Labour’s proposal to favour “black owned businesses” is highly regrettable.
In my experience it simply creates a special class of grifters, with no actual impact on the structural inequality of black people.
The Liberal Democrats (remember them?) ought to be vocally against this.
What is a “black-owned business”? Beyond a certain size, a company will have managers and shareholders of varying ethnicities.
If it’s sole traders, we’ll they’re not going to be awarded government contracts in any event.
It’s a big thing in the US, so I presume it can be done somehow.
It shows how difficult it is to import US race relations into this country.
During the Jim Crow era, black-owned businesses became a thing. Black-owned restaurants, law firms, accountants, hotels, small businesses became important, when 13% of the population were barred, either by State law, or by common practice, from accessing these services.
A sad side-effect of desegregation was that a lot of black professionals lost out. Black consumers sought out the businesses from which they had been barred, but few white people were interested in moving in the other direction. It’s hugely to the credit of black professionals that they mostly supported civil rights, despite the economic loss.
Nothing like that pre-Desegregation black professional class exists in the UK.
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
Why do you say that? I would think that Ukraine in NATO would be a big strategic win for Britain. It's likely that we'd then feel able to leave the defence of the Russian land border to them and Poland, freeing up British forces to act as an adjunct to the US in the Pacific.
On EU membership, a Ukraine in the EU is likely to receive more EU funding for reconstruction and economic development. Even with Brexit barriers to trade that creates a larger market for potential British trade.
Long term we actually don’t want a permanent defence against Russia, but rather to cajole Russia closer to the West. Ukrainian NATO membership would be standing sore.
Britain should want to bring flesh and meaning to Macron’s proposed partnership, and Ukraine’s membership brings that. At present it is too corrupt and poor for full membership anyway.
It's a mistake to think that we can influence Russia in such a way. We should be ready to respond positively to positive action from them, but thinking that we can cajole them in such a way has left us open to being manipulated by them.
We have to wait until they are interested in a positive relationship with us, and that can't happen if we are still conceding that countries that border Russia don't have full sovereign independence from Russia. That was a principle supposedly established in 1648, but it's still a lesson Russia needs to learn.
I accept all that but let’s just understand the realpolitik of NATO membership, and the accompanying commitments.
Also, we must concede that the key geopolitical competition is between the West and China. I actually think Biden is going too far with his tech blocking policies, but I so no reason to keep pushing Russia ever closer into Chinese arms.
I accept the above doesn’t naturally apply to today’s Russia, but I am taking post-war.
It would have been great if the 1991-2000-something period had turned out differently, but Russia has made its choice now. Absent a major revolution it's not going to do anything other than back China now.
We need to accept and adjust to this reality. The strategic opportunity for the West is in helping India to the same realisation, and having them as a reliable ally.
This doesn’t make sense to me. We must hope and plan to seduce Russia toward the West, while of course ensuring we retain our defences if we cannot.
I think you're suffering a delusion about the extent of our influence on internal Russian politics, particularly while it's dominated by a gangster ruling class with delusions of imperial grandeur.
There's nothing that we can offer them, that they are interested in, except for abandoning our own principles on democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law. There's no way we can seduce them in to becoming a trustworthy partner.
I’m under no illusions about Russia.
However you just don’t give up geopolitical strategy because things look tough.
Nixon went to China. It is not pre-ordained that Russia will remain a gangster state, nor that the West can never hope to partner effectively with it.
The Russian people - like people everywhere - want freedom and prosperity. Start there.
The ideal long term situation as far as I am concerned would be for the EU to enter an agreement with Russia, or even have Russia join (though I'm not sure how that would work), with Western Europe exercising a moderating, modernising, and economically diversifying influence upon Russia, and Russia providing gas and muscle (space programme etc.) to the nascent European superpower, which would become a valuable counterweight to America and China.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
No. I don’t accept this.
A citizenship is a citizenship. There should be no second class of citizenship.
Begum should be tried in the UK. If she’s been groomed or whatever, that’s a reason for some sort of clemency. But citizenship should be sacrosanct.
I object to it as well, where the government strip people of their citizenship, is basically banishment and exile.
