be implemented. That was so obvious that it should have been acknowledged in a grown up way and resolved.
Cutting the real incomes of public servants was, and perhaps still is, the means by which the government funds the Trussterfuck and potential tax cuts ahead of the next election. As stated by Jeremy Hunt's autumn budget.
Those public servants aren't willing to be the ones paying for all this.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
I think Sunak is incompetent and useless and was clearly promoted way above his ability - I said this all way back in early 2020 and everyone said he was amazing because he was giving out free money - but he's clearly better than Johnson.
But then I think Starmer is about 50x better than Sunak.
I don’t buy public school veneer as ‘nice’. It’s shop bought.
Sunak being not as bad as Boris does not make him good. Being not as inept as Truss doesn’t make him competent. Where Sunak is worse than his dismal predecessors is that he seems to lack any political antennae whatsoever. He’s trying so hard for people to love him, but the more you see the less there is. It’s bizarre.
I think that's unfair, and I think this is the partisan in you.
Sunak is a nice guy, a good guy and competent - he does lack vision and some political skills (not seeming to recognise how his wealth comes across) but very few have everything.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
There's a move to get Clarkson sacked and dismissed from every media outlet and source of income over his Meghan Markle article which, whilst I thought was boorish and unpleasant, represents exactly the sort of cancel culture which is now a problem.
No apology is ever good enough or big enough - revenge and exile is want people want pour encourager les autres.
I think you’re wrong. People are rightly bored of celebs. They celebrate culture that started in the 90s has run its course. The are doubly bored of celebs sharing their political views and assuming their celebrity grants them importance.
Clarkson needs to shut up and go away for a bit. It’s really boring. The one thing celebs can’t do. Instead they complain about being ‘cancelled’ and get their knickers in a twist.
If Clarkson stuck to what created his celebrity, he would be fine.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
There's a move to get Clarkson sacked and dismissed from every media outlet and source of income over his Meghan Markle article which, whilst I thought was boorish and unpleasant, represents exactly the sort of cancel culture which is now a problem.
No apology is ever good enough or big enough - revenge and exile is want people want pour encourager les autres.
I think you’re wrong. People are rightly bored of celebs. They celebrate culture that started in the 90s has run its course. The are doubly bored of celebs sharing their political views and assuming their celebrity grants them importance.
Clarkson needs to shut up and go away for a bit. It’s really boring. The one thing celebs can’t do. Instead they complain about being ‘cancelled’ and get their knickers in a twist.
If Clarkson stuck to what created his celebrity, he would be fine.
Just chiming in to say how wonderful it is that the chatbot passed an MBA exam but failed a bunch of others. Maybe we can replace the MBAs with chatbots and save billions.
I've never done an MBA and never been impressed by those that have.
The best way to learn how to run a business is to be mentored directly by successful leaders who have.
Hear hear. Strip out the MBAs and management consultants.
Strictly speaking, that's what I am - but I'm a mega project management consultant.
I do have some technical skills in how to structure them and deliver them. And I work hard on it for each client.
The issue is the ones who go through their careers with just bullshit and playing back to the clients what they've already told them.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
There's a move to get Clarkson sacked and dismissed from every media outlet and source of income over his Meghan Markle article which, whilst I thought was boorish and unpleasant, represents exactly the sort of cancel culture which is now a problem.
No apology is ever good enough or big enough - revenge and exile is want people want pour encourager les autres.
I think you’re wrong. People are rightly bored of celebs. They celebrate culture that started in the 90s has run its course. The are doubly bored of celebs sharing their political views and assuming their celebrity grants them importance.
Clarkson needs to shut up and go away for a bit. It’s really boring. The one thing celebs can’t do. Instead they complain about being ‘cancelled’ and get their knickers in a twist.
If Clarkson stuck to what created his celebrity, he would be fine.
Genuine question: do you think Gary Lineker should do the same?
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
Feels like he has made a lot of mistakes in less than 4 months in office.
Braverman, Zahawi, Williamson, Jenrick Strikes - nurses in particular Levelling up - amounts too low, not enough localism and allocate poorly Triple lock Silly things like seatbelt gate, Charles to the climate conference
He is clearly a weak leader with poor judgment. I thought he was (relatively) good as Chancellor.
I've been a Rishi backer ever since I met him on a CalMac ferry in 2020. What I saw was a guy who was doing both a great job politically and with communicating those policies. I saw a guy who quite effortlessly chatted with the normals on the back of the boat. Who had a great team around him who were organised and effective.
But that was then. I expected him to bring that same feel into his new office. And its been the opposite. So either he is a prisoner of the different tribes in the party, or it was all a shiny veneer, a bullshit bubble protecting the rather weak / insecure reality, or both.
I like Sunak - always have - and I just think he's been given an impossible set of cards to play.
He's restored solvency of the public finances, is sorting the NI protocol, led a reapproachment with France (even the cross Channel crossings are slightly better this month), and is serious about education.
He's a bit slow on strikes but I've no doubt he's working on it in the background.
My main criticism is the lack of strategic vision. But he's a very competent administrator.
Braverman? Zahawi? Williamson? Why were these people appointed when far from essential or with core followings in the Commons? Why are two of them still here giving a stench of corruption that is going to cost the Tories perhaps a further 2-5% at the GE beyond that which is inevitable from the economic situation.
Zahawi was at least not given a real job, it was a token. Williamson and Braverman were inexplicable because the latter was replaceable or movable, and the former was unpopular and doing nothing it seems since his role was not refilled.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
I think Sunak is incompetent and useless and was clearly promoted way above his ability - I said this all way back in early 2020 and everyone said he was amazing because he was giving out free money - but he's clearly better than Johnson.
But then I think Starmer is about 50x better than Sunak.
I don’t buy public school veneer as ‘nice’. It’s shop bought.
Sunak being not as bad as Boris does not make him good. Being not as inept as Truss doesn’t make him competent. Where Sunak is worse than his dismal predecessors is that he seems to lack any political antennae whatsoever. He’s trying so hard for people to love him, but the more you see the less there is. It’s bizarre.
I think that's unfair, and I think this is the partisan in you.
Sunak is a nice guy, a good guy and competent - he does lack vision and some political skills (not seeming to recognise how his wealth comes across) but very few have everything.
I'm very glad he's in office.
You project a lot of your hopes and dreams onto Sunak. Have you met him?
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
9% now is not more than 8% in the summer unless it is backdated. What I find frustrating, and not just with the nurses, was that the government pay review body line was never ever going to work when inflation had soared from about 4% to more than 10% by the time the award came to be implemented. That was so obvious that it should have been acknowledged in a grown up way and resolved.
Cutting the real incomes of public servants was, and perhaps still is, the means by which the government funds the Trussterfuck and potential tax cuts ahead of the next election. As stated by Jeremy Hunt's autumn budget.
Those public servants aren't willing to be the ones paying for all this.
But the money is not going to be used for taxes, it is going to be used for wages. The price of gas gives a few billion to play with but it can still only be spent once.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
No doubt if Rishi had not done any deal, you'd have criticised him for his intractability, obstinacy and said the Tories were totally out of touch and had no political ability whatsoever.
Probably and such criticism would be fair too. To escape criticism of the decisions already taken they would need a deal which was closer to 4% than 10% and somehow retain enough nurses to reduce waiting lists as well. Criticism has rightly been baked in as they were searching for a unicorn.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
There's a move to get Clarkson sacked and dismissed from every media outlet and source of income over his Meghan Markle article which, whilst I thought was boorish and unpleasant, represents exactly the sort of cancel culture which is now a problem.
No apology is ever good enough or big enough - revenge and exile is want people want pour encourager les autres.
I’m not sure it’s even ‘pour encourager’ any more. Much of it is now like denunciations under Stalin or Pol Pot, or during the witch craze. You denounce others first so that you are not denounced yourself
Also, add in a dash of pure sadism. Lord of the Flies and all that
As far as sadism goes I think you'd find it hard to beat what Clarkson wrote about Meghan Markle. That stuff about throwing excrement at her was really crazy, it made me worry about his mental state (yes I know it was a reference to that D&D porn programme but it still pointed to someone with some kind of weird issues going on IMHO, also does the Sun not employ anyone who reads stuff before it gets published?)
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
Feels like he has made a lot of mistakes in less than 4 months in office.
Braverman, Zahawi, Williamson, Jenrick Strikes - nurses in particular Levelling up - amounts too low, not enough localism and allocate poorly Triple lock Silly things like seatbelt gate, Charles to the climate conference
He is clearly a weak leader with poor judgment. I thought he was (relatively) good as Chancellor.
I've been a Rishi backer ever since I met him on a CalMac ferry in 2020. What I saw was a guy who was doing both a great job politically and with communicating those policies. I saw a guy who quite effortlessly chatted with the normals on the back of the boat. Who had a great team around him who were organised and effective.
But that was then. I expected him to bring that same feel into his new office. And its been the opposite. So either he is a prisoner of the different tribes in the party, or it was all a shiny veneer, a bullshit bubble protecting the rather weak / insecure reality, or both.
I like Sunak - always have - and I just think he's been given an impossible set of cards to play.
He's restored solvency of the public finances, is sorting the NI protocol, led a reapproachment with France (even the cross Channel crossings are slightly better this month), and is serious about education.
He's a bit slow on strikes but I've no doubt he's working on it in the background.
My main criticism is the lack of strategic vision. But he's a very competent administrator.
Braverman? Zahawi? Williamson? Why were these people appointed when far from essential or with core followings in the Commons? Why are two of them still here giving a stench of corruption that is going to cost the Tories perhaps a further 2-5% at the GE beyond that which is inevitable from the economic situation.
They were appointed for the reasons of party management.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
I have a little bit of sympathy for Clarkson. He's getting old and I guess he increasingly finds the world governed by rules and values that are unfamiliar to him. He needs to listen to The Times They Are A Changin' and follow Bob's advice.
Clarkson is an excellent motoring journalist. He should go back to his roots and ditch the celeb/pundit nonsense and talk about cars. Occasionally do a Grand Tour special like Morecombe and Wise for the noughties nostalgia market.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
Feels like he has made a lot of mistakes in less than 4 months in office.
Braverman, Zahawi, Williamson, Jenrick Strikes - nurses in particular Levelling up - amounts too low, not enough localism and allocate poorly Triple lock Silly things like seatbelt gate, Charles to the climate conference
He is clearly a weak leader with poor judgment. I thought he was (relatively) good as Chancellor.
I've been a Rishi backer ever since I met him on a CalMac ferry in 2020. What I saw was a guy who was doing both a great job politically and with communicating those policies. I saw a guy who quite effortlessly chatted with the normals on the back of the boat. Who had a great team around him who were organised and effective.
But that was then. I expected him to bring that same feel into his new office. And its been the opposite. So either he is a prisoner of the different tribes in the party, or it was all a shiny veneer, a bullshit bubble protecting the rather weak / insecure reality, or both.
I like Sunak - always have - and I just think he's been given an impossible set of cards to play.
He's restored solvency of the public finances, is sorting the NI protocol, led a reapproachment with France (even the cross Channel crossings are slightly better this month), and is serious about education.
He's a bit slow on strikes but I've no doubt he's working on it in the background.
My main criticism is the lack of strategic vision. But he's a very competent administrator.
Braverman? Zahawi? Williamson? Why were these people appointed when far from essential or with core followings in the Commons? Why are two of them still here giving a stench of corruption that is going to cost the Tories perhaps a further 2-5% at the GE beyond that which is inevitable from the economic situation.
Zahawi was at least not given a real job, it was a token. Williamson and Braverman were inexplicable because the latter was replaceable or movable, and the former was unpopular and doing nothing it seems since his role was not refilled.
Williamson did however coin a phrase years ago which drew mockery at the time but has aged quite well. He said Russia should “shut up and go away”. That pretty much encapsulates most people’s thoughts every time some twat like Lavrov steps up to the podium.
I note it’s been used of Clarkson in this very thread, too.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
Feels like he has made a lot of mistakes in less than 4 months in office.
Braverman, Zahawi, Williamson, Jenrick Strikes - nurses in particular Levelling up - amounts too low, not enough localism and allocate poorly Triple lock Silly things like seatbelt gate, Charles to the climate conference
He is clearly a weak leader with poor judgment. I thought he was (relatively) good as Chancellor.
I've been a Rishi backer ever since I met him on a CalMac ferry in 2020. What I saw was a guy who was doing both a great job politically and with communicating those policies. I saw a guy who quite effortlessly chatted with the normals on the back of the boat. Who had a great team around him who were organised and effective.
But that was then. I expected him to bring that same feel into his new office. And its been the opposite. So either he is a prisoner of the different tribes in the party, or it was all a shiny veneer, a bullshit bubble protecting the rather weak / insecure reality, or both.
I thought this rather accurate by Marina Hyde yesterday:
"He seems to have just the two speeds: dewy-eyed prefect delivering a supposedly inspirational speech to much, much younger children; and high-financier unable to fully hide his impatience that he should be required to answer questions from lesser mortals. Neither seems immediately obviously likely to endear him to the British public"
Just chiming in to say how wonderful it is that the chatbot passed an MBA exam but failed a bunch of others. Maybe we can replace the MBAs with chatbots and save billions.