I think that Begum will end up being regarded as a victim of grooming, and the UK government will end up apologising to her and probably paying her a lot of compensation. I think the zeitgeist has changed and people like Patel and Braverman are not seeing the situation, they are failing to move with the times.
What is questionable is how easy it is to get British citizenship. A taxi driver once told me that he had 5 citizenships. That is a stupid state of affairs, it devalues the whole purpose of citizenship.
Citizenship is highly commoditised these days, which I almost find offensive.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
The utter neglect, just as the economy is undergoing radical change, of the potential for such nascent industries, is possibly the thing which makes me angriest about Brexit.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
There are other ways of making a profit more quickly with less effort. And when we vote with our votes or investment money, we tend to go for quicker easier bucks.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
The difficulty with this whole affair is a lot of time is spent on re-arguing why the government should not have the right to do this sort of thing, which as the thread shows many people here would agree with, so the argument is about whether the legal safeguards preventing arbitrary and unreasonable uses of the power are in place or not, but since we cannot know all the facts of individual cases that we hear about we cannot really assess the strength of those safeguards, since what looks unilateral and unreasonable might not be. Didn't the Supreme Court recently wrap the knuckles of a lower court for trying to substitute its own judgement for a Minister's based on only part of the evidence? Of course, a case focused on whether all relevant factors were considered is on stronger ground, and it does feel media wise at least that the ground has shifted more sympathetically in the Begum case.
It's the legal safeguards aspect which worries me.
I wouldn't like a situation where a Government could choose to revoke my citizenship and force me out the country simply because I publicly and peacefully disagreed with a particular policy.
Other countries and systems have far more "radical" solutions than removing citizenship if individuals publicly question Government policy but in a democracy I should have the right to disagree and to express that disagreement within the law openly.
One of my problems with the Johnson administration was the way legislation was introduced which by-passed and weakened the sovereignty of the legislature in favour of the executive by placing power in the hands of Ministers.
I'm all for taking back control from Brussels but not if it means handing it directly to Ministers and weakening the scrutinising and accountability functions of Parliament.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
The utter neglect, just as the economy is undergoing radical change, of the potential for such nascent industries, is possibly the thing which makes me angriest about Brexit.
Zero strategy, zero vision, zero leadership.
Gove, I think - despite being a gawky Lannistery twat - would have got all this.
Still think he should have been given a few years at the premiership. He'd have done shit.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
Sorry, you just realised?
Not just America and China, but Europe too, South Korea certainly, in fact most of the developed world.
It's buried here under some simple shibboleths of Thatcher mythology, which normally boils down to 'we mustn't pick winners and losers'.
It's such dogmatic and intellectually bankruptcy thinking.
Within the murk, you can just about discern the beginnings of a rethink on this in the UK, and there are some not-terrible Labour conversations happening on this.
But those shibboleths are immensely strong in the UK (as they are, btw, in NZ).
I find it interesting that in the “land of the free” there is no such taboo. Far from it.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
There are other ways of making a profit more quickly with less effort. And when we vote with our votes or investment money, we tend to go for quicker easier bucks.
Why wouldn't we?
You accurately describe the chronic British disease of short-termism, yes - which is why we lose out to our competitors in the long-term.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
Sorry, you just realised?
Not just America and China, but Europe too, South Korea certainly, in fact most of the developed world.
It's buried here under some simple shibboleths of Thatcher mythology, which normally boils down to 'we mustn't pick winners and losers'.
It's such dogmatic and intellectually bankruptcy thinking.
Within the murk, you can just about discern the beginnings of a rethink on this in the UK, and there are some not-terrible Labour conversations happening on this.
But those shibboleths are immensely strong in the UK (as they are, btw, in NZ).
I find it interesting that in the “land of the free” there is no such taboo. Far from it.
Politicians are like magicians.
As much as you can, ignore the patter, watch the hands.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
The utter neglect, just as the economy is undergoing radical change, of the potential for such nascent industries, is possibly the thing which makes me angriest about Brexit.
It would happen with or without Brexit. As long as we are run by politicians and civil servants that despise making things, it won’t change.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
Sorry, you just realised?
Not just America and China, but Europe too, South Korea certainly, in fact most of the developed world.
It's buried here under some simple shibboleths of Thatcher mythology, which normally boils down to 'we mustn't pick winners and losers'.