I've never done an MBA and never been impressed by those that have.
The best way to learn how to run a business is to be mentored directly by successful leaders who have.
Hear hear. Strip out the MBAs and management consultants.
Strictly speaking, that's what I am - but I'm a mega project management consultant.
I do have some technical skills in how to structure them and deliver them. And I work hard on it for each client.
The issue is the ones who go through their careers with just bullshit and playing back to the clients what they've already told them.
The problem is that Management Consultant can mean anything from a General Groves level organisational genius to a graduate in a shiny suit who has failed Remedial Arse Elbow Differentiation. Twice.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
There's a move to get Clarkson sacked and dismissed from every media outlet and source of income over his Meghan Markle article which, whilst I thought was boorish and unpleasant, represents exactly the sort of cancel culture which is now a problem.
No apology is ever good enough or big enough - revenge and exile is want people want pour encourager les autres.
I think you’re wrong. People are rightly bored of celebs. They celebrate culture that started in the 90s has run its course. The are doubly bored of celebs sharing their political views and assuming their celebrity grants them importance.
Clarkson needs to shut up and go away for a bit. It’s really boring. The one thing celebs can’t do. Instead they complain about being ‘cancelled’ and get their knickers in a twist.
If Clarkson stuck to what created his celebrity, he would be fine.
Genuine question: do you think Gary Lineker should do the same?
Sure. I’m not interested in his political views. Unlike Clarkson, the vast majority of Linekers output is still focussed on his core, football. Clarkson seems to have forgotten what he’s actually good at.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
Feels like he has made a lot of mistakes in less than 4 months in office.
Braverman, Zahawi, Williamson, Jenrick Strikes - nurses in particular Levelling up - amounts too low, not enough localism and allocate poorly Triple lock Silly things like seatbelt gate, Charles to the climate conference
He is clearly a weak leader with poor judgment. I thought he was (relatively) good as Chancellor.
I've been a Rishi backer ever since I met him on a CalMac ferry in 2020. What I saw was a guy who was doing both a great job politically and with communicating those policies. I saw a guy who quite effortlessly chatted with the normals on the back of the boat. Who had a great team around him who were organised and effective.
But that was then. I expected him to bring that same feel into his new office. And its been the opposite. So either he is a prisoner of the different tribes in the party, or it was all a shiny veneer, a bullshit bubble protecting the rather weak / insecure reality, or both.
I like Sunak - always have - and I just think he's been given an impossible set of cards to play.
He's restored solvency of the public finances, is sorting the NI protocol, led a reapproachment with France (even the cross Channel crossings are slightly better this month), and is serious about education.
He's a bit slow on strikes but I've no doubt he's working on it in the background.
My main criticism is the lack of strategic vision. But he's a very competent administrator.
Braverman? Zahawi? Williamson? Why were these people appointed when far from essential or with core followings in the Commons? Why are two of them still here giving a stench of corruption that is going to cost the Tories perhaps a further 2-5% at the GE beyond that which is inevitable from the economic situation.
They were appointed for the reasons of party management.
You know this.
Really? Were Tory MPs willing to sabotage Sunak for Zahawi or Williamson? Could he not have appointed someone like Baker to appease the ERG instead of Braverman?
These are bad choices in the first place and it is completely untenable to keep Zahawi now. Not the signs of a competent administrator at all, and I was a Sunak fan, not ideologically but liked the way he communicated and did think he was competent as Chancellor.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
I have a little bit of sympathy for Clarkson. He's getting old and I guess he increasingly finds the world governed by rules and values that are unfamiliar to him. He needs to listen to The Times They Are A Changin' and follow Bob's advice.
Clarkson is an excellent motoring journalist. He should go back to his roots and ditch the celeb/pundit nonsense and talk about cars. Occasionally do a Grand Tour special like Morecombe and Wise for the noughties nostalgia market.
He could have a happy life.
I’m quite sure he does have a happy life.
Doesn’t appear to be a happy bunny right now. Comes across angry and upset.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
9% now is not more than 8% in the summer unless it is backdated. What I find frustrating, and not just with the nurses, was that the government pay review body line was never ever going to work when inflation had soared from about 4% to more than 10% by the time the award came to be implemented. That was so obvious that it should have been acknowledged in a grown up way and resolved.
Cutting the real incomes of public servants was, and perhaps still is, the means by which the government funds the Trussterfuck and potential tax cuts ahead of the next election. As stated by Jeremy Hunt's autumn budget.
Those public servants aren't willing to be the ones paying for all this.
But the money is not going to be used for taxes, it is going to be used for wages. The price of gas gives a few billion to play with but it can still only be spent once.
That was the idea, maybe still is. Although Sunak is more connected to reality than Liz Truss he shares her small state ideology, which he prioritises over the state providing acceptable services. Sunak has absolutely no interest in fixing the current healthcare crisis and has not engaged at any point on it.
If you take Zahawi at his word (big if) then what he was claiming was that his father had "founder shares" in Yougov and was therefore entitled to a substantial cut of the sale proceeds when the business was sold. He would also have had an entitlement to Entrepreneurs Relief so he would only have had to pay 10% on that gain.
Quite clearly the matter was not adequately recorded, vouched or disclosed and HMRC have taken the view that all of the gain on sale was subject to tax by Zahawi who had either exhausted his life time allowance or was, in some other way not eligible (there may have been a problem since his own interest was not particularly clearly disclosed).
According to him, HMRC have compromised by accepting that his father was entitled to some of the sale proceeds but not as much as claimed, resulting in him having an additional liability and a penalty (allegedly over £1m) for late accounting.
There is an element of this that is simply everyday entrepreneurial folk. The astonishing, and genuinely jaw dropping aspect of this is (a) that Boris appointed him Chancellor when this dispute was going on and (b) he was delusional enough to accept. It is very hard to work out what they were thinking.
Having been through a business sale and claimed entrepreneur’s relief, I cannot believe Zahawi’s accountants and lawyers did not give him a range of options to take, along with advice on potential outcomes. He is where he is because of decisions he actively took, not because he is the passive victim of carelessness.
I’m sure he probably went for the aggressive end of the spectrum - I believe the carelessness relates to the failure to document fully. That’s wrong - and why we have the whole HMRC review structure - but it’s not necessarily a resigning matter
(As @DavidL says, he should never have been Chancellor when this was ongoing as a topic)
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Rishi is our worst Prime Minister ever, if judged by the narrow criterion of number of fixed penalty notices received.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
I have a little bit of sympathy for Clarkson. He's getting old and I guess he increasingly finds the world governed by rules and values that are unfamiliar to him. He needs to listen to The Times They Are A Changin' and follow Bob's advice.
Clarkson is an excellent motoring journalist. He should go back to his roots and ditch the celeb/pundit nonsense and talk about cars. Occasionally do a Grand Tour special like Morecombe and Wise for the noughties nostalgia market.
He could have a happy life.
I’m quite sure he does have a happy life.
Doesn’t appear to be a happy bunny right now. Comes across angry and upset.
The Clarkson character does. You get that he plays a role, both on TV and in his writings?
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
I have a little bit of sympathy for Clarkson. He's getting old and I guess he increasingly finds the world governed by rules and values that are unfamiliar to him. He needs to listen to The Times They Are A Changin' and follow Bob's advice.
Clarkson is an excellent motoring journalist. He should go back to his roots and ditch the celeb/pundit nonsense and talk about cars. Occasionally do a Grand Tour special like Morecombe and Wise for the noughties nostalgia market.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
9% now is not more than 8% in the summer unless it is backdated. What I find frustrating, and not just with the nurses, was that the government pay review body line was never ever going to work when inflation had soared from about 4% to more than 10% by the time the award came to be implemented. That was so obvious that it should have been acknowledged in a grown up way and resolved.
Cutting the real incomes of public servants was, and perhaps still is, the means by which the government funds the Trussterfuck and potential tax cuts ahead of the next election. As stated by Jeremy Hunt's autumn budget.
Those public servants aren't willing to be the ones paying for all this.
But the money is not going to be used for taxes, it is going to be used for wages. The price of gas gives a few billion to play with but it can still only be spent once.
Basic economics. They spend the money on wages. That means that instead of being so broke that they have to use a food bank in their own hospital, they actually have spare cash. Which they spend on stuff. This drives the economy by allowing other people to have jobs. They also then consume.
Its called "capitalism". How has the supposedly intelligent right forgotten how the system they are supposed to be advocating actually works? You want to sell your product / service and thus make a profit, you have to have people who both want your product / service and have the cash to spend on it.
Millions economically inactive, millions more who work yet have zero cash to consume with. That is capitalism which is eating itself. The spivs at the top keep removing cash from the system into their own pockets, but very quickly the cash runs out.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
I have a little bit of sympathy for Clarkson. He's getting old and I guess he increasingly finds the world governed by rules and values that are unfamiliar to him. He needs to listen to The Times They Are A Changin' and follow Bob's advice.
Clarkson is an excellent motoring journalist. He should go back to his roots and ditch the celeb/pundit nonsense and talk about cars. Occasionally do a Grand Tour special like Morecombe and Wise for the noughties nostalgia market.
He could have a happy life.
I’m quite sure he does have a happy life.
Owns three Range Rovers so unlikely.
Meanwhile tge local garage and recovery are delighted.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Hardly. Truss planned to cut taxes for her mates. Who would pocket the savings. Which slows economic output further as yet more cash gets removed from circulation,
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
There's a move to get Clarkson sacked and dismissed from every media outlet and source of income over his Meghan Markle article which, whilst I thought was boorish and unpleasant, represents exactly the sort of cancel culture which is now a problem.
No apology is ever good enough or big enough - revenge and exile is want people want pour encourager les autres.
I’m not sure it’s even ‘pour encourager’ any more. Much of it is now like denunciations under Stalin or Pol Pot, or during the witch craze. You denounce others first so that you are not denounced yourself
Also, add in a dash of pure sadism. Lord of the Flies and all that
I can't recall Mandelstam getting a platform to whine about his cancellation in the Daily Pravda.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
9% now is not more than 8% in the summer unless it is backdated. What I find frustrating, and not just with the nurses, was that the government pay review body line was never ever going to work when inflation had soared from about 4% to more than 10% by the time the award came to be implemented. That was so obvious that it should have been acknowledged in a grown up way and resolved.
Cutting the real incomes of public servants was, and perhaps still is, the means by which the government funds the Trussterfuck and potential tax cuts ahead of the next election. As stated by Jeremy Hunt's autumn budget.
Those public servants aren't willing to be the ones paying for all this.
But the money is not going to be used for taxes, it is going to be used for wages. The price of gas gives a few billion to play with but it can still only be spent once.
That was the idea, maybe still is. Although Sunak is more connected to reality than Liz Truss he shares her small state ideology, which he prioritises over the state providing acceptable services. Sunak has absolutely no interest in fixing the current healthcare crisis and has not engaged at any point on it.
I should add in response to @rochedalepioneer point, Sunak clearly prefers projects with measurable outcomes to BAU delivery dealing with resources and conflicting priorities.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
9% now is not more than 8% in the summer unless it is backdated. What I find frustrating, and not just with the nurses, was that the government pay review body line was never ever going to work when inflation had soared from about 4% to more than 10% by the time the award came to be implemented. That was so obvious that it should have been acknowledged in a grown up way and resolved.
Cutting the real incomes of public servants was, and perhaps still is, the means by which the government funds the Trussterfuck and potential tax cuts ahead of the next election. As stated by Jeremy Hunt's autumn budget.
Those public servants aren't willing to be the ones paying for all this.
But the money is not going to be used for taxes, it is going to be used for wages. The price of gas gives a few billion to play with but it can still only be spent once.
Basic economics. They spend the money on wages. That means that instead of being so broke that they have to use a food bank in their own hospital, they actually have spare cash. Which they spend on stuff. This drives the economy by allowing other people to have jobs. They also then consume.
Its called "capitalism". How has the supposedly intelligent right forgotten how the system they are supposed to be advocating actually works? You want to sell your product / service and thus make a profit, you have to have people who both want your product / service and have the cash to spend on it.
Millions economically inactive, millions more who work yet have zero cash to consume with. That is capitalism which is eating itself. The spivs at the top keep removing cash from the system into their own pockets, but very quickly the cash runs out.
We are living massively beyond our means and we have been for a very long time, completely depleting our capital as a nation. The answer is not to spend a whole heap more that we have not earned.
If economic activity rates were the answer we would be doing very well, we have one of the highest. But its not. Productivity is the answer and always have been. For that we need to incentivise others to invest (because we have no money of our own), encourage training, improve education and skills, make cheap labour a less attractive option and improve our management. Difficult yes, but paying people more when they have not improved their output is purely inflationary and any short term gain is illusionary.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Hardly. Truss planned to cut taxes for her mates. Who would pocket the savings. Which slows economic output further as yet more cash gets removed from circulation,
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
Investing in things is good, but you can only invest in things up to the available money you have to invest.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
I would have agreed with you ten years ago. But we can now see the Osborne/Cameron political choice of austerity failed in its stated objective of balancing the books, while causing significant damage to society.