It's such dogmatic and intellectually bankruptcy thinking.
Within the murk, you can just about discern the beginnings of a rethink on this in the UK, and there are some not-terrible Labour conversations happening on this.
But those shibboleths are immensely strong in the UK (as they are, btw, in NZ).
I find it interesting that in the “land of the free” there is no such taboo. Far from it.
I have zero interest in dogma. In my mind, those who do, are simply putting their intellectual limitations and insecurities on display for all to see.
I'm interested in what works in securing Britain's long-term prosperity, integrity and maximises its scope for global leadership.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
The difficulty with this whole affair is a lot of time is spent on re-arguing why the government should not have the right to do this sort of thing, which as the thread shows many people here would agree with, so the argument is about whether the legal safeguards preventing arbitrary and unreasonable uses of the power are in place or not, but since we cannot know all the facts of individual cases that we hear about we cannot really assess the strength of those safeguards, since what looks unilateral and unreasonable might not be. Didn't the Supreme Court recently wrap the knuckles of a lower court for trying to substitute its own judgement for a Minister's based on only part of the evidence? Of course, a case focused on whether all relevant factors were considered is on stronger ground, and it does feel media wise at least that the ground has shifted more sympathetically in the Begum case.
It's the legal safeguards aspect which worries me.
I wouldn't like a situation where a Government could choose to revoke my citizenship and force me out the country simply because I publicly and peacefully disagreed with a particular policy.
Other countries and systems have far more "radical" solutions than removing citizenship if individuals publicly question Government policy but in a democracy I should have the right to disagree and to express that disagreement within the law openly.
One of my problems with the Johnson administration was the way legislation was introduced which by-passed and weakened the sovereignty of the legislature in favour of the executive by placing power in the hands of Ministers.
I'm all for taking back control from Brussels but not if it means handing it directly to Ministers and weakening the scrutinising and accountability functions of Parliament.
I don't like it either, but your postin part illustrates the point I was making about trying to assess specific cases - we don't like the power at all, and that will affect whether we think such procedures as exist were in fact followed properly, since we don't think even if followed it is right.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
There are other ways of making a profit more quickly with less effort. And when we vote with our votes or investment money, we tend to go for quicker easier bucks.
Why wouldn't we?
You accurately describe the chronic British disease of short-termism, yes - which is why we lose out to our competitors in the long-term.
We have zero game.
I don’t know if I’d say zero game precisely.
It makes sense to think of the UK as two separate economies.
The first, centred in London, is at its best when it works “short term”. Industrial subsidies or whatever would just get in the way. Its main issue is a dysfunctional planning system which has created unaffordable housing.
The second, centred in “the North” needs an entirely different policy mix designed to rebuild “industry” in order to gain market share in a rapidly changing global market. It needs investment and long-term strategy. Instead it is basically kept in long-term welfare and public sector dependency.
The population is pretty much split 50/50 between those two economies.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
Sorry, you just realised?
Not just America and China, but Europe too, South Korea certainly, in fact most of the developed world.
It's buried here under some simple shibboleths of Thatcher mythology, which normally boils down to 'we mustn't pick winners and losers'.
It's such dogmatic and intellectually bankruptcy thinking.
I agree, but there are a few more reasons why our industries don't reach maturity. 1. UK entrepreneurs wanting to sell out fast to a foreign company to get their pot of gold 2. Taxation set up to encourage short term capital gain over long term business investment 3. UK Government unwilling to stand up for British companies due to: -Overzealous interpretation of EU competition and state aid law by Government agencies -America gets on the phone and demands that UK ministers withdraw their national security objection to US acquisition of UK company -'Thatcher' and non-interference in markets dogma -Grift, preferments, etc.
Rip off Britain has been going on for a very long time.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
Yes, if applied to people of dual nationality it could descend into a race as to which country revoked their citizenship first.
And I note the people advocating the use of this power never seem to suggest using it on convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell who has 3 nationalities.
The question is of course whether there is any alternative Conservative MP who, were they to become leader, would transform the Party's fortunes and erode the 17-20% swings to Labour in England.
I don't see one and there's no polling evidence to suggest anyone else would make a difference.