To be clear this was a political choice, not followed by peer countries, who have been marginally, but cumulatively over time significantly, more successful than the UK.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for 19%
They are getting 9% (according to your post)
That looks like a reasonable compromise
This isn’t about “winning” or “losing” - it was just a negotiation that has resulted in an agreement
Just chiming in to say how wonderful it is that the chatbot passed an MBA exam but failed a bunch of others. Maybe we can replace the MBAs with chatbots and save billions.
I've never done an MBA and never been impressed by those that have.
The best way to learn how to run a business is to be mentored directly by successful leaders who have.
Hear hear. Strip out the MBAs and management consultants.
I don't have an MBA but the whole point of it is to change careers and network with a bunch of other high potential leaders, whom you can learn from. Nobody is pretending it's an academic stretch.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
Feels like he has made a lot of mistakes in less than 4 months in office.
Braverman, Zahawi, Williamson, Jenrick Strikes - nurses in particular Levelling up - amounts too low, not enough localism and allocate poorly Triple lock Silly things like seatbelt gate, Charles to the climate conference
He is clearly a weak leader with poor judgment. I thought he was (relatively) good as Chancellor.
I've been a Rishi backer ever since I met him on a CalMac ferry in 2020. What I saw was a guy who was doing both a great job politically and with communicating those policies. I saw a guy who quite effortlessly chatted with the normals on the back of the boat. Who had a great team around him who were organised and effective.
But that was then. I expected him to bring that same feel into his new office. And its been the opposite. So either he is a prisoner of the different tribes in the party, or it was all a shiny veneer, a bullshit bubble protecting the rather weak / insecure reality, or both.
I like Sunak - always have - and I just think he's been given an impossible set of cards to play.
He's restored solvency of the public finances, is sorting the NI protocol, led a reapproachment with France (even the cross Channel crossings are slightly better this month), and is serious about education.
He's a bit slow on strikes but I've no doubt he's working on it in the background.
My main criticism is the lack of strategic vision. But he's a very competent administrator.
I doubt you are even succeeding in deluding yourself with this twaddle, let alone anyone else.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
I would have agreed with you ten years ago. But we can now see the Osborne/Cameron political choice of austerity failed in its stated objective of balancing the books, while causing significant damage to society.
To be clear this was a political choice, not followed by peer countries, who have been marginally, but cumulatively over time significantly, more successful than the UK.
During most of the Osborne years the UK economy was growing faster than our comparators but this was not the success it appeared because we were sucking in imports and keeping our economy going at that faster rate by using credit. It was not sustainable growth. The countries that do best in the long run, such as Germany, do not run unsustainable trade deficits, quite the reverse in fact.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Hardly. Truss planned to cut taxes for her mates. Who would pocket the savings. Which slows economic output further as yet more cash gets removed from circulation,
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
Investing in things is good, but you can only invest in things up to the available money you have to invest.
Investment, in new labour terms, was generally just throwing money at a problem.
As someone here, possibly Gallowgate as he’s a property lawyer, was saying, the legacy of PFI is going to bite us in a few years time.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
Feels like he has made a lot of mistakes in less than 4 months in office.
Braverman, Zahawi, Williamson, Jenrick Strikes - nurses in particular Levelling up - amounts too low, not enough localism and allocate poorly Triple lock Silly things like seatbelt gate, Charles to the climate conference
He is clearly a weak leader with poor judgment. I thought he was (relatively) good as Chancellor.
I've been a Rishi backer ever since I met him on a CalMac ferry in 2020. What I saw was a guy who was doing both a great job politically and with communicating those policies. I saw a guy who quite effortlessly chatted with the normals on the back of the boat. Who had a great team around him who were organised and effective.
But that was then. I expected him to bring that same feel into his new office. And its been the opposite. So either he is a prisoner of the different tribes in the party, or it was all a shiny veneer, a bullshit bubble protecting the rather weak / insecure reality, or both.
One thing I guess we should remember when throwing brickbats at our politicians is that it is a hard job not to trip over ones feet in office, or others dropping you in it, and also dealing with the media. I was critical of Cleverly this morning for his car crash interview, but he was given a car without a steering wheel and no brakes.
Having met a few people who have impressed me who then look poor or average in the media it is easily explained why.
The only exception to all this I can think of was Bob MacLennan. I was his minder for a day at the Winchester By-election. A nicer, quiet, modest bloke you could not meet. Seemed completely unsuited to politics, but did ok.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
Feels like he has made a lot of mistakes in less than 4 months in office.
Braverman, Zahawi, Williamson, Jenrick Strikes - nurses in particular Levelling up - amounts too low, not enough localism and allocate poorly Triple lock Silly things like seatbelt gate, Charles to the climate conference
He is clearly a weak leader with poor judgment. I thought he was (relatively) good as Chancellor.
I've been a Rishi backer ever since I met him on a CalMac ferry in 2020. What I saw was a guy who was doing both a great job politically and with communicating those policies. I saw a guy who quite effortlessly chatted with the normals on the back of the boat. Who had a great team around him who were organised and effective.
But that was then. I expected him to bring that same feel into his new office. And its been the opposite. So either he is a prisoner of the different tribes in the party, or it was all a shiny veneer, a bullshit bubble protecting the rather weak / insecure reality, or both.
I like Sunak - always have - and I just think he's been given an impossible set of cards to play.
He's restored solvency of the public finances, is sorting the NI protocol, led a reapproachment with France (even the cross Channel crossings are slightly better this month), and is serious about education.
He's a bit slow on strikes but I've no doubt he's working on it in the background.
My main criticism is the lack of strategic vision. But he's a very competent administrator.
I doubt you are even succeeding in deluding yourself with this twaddle, let alone anyone else.
You have the beating of Casino in those stakes. By some distance.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Hardly. Truss planned to cut taxes for her mates. Who would pocket the savings. Which slows economic output further as yet more cash gets removed from circulation,
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
But infrastructure going where? Look at the Humber bridge (is it the Humber bridge?) linking Hull and Grimsby, that has not led to economic regeneration of those areas. Shouldn't the economy grow first, both leading to the necessity of new infrastructure, and at least partially providing the funds for it too?
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
9% now is not more than 8% in the summer unless it is backdated. What I find frustrating, and not just with the nurses, was that the government pay review body line was never ever going to work when inflation had soared from about 4% to more than 10% by the time the award came to be implemented. That was so obvious that it should have been acknowledged in a grown up way and resolved.
Though if inflation starts falling, that should work in the nurses' favour in next year's review.
Have just played that clip. Wifey says "who is that stupid woman talking such utter shite. There's virtually no cases of men dressing up as women to assault them in toilets, but stacks of men dressing up as men to assault women in toilets."
Leon old luv, if fear of lady cock is all the right wing have left, they deserve to be smashed at the election.
The polls on the trans issue suggest I’m with the majority. I agree it is highly unlikely to swing an election, however
File it under: potential black swan
Whatever anyone thinks of Miriam Cates speech it can in no way excuse the actions of the labour MP.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Hardly. Truss planned to cut taxes for her mates. Who would pocket the savings. Which slows economic output further as yet more cash gets removed from circulation,
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
Investing in things is good, but you can only invest in things up to the available money you have to invest.
Investment, in new labour terms, was generally just throwing money at a problem.
As someone here, possibly Gallowgate as he’s a property lawyer, was saying, the legacy of PFI is going to bite us in a few years time.
To a large extent, that's the chronic problem with Britain. Our collective tendency to over-value now compared with the future.
So PFI got us a lot of buildings that were needed quickly at the cost of paying more over 25 years.
And the version of austerity chosen in 2010 made the sums add up by nuking capital budgets for year after year. It's less visible and it's survivable for a year or two. Had the taps opened a bit more in 2014-5ish (when the economy was beginning to perk up) we might have got away with it.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Hardly. Truss planned to cut taxes for her mates. Who would pocket the savings. Which slows economic output further as yet more cash gets removed from circulation,
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
Investing in things is good, but you can only invest in things up to the available money you have to invest.
Investment, in new labour terms, was generally just throwing money at a problem.
As someone here, possibly Gallowgate as he’s a property lawyer, was saying, the legacy of PFI is going to bite us in a few years time.
I'm not a property lawyer!
I have done a bit with PFI so far, hopefully will do some more over the next few years.
The whole point of PFI generally was that a hospital/school/whatever was handed over to the public sector at the end of the contractual period in a "good as new" condition. The problem is that many PFI companies have not adequately maintained their facilities, have paid out all the profits in dividends, often overseas, and as such a "good as new" facility is not going to be handed over, there's no assets or cash in the companies to sue for breach of contract, so as such we're going to have replace all these facilities at full rebuild cost.
I find PFI very interesting as a concept. My current opinion is that it is not fundamentally flawed, but have been mismanaged and has loopholes you can drive a bus through.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Hardly. Truss planned to cut taxes for her mates. Who would pocket the savings. Which slows economic output further as yet more cash gets removed from circulation,
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
But infrastructure going where? Look at the Humber bridge (is it the Humber bridge?) linking Hull and Grimsby, that has not led to economic regeneration of those areas. Shouldn't the economy grow first, both leading to the necessity of new infrastructure, and at least partially providing the funds for it too?
Maybe they would have been even more of a dump without the Humber bridge?
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Hardly. Truss planned to cut taxes for her mates. Who would pocket the savings. Which slows economic output further as yet more cash gets removed from circulation,
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
Investing in things is good, but you can only invest in things up to the available money you have to invest.
Investment, in new labour terms, was generally just throwing money at a problem.
As someone here, possibly Gallowgate as he’s a property lawyer, was saying, the legacy of PFI is going to bite us in a few years time.
I'm not a property lawyer!
I have done a bit with PFI so far, hopefully will do some more over the next few years.
The whole point of PFI generally was that a hospital/school/whatever was handed over to the public sector at the end of the contractual period in a "good as new" condition. The problem is that many PFI companies have not adequately maintained their facilities, have paid out all the profits in dividends, often overseas, and as such a "good as new" facility is not going to be handed over, there's no assets or cash in the companies to sue for breach of contract, so as such we're going to have replace all these facilities at full rebuild cost.
I find PFI very interesting as a concept. My current opinion is that it is not fundamentally flawed, but have been mismanaged and has loopholes you can drive a bus through.
There needed to be a sinking fund, maintained with adequate funds to meet this obligation. Failure to maintain it - even if it meant little or no dividends to shareholders - should have meant immediate transfer back tot he public sector.
There are similar sinking funds required in the UK oil and gas sector, to ensure that abandonment obligations will be met at the end of field life.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for 19%
They are getting 9% (according to your post)
That looks like a reasonable compromise
This isn’t about “winning” or “losing” - it was just a negotiation that has resulted in an agreement
Exactly. People will spin it as a victory for whatever side they bat for but it’s a good old fashioned compromise. Both parties will start poles apart and they will eventually come to an agreement. A win-win. I doubt most people seriously believed the nurses would get 19% or the govt wouldn’t budge.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Hardly. Truss planned to cut taxes for her mates. Who would pocket the savings. Which slows economic output further as yet more cash gets removed from circulation,
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
Investing in things is good, but you can only invest in things up to the available money you have to invest.
Investment, in new labour terms, was generally just throwing money at a problem.
As someone here, possibly Gallowgate as he’s a property lawyer, was saying, the legacy of PFI is going to bite us in a few years time.
I'm not a property lawyer!
I have done a bit with PFI so far, hopefully will do some more over the next few years.
The whole point of PFI generally was that a hospital/school/whatever was handed over to the public sector at the end of the contractual period in a "good as new" condition. The problem is that many PFI companies have not adequately maintained their facilities, have paid out all the profits in dividends, often overseas, and as such a "good as new" facility is not going to be handed over, there's no assets or cash in the companies to sue for breach of contract, so as such we're going to have replace all these facilities at full rebuild cost.
I find PFI very interesting as a concept. My current opinion is that it is not fundamentally flawed, but have been mismanaged and has loopholes you can drive a bus through.
There needed to be a sinking fund, maintained with adequate funds to meet this obligation. Failure to maintain it - even if it meant little or no dividends to shareholders - should have meant immediate transfer back tot he public sector.
There are similar sinking funds required in the UK oil and gas sector, to ensure that abandonment obligations will be met at the end of field life.
Well yeah, but that doesn't help the problems with the contracts already in existence.
My understanding is that in the 90s/early 2000s, the banks and institutional investors did not want provisions similar to what you suggest.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Hardly. Truss planned to cut taxes for her mates. Who would pocket the savings. Which slows economic output further as yet more cash gets removed from circulation,
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
But infrastructure going where? Look at the Humber bridge (is it the Humber bridge?) linking Hull and Grimsby, that has not led to economic regeneration of those areas. Shouldn't the economy grow first, both leading to the necessity of new infrastructure, and at least partially providing the funds for it too?