Sunak therefore stays and we'll see if the Conservative Parliamentary Party absorbs the valuable lesson if you don't hang together you'll all hang separately.
As for who follows Sunak, in the event of a sizeable defeat, say reducing the Parliamentary Party to 120-140 seats, some of the leading possibles will have lost their seats. Barclay, Badenoch and Braverman are safe from even the most extreme defeat so the three"B"s will all have a chance to appeal to the rump.
It's probably a 10-15 year project to take the party back to power in all honesty - do any of them want to be LOTO for that long? One possibility is Barclay begins the journey back and at some point Badenoch and Braverman will contest the leadership.
Don't discount Penny Mordaunt. Just because she lost twice already doesn't mean she can't win a third time. She would have beaten Truss or Sunak with the members had she got past the MPs, and would have performed better with the public than either of them had she become PM.
I think she would beat any of the three "B"s with the members in a future contest.
I guess much will depend on what the parliamentary Conservative party looks like after the next election. I guess, on balance, older and maybe less ideological. Maybe that would improve her chances of getting through to the last round.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
Sorry, you just realised?
Not just America and China, but Europe too, South Korea certainly, in fact most of the developed world.
It's buried here under some simple shibboleths of Thatcher mythology, which normally boils down to 'we mustn't pick winners and losers'.
It's such dogmatic and intellectually bankruptcy thinking.
The sensible thing is to provide a subsidy for the *outcome* you desire.
X per Y GWh of batteries actually produced in the U.K.
X scaled to the value added in the U.K. - so importing and rebadging gets nothing.
The problem is that this makes politicians feel they are not in control. They want to pick an individual company and bung money at it.
Historically this has nearly always been a disaster for new technology.
What seems wrong to me is the propensity of UK Governments to provide massive loans and grants to private companies, but not to take an actual shareholding.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
The utter neglect, just as the economy is undergoing radical change, of the potential for such nascent industries, is possibly the thing which makes me angriest about Brexit.
Zero strategy, zero vision, zero leadership.
Gove, I think - despite being a gawky Lannistery twat - would have got all this.
Still think he should have been given a few years at the premiership. He'd have done shit.
I don’t think he’d have been worse, that’s for sure. And might have been a lot better.
Even if he bears a significant responsibility for the long running clusterfuck in education, he has showed competence and energy in other departments, Which distinguishes him from most of the rest.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
There are other ways of making a profit more quickly with less effort. And when we vote with our votes or investment money, we tend to go for quicker easier bucks.
Why wouldn't we?
You accurately describe the chronic British disease of short-termism, yes - which is why we lose out to our competitors in the long-term.
We have zero game.
I don’t know if I’d say zero game precisely.
It makes sense to think of the UK as two separate economies.
The first, centred in London, is at its best when it works “short term”. Industrial subsidies or whatever would just get in the way. Its main issue is a dysfunctional planning system which has created unaffordable housing.
The second, centred in “the North” needs an entirely different policy mix designed to rebuild “industry” in order to gain market share in a rapidly changing global market. It needs investment and long-term strategy. Instead it is basically kept in long-term welfare and public sector dependency.
The population is pretty much split 50/50 between those two economies.
But the civil service. And the politicians of the governing Party, very much aren't split like that
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
There are other ways of making a profit more quickly with less effort. And when we vote with our votes or investment money, we tend to go for quicker easier bucks.
Why wouldn't we?
You accurately describe the chronic British disease of short-termism, yes - which is why we lose out to our competitors in the long-term.
We have zero game.
I don’t know if I’d say zero game precisely.
It makes sense to think of the UK as two separate economies.
The first, centred in London, is at its best when it works “short term”. Industrial subsidies or whatever would just get in the way. Its main issue is a dysfunctional planning system which has created unaffordable housing.
The second, centred in “the North” needs an entirely different policy mix designed to rebuild “industry” in order to gain market share in a rapidly changing global market. It needs investment and long-term strategy. Instead it is basically kept in long-term welfare and public sector dependency.
The population is pretty much split 50/50 between those two economies.
But the civil service. And the politicians of the governing Party, very much aren't split like that
Actually, you’re forgetting the red wall Tory MPs.
But as a class I would regard them as overwhelmingly stupid and lacking any coherent thoughts on growth whatsoever.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
The utter neglect, just as the economy is undergoing radical change, of the potential for such nascent industries, is possibly the thing which makes me angriest about Brexit.
It would happen with or without Brexit. As long as we are run by politicians and civil servants that despise making things, it won’t change.
We’d very probably have had significant external investment had we not left. And we wouldn’t have had a government preoccupied for half a decade with irrelevancies.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
Sorry, you just realised?
Not just America and China, but Europe too, South Korea certainly, in fact most of the developed world.
It's buried here under some simple shibboleths of Thatcher mythology, which normally boils down to 'we mustn't pick winners and losers'.
It's such dogmatic and intellectually bankruptcy thinking.
The sensible thing is to provide a subsidy for the *outcome* you desire.
X per Y GWh of batteries actually produced in the U.K.
X scaled to the value added in the U.K. - so importing and rebadging gets nothing.
The problem is that this makes politicians feel they are not in control. They want to pick an individual company and bung money at it.
Historically this has nearly always been a disaster for new technology.
What seems wrong to me is the propensity of UK Governments to provide massive loans and grants to private companies, but not to take an actual shareholding.
Historically this has ended up with firms being told to put factories in government constituencies etc.
With startups, government share ownership isn’t the issue. It’s having competent management and a plan that might work. British Volt didn’t seem to have either.
There is a different case for buying into existing businesses - Rolls Royce jet engines, OneWeb etc. There you have actual assets, track records, ongoing sales etc….
I don’t like Gove much, but when you weigh up the various achievements of this government since 2010, you are left with those modest bits he has personally managed to push through as he as cycled through his jobs.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
Sorry, you just realised?
Not just America and China, but Europe too, South Korea certainly, in fact most of the developed world.
It's buried here under some simple shibboleths of Thatcher mythology, which normally boils down to 'we mustn't pick winners and losers'.
It's such dogmatic and intellectually bankruptcy thinking.
The sensible thing is to provide a subsidy for the *outcome* you desire.
X per Y GWh of batteries actually produced in the U.K.
X scaled to the value added in the U.K. - so importing and rebadging gets nothing.
The problem is that this makes politicians feel they are not in control. They want to pick an individual company and bung money at it.
Historically this has nearly always been a disaster for new technology.
What seems wrong to me is the propensity of UK Governments to provide massive loans and grants to private companies, but not to take an actual shareholding.
Historically this has ended up with firms being told to put factories in government constituencies etc.
With startups, government share ownership isn’t the issue. It’s having competent management and a plan that might work. British Volt didn’t seem to have either.
There is a different case for buying into existing businesses - Rolls Royce jet engines, OneWeb etc. There you have actual assets, track records, ongoing sales etc….
How many people does the Government have on its payroll? Could someone not have come up with a plan? The foreign companies interested in buying Britishvolt's assets have a plan.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
Sorry, you just realised?
Not just America and China, but Europe too, South Korea certainly, in fact most of the developed world.
It's buried here under some simple shibboleths of Thatcher mythology, which normally boils down to 'we mustn't pick winners and losers'.
It's such dogmatic and intellectually bankruptcy thinking.
The sensible thing is to provide a subsidy for the *outcome* you desire.
X per Y GWh of batteries actually produced in the U.K.
X scaled to the value added in the U.K. - so importing and rebadging gets nothing.
The problem is that this makes politicians feel they are not in control. They want to pick an individual company and bung money at it.
Historically this has nearly always been a disaster for new technology.
What seems wrong to me is the propensity of UK Governments to provide massive loans and grants to private companies, but not to take an actual shareholding.
Historically this has ended up with firms being told to put factories in government constituencies etc.
With startups, government share ownership isn’t the issue. It’s having competent management and a plan that might work. British Volt didn’t seem to have either.
There is a different case for buying into existing businesses - Rolls Royce jet engines, OneWeb etc. There you have actual assets, track records, ongoing sales etc….
How many people does the Government have on its payroll? Could someone not have come up with a plan? The foreign companies interested in buying Britishvolt's assets have a plan.
The problem is that the plans would be written by the Treasury. So we would probably get furred trout rather than batteries or something.