Maybe they would have been even more of a dump without the Humber bridge?
The Humber Bridge gave two communities a quick way of checking that it could be worse.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
9% now is not more than 8% in the summer unless it is backdated. What I find frustrating, and not just with the nurses, was that the government pay review body line was never ever going to work when inflation had soared from about 4% to more than 10% by the time the award came to be implemented. That was so obvious that it should have been acknowledged in a grown up way and resolved.
Though if inflation starts falling, that should work in the nurses' favour in next year's review.
Inflation has started to fall, and will fall further, and underlying inflation is in the 4.5-5% range now.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
9% now is not more than 8% in the summer unless it is backdated. What I find frustrating, and not just with the nurses, was that the government pay review body line was never ever going to work when inflation had soared from about 4% to more than 10% by the time the award came to be implemented. That was so obvious that it should have been acknowledged in a grown up way and resolved.
Though if inflation starts falling, that should work in the nurses' favour in next year's review.
Inflation has started to fall, and will fall further, and underlying inflation is in the 4.5-5% range now.
But we've had a year and more of 10-20% in the sort of things ordinary people buy most, er.g. cheap supermarkets. You need *deflation* to wipe that permanent loss away. So the nurses et aliis will still want a decent pay increase.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Hardly. Truss planned to cut taxes for her mates. Who would pocket the savings. Which slows economic output further as yet more cash gets removed from circulation,
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
But infrastructure going where? Look at the Humber bridge (is it the Humber bridge?) linking Hull and Grimsby, that has not led to economic regeneration of those areas. Shouldn't the economy grow first, both leading to the necessity of new infrastructure, and at least partially providing the funds for it too?
Maybe they would have been even more of a dump without the Humber bridge?
The Humber Bridge gave two communities a quick way of checking that it could be worse.
Withernsea is far worse than either Hull or Grimsby.
Exceedingly well thanks, my birthday today. Hope you are well, your posting nowadays seems very erratic.
Happy birthday! Much milder over here today - snow still left only in a little coner of the garden where the neighbour likes to dump it from clearing his drive, and on the hilltops.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Hardly. Truss planned to cut taxes for her mates. Who would pocket the savings. Which slows economic output further as yet more cash gets removed from circulation,
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
Investing in things is good, but you can only invest in things up to the available money you have to invest.
Investment, in new labour terms, was generally just throwing money at a problem.
As someone here, possibly Gallowgate as he’s a property lawyer, was saying, the legacy of PFI is going to bite us in a few years time.
I'm not a property lawyer!
I have done a bit with PFI so far, hopefully will do some more over the next few years.
The whole point of PFI generally was that a hospital/school/whatever was handed over to the public sector at the end of the contractual period in a "good as new" condition. The problem is that many PFI companies have not adequately maintained their facilities, have paid out all the profits in dividends, often overseas, and as such a "good as new" facility is not going to be handed over, there's no assets or cash in the companies to sue for breach of contract, so as such we're going to have replace all these facilities at full rebuild cost.
I find PFI very interesting as a concept. My current opinion is that it is not fundamentally flawed, but have been mismanaged and has loopholes you can drive a bus through.
There needed to be a sinking fund, maintained with adequate funds to meet this obligation. Failure to maintain it - even if it meant little or no dividends to shareholders - should have meant immediate transfer back tot he public sector.
There are similar sinking funds required in the UK oil and gas sector, to ensure that abandonment obligations will be met at the end of field life.
There were also the disastrous, New Labour inspired, PPPs which failed to deliver. I was working for Tube Lines at the time Metronet failed badly. The taxpayer ended up on the hook, the private companies just walked away.
The first minister has moved from a position earlier in the week that the government was not told about any issues with interaction with the Equality act (which was not true or credible given ECHR interventions) to none that was "persuasive"
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
My Labour years are receding into my past so I can't speak for them. But surely the thing that is missing is some basic maths. We have millions of people who are economically inactive because they can't afford to work, or don't see the point as it doesn't pay. Millions more whose reward for working long hours in demanding jobs is to have just enough money to be flat broke.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
To be honest this makes Truss's plans for growth look conservative. We simply do not have the room for manoeuvre that you think we have.
Hardly. Truss planned to cut taxes for her mates. Who would pocket the savings. Which slows economic output further as yet more cash gets removed from circulation,
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
Investing in things is good, but you can only invest in things up to the available money you have to invest.
Investment, in new labour terms, was generally just throwing money at a problem.
As someone here, possibly Gallowgate as he’s a property lawyer, was saying, the legacy of PFI is going to bite us in a few years time.
I'm not a property lawyer!
I have done a bit with PFI so far, hopefully will do some more over the next few years.
The whole point of PFI generally was that a hospital/school/whatever was handed over to the public sector at the end of the contractual period in a "good as new" condition. The problem is that many PFI companies have not adequately maintained their facilities, have paid out all the profits in dividends, often overseas, and as such a "good as new" facility is not going to be handed over, there's no assets or cash in the companies to sue for breach of contract, so as such we're going to have replace all these facilities at full rebuild cost.
I find PFI very interesting as a concept. My current opinion is that it is not fundamentally flawed, but have been mismanaged and has loopholes you can drive a bus through.
There needed to be a sinking fund, maintained with adequate funds to meet this obligation. Failure to maintain it - even if it meant little or no dividends to shareholders - should have meant immediate transfer back tot he public sector.
There are similar sinking funds required in the UK oil and gas sector, to ensure that abandonment obligations will be met at the end of field life.
There were also the disastrous, New Labour inspired, PPPs which failed to deliver. I was working for Tube Lines at the time Metronet failed badly. The taxpayer ended up on the hook, the private companies just walked away.
When a very important freeway collapsed in LA, years back, Schwarzenegger was Governor of California.
He directed that the companies that rebuilt the freeway in record time had to include in their costs purchasing insurance to create, in effect, a warranty lasting for a couple of decades, that was not dependent on the firms in question existing or having any funds… IIRC
This seems to me a sensible and interesting idea. Thoughts?
Comments
I can understand Tory ministers making like panicked squid, but you’re usually better than that.
Do they have a token honest minister ?
I probably agree the Conservatives need a period in opposition (and I'm well aware just how hard that will be to come back from) and they will need a decent number of votes and seats to retain a meaningful presence in Parliament and hold the Government to account, which I expect to be a poor one.
Leon old luv, if fear of lady cock is all the right wing have left, they deserve to be smashed at the election.
Jobs, housing, NHS, economy, immigration, competence and leadership decide it.
The best way to learn how to run a business is to be mentored directly by successful leaders who have.
He's restored solvency of the public finances, is sorting the NI protocol, led a reapproachment with France (even the cross Channel crossings are slightly better this month), and is serious about education.
He's a bit slow on strikes but I've no doubt he's working on it in the background.
My main criticism is the lack of strategic vision. But he's a very competent administrator.
Vasyl Lozynskyi is accused of receiving a bribe of $400,000 while conducting procurement of generators.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1616875882634776584
But there’s a 1% chance they will contrive to fuck it up. Something Like trans could do it, if the Woke Left alienates enough women
No apology is ever good enough or big enough - revenge and exile is want people want pour encourager les autres.
File it under: potential black swan
They've correctly calculated that the way to maximise support for the monarchy is to show a bit of leg to every political group.
Also, add in a dash of pure sadism. Lord of the Flies and all that
Those public servants aren't willing to be the ones paying for all this.
Sunak is a nice guy, a good guy and competent - he does lack vision and some political skills (not seeming to recognise how his wealth comes across) but very few have everything.
I'm very glad he's in office.
Clarkson needs to shut up and go away for a bit. It’s really boring. The one thing celebs can’t do. Instead they complain about being ‘cancelled’ and get their knickers in a twist.
If Clarkson stuck to what created his celebrity, he would be fine.
(This is not a comment on the appropriateness of the appointment, just your comment that he’s not qualified)
I do have some technical skills in how to structure them and deliver them. And I work hard on it for each client.
The issue is the ones who go through their careers with just bullshit and playing back to the clients what they've already told them.
You know this.
Our economic system is broken because of these groups. They do not have enough cash to consume. Which impacts productivity for those who do work, and tip more into inactivity or jobs that have no hope of ever giving them cash to consume with. At the same time we tip ever vaster amounts in to be syphoned out by the spiv class who need it to pay more donations to the Conservative Party.
So government must borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. We have a list of things this country needs just to get back to a level playing field with neighbouring big economies. Announce a bazooka of investment into schools and teaching, into clean power generation & manufacturing, into road and rail and fibre broadband, into matched investment with the private sector in sectors we need like automotive and aerospace and pharmaceuticals and energy. Companies can keep their low taxes only if they invest in kit and people.
And find a way to get people spending. Not handing money over to spiv multinationals dodging taxes and profiteering from the energy crisis. Local business. Print money by issuing everyone with a debit card where the money can only be spent in local businesses...
I note it’s been used of Clarkson in this very thread, too.
"He seems to have just the two speeds: dewy-eyed prefect delivering a supposedly inspirational speech to much, much younger children; and high-financier unable to fully hide his impatience that he should be required to answer questions from lesser mortals. Neither seems immediately obviously likely to endear him to the British public"
These are bad choices in the first place and it is completely untenable to keep Zahawi now. Not the signs of a competent administrator at all, and I was a Sunak fan, not ideologically but liked the way he communicated and did think he was competent as Chancellor.
(As @DavidL says, he should never have been Chancellor when this was ongoing as a topic)
Its called "capitalism". How has the supposedly intelligent right forgotten how the system they are supposed to be advocating actually works? You want to sell your product / service and thus make a profit, you have to have people who both want your product / service and have the cash to spend on it.
Millions economically inactive, millions more who work yet have zero cash to consume with. That is capitalism which is eating itself. The spivs at the top keep removing cash from the system into their own pockets, but very quickly the cash runs out.
I am proposing capitalism. We need to spend a shit ton of money on infrastructure. All of which delivers a positive return on investment and positive economic growth. So borrow, invest, receive the return on investment. Capitalism. Or we can say "who pays for that" or "we can't afford it". And watch as our country continues to fall behind our competitors all of whom have borrowed and invested in stuff already.
If economic activity rates were the answer we would be doing very well, we have one of the highest. But its not. Productivity is the answer and always have been. For that we need to incentivise others to invest (because we have no money of our own), encourage training, improve education and skills, make cheap labour a less attractive option and improve our management. Difficult yes, but paying people more when they have not improved their output is purely inflationary and any short term gain is illusionary.
A very happy birthday to you
Have a great day
To be clear this was a political choice, not followed by peer countries, who have been marginally, but cumulatively over time significantly, more successful than the UK.
They are getting 9% (according to your post)
That looks like a reasonable compromise
This isn’t about “winning” or “losing” - it was just a negotiation that has resulted in an agreement
As someone here, possibly Gallowgate as he’s a property lawyer, was saying, the legacy of PFI is going to bite us in a few years time.
Having met a few people who have impressed me who then look poor or average in the media it is easily explained why.
The only exception to all this I can think of was Bob MacLennan. I was his minder for a day at the Winchester By-election. A nicer, quiet, modest bloke you could not meet. Seemed completely unsuited to politics, but did ok.
So PFI got us a lot of buildings that were needed quickly at the cost of paying more over 25 years.
And the version of austerity chosen in 2010 made the sums add up by nuking capital budgets for year after year. It's less visible and it's survivable for a year or two. Had the taps opened a bit more in 2014-5ish (when the economy was beginning to perk up) we might have got away with it.
I have done a bit with PFI so far, hopefully will do some more over the next few years.
The whole point of PFI generally was that a hospital/school/whatever was handed over to the public sector at the end of the contractual period in a "good as new" condition. The problem is that many PFI companies have not adequately maintained their facilities, have paid out all the profits in dividends, often overseas, and as such a "good as new" facility is not going to be handed over, there's no assets or cash in the companies to sue for breach of contract, so as such we're going to have replace all these facilities at full rebuild cost.
I find PFI very interesting as a concept. My current opinion is that it is not fundamentally flawed, but have been mismanaged and has loopholes you can drive a bus through.
https://twitter.com/multikev/status/1616784555788075009
https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1616753733735415808
There are similar sinking funds required in the UK oil and gas sector, to ensure that abandonment obligations will be met at the end of field life.
My understanding is that in the 90s/early 2000s, the banks and institutional investors did not want provisions similar to what you suggest.
I suppose this at least means he’s broken completely with the appeasement wing of the GOP.
https://twitter.com/Scott_Wortley/status/1617109161220927491
Also…. Can you confirm you will seek a judicial review….” We will do everything to stand up for and defend the legislation” Not a straight yes then.
https://twitter.com/Gordy1967/status/1617111232472817664
I suppose self-satire is all he has left.
Who would have thought there would be a topic we’re in violent agreement on!
He directed that the companies that rebuilt the freeway in record time had to include in their costs purchasing insurance to create, in effect, a warranty lasting for a couple of decades, that was not dependent on the firms in question existing or having any funds… IIRC
This seems to me a sensible and interesting idea. Thoughts?