The trick is to pay for the outcome you want, not pay for the hotel bills of subsidy farmers.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
The utter neglect, just as the economy is undergoing radical change, of the potential for such nascent industries, is possibly the thing which makes me angriest about Brexit.
Zero strategy, zero vision, zero leadership.
Gove, I think - despite being a gawky Lannistery twat - would have got all this.
Still think he should have been given a few years at the premiership. He'd have done shit.
I don’t think he’d have been worse, that’s for sure. And might have been a lot better.
Even if he bears a significant responsibility for the long running clusterfuck in education, he has showed competence and energy in other departments, Which distinguishes him from most of the rest.
Let's not forget he also bears a significant responsibility for the long running clusterfuck in Brexit.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
There are other ways of making a profit more quickly with less effort. And when we vote with our votes or investment money, we tend to go for quicker easier bucks.
Why wouldn't we?
You accurately describe the chronic British disease of short-termism, yes - which is why we lose out to our competitors in the long-term.
We have zero game.
I don’t know if I’d say zero game precisely.
It makes sense to think of the UK as two separate economies.
The first, centred in London, is at its best when it works “short term”. Industrial subsidies or whatever would just get in the way. Its main issue is a dysfunctional planning system which has created unaffordable housing.
The second, centred in “the North” needs an entirely different policy mix designed to rebuild “industry” in order to gain market share in a rapidly changing global market. It needs investment and long-term strategy. Instead it is basically kept in long-term welfare and public sector dependency.
The population is pretty much split 50/50 between those two economies.
But the civil service. And the politicians of the governing Party, very much aren't split like that
Actually, you’re forgetting the red wall Tory MPs.
But as a class I would regard them as overwhelmingly stupid and lacking any coherent thoughts on growth whatsoever.
No I'm not. The Labour Party still won the majority of seats in the North of England, even in a catastrophic defeat. The Tories remain, at heart, a Party of the South of England in the main. They do not split 50/50 at all. Not even close.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
There are other ways of making a profit more quickly with less effort. And when we vote with our votes or investment money, we tend to go for quicker easier bucks.
Why wouldn't we?
You accurately describe the chronic British disease of short-termism, yes - which is why we lose out to our competitors in the long-term.
We have zero game.
I don’t know if I’d say zero game precisely.
It makes sense to think of the UK as two separate economies.
The first, centred in London, is at its best when it works “short term”. Industrial subsidies or whatever would just get in the way. Its main issue is a dysfunctional planning system which has created unaffordable housing.
The second, centred in “the North” needs an entirely different policy mix designed to rebuild “industry” in order to gain market share in a rapidly changing global market. It needs investment and long-term strategy. Instead it is basically kept in long-term welfare and public sector dependency.
The population is pretty much split 50/50 between those two economies.
But the civil service. And the politicians of the governing Party, very much aren't split like that
Actually, you’re forgetting the red wall Tory MPs.
But as a class I would regard them as overwhelmingly stupid and lacking any coherent thoughts on growth whatsoever.
No I'm not. The Labour Party still won the majority of seats in the North of England, even in a catastrophic defeat. The Tories remain, at heart, a Party of the South of England in the main.
The Tories won more of the rural North than big cities in the South.
They are even more a party of rural England than southern England
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
The utter neglect, just as the economy is undergoing radical change, of the potential for such nascent industries, is possibly the thing which makes me angriest about Brexit.
Zero strategy, zero vision, zero leadership.
Gove, I think - despite being a gawky Lannistery twat - would have got all this.
Still think he should have been given a few years at the premiership. He'd have done shit.
I don’t think he’d have been worse, that’s for sure. And might have been a lot better.
Even if he bears a significant responsibility for the long running clusterfuck in education, he has showed competence and energy in other departments, Which distinguishes him from most of the rest.
Let's not forget he also bears a significant responsibility for the long running clusterfuck in Brexit.
Agreed. I’d rather it never happened, too. But we were discussing how it might have gone slightly better.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
There are other ways of making a profit more quickly with less effort. And when we vote with our votes or investment money, we tend to go for quicker easier bucks.
Why wouldn't we?
You accurately describe the chronic British disease of short-termism, yes - which is why we lose out to our competitors in the long-term.
We have zero game.
I don’t know if I’d say zero game precisely.
It makes sense to think of the UK as two separate economies.
The first, centred in London, is at its best when it works “short term”. Industrial subsidies or whatever would just get in the way. Its main issue is a dysfunctional planning system which has created unaffordable housing.
The second, centred in “the North” needs an entirely different policy mix designed to rebuild “industry” in order to gain market share in a rapidly changing global market. It needs investment and long-term strategy. Instead it is basically kept in long-term welfare and public sector dependency.
The population is pretty much split 50/50 between those two economies.
But the civil service. And the politicians of the governing Party, very much aren't split like that
Actually, you’re forgetting the red wall Tory MPs.
But as a class I would regard them as overwhelmingly stupid and lacking any coherent thoughts on growth whatsoever.
No I'm not. The Labour Party still won the majority of seats in the North of England, even in a catastrophic defeat. The Tories remain, at heart, a Party of the South of England in the main.
The Tories won more of the rural North than big cities in the South.
They are even more a party of rural England than southern England
Yes. But they've always won the rural north. Nothing much changed there. There has always been another Blue Wall running north of the fabled Red Wall). (Incidentally. The Tory results at the most recent Councils, in N Yorks and Cumbria were spectacularly dire by all historical precedent).
"Rishi Sunak at day 100: the least popular prime minister in recent history Sunak is less popular than all of his recent predecessors were at this point, including Boris Johnson, Theresa May and Gordon Brown.
"Rishi Sunak at day 100: the least popular prime minister in recent history Sunak is less popular than all of his recent predecessors were at this point, including Boris Johnson, Theresa May and Gordon Brown.
You have to remember as well that Rishi actively loathes industrial investment.
It’s in his early profiles, and indeed reiterated in his Maes speech. He stands at the very font of those shibboleths mentioned by @Casino_Royale
But those are usually just code for someone like Sunak making enormous amounts of money.
The trouble is that the UK is very good at very productive, profitable stuff like law and finance. If we could have everyone in the country working for hedge funds, we'd all be rich like Rishi and we wouldn't need an NHS. (I exaggerate and simplify- partly for comic effect, but also because I'm a physics teacher and it's what I do.)
Trouble is that, to the extent that the UK works, it is a small number of very sucessful companies dragging along a tail of much less productive ones. And the bits that work probably don't give a roadmap for improving the bits that don't. Indeed, the habits driving the sucesses probably work against developing the rest.
I don’t like Gove much, but when you weigh up the various achievements of this government since 2010, you are left with those modest bits he has personally managed to push through as he as cycled through his jobs.
Gove is a complete twat, strung out on all sorts of stuff. He has though a higher amplitude than most of his dullard colleagues. His highs are higher* and his lows lower.
"Rishi Sunak at day 100: the least popular prime minister in recent history Sunak is less popular than all of his recent predecessors were at this point, including Boris Johnson, Theresa May and Gordon Brown.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
There are other ways of making a profit more quickly with less effort. And when we vote with our votes or investment money, we tend to go for quicker easier bucks.
Why wouldn't we?
You accurately describe the chronic British disease of short-termism, yes - which is why we lose out to our competitors in the long-term.
We have zero game.
I don’t know if I’d say zero game precisely.
It makes sense to think of the UK as two separate economies.
The first, centred in London, is at its best when it works “short term”. Industrial subsidies or whatever would just get in the way. Its main issue is a dysfunctional planning system which has created unaffordable housing.
The second, centred in “the North” needs an entirely different policy mix designed to rebuild “industry” in order to gain market share in a rapidly changing global market. It needs investment and long-term strategy. Instead it is basically kept in long-term welfare and public sector dependency.
The population is pretty much split 50/50 between those two economies.
But the civil service. And the politicians of the governing Party, very much aren't split like that
Actually, you’re forgetting the red wall Tory MPs.
But as a class I would regard them as overwhelmingly stupid and lacking any coherent thoughts on growth whatsoever.
No I'm not. The Labour Party still won the majority of seats in the North of England, even in a catastrophic defeat. The Tories remain, at heart, a Party of the South of England in the main.
The Tories won more of the rural North than big cities in the South.
They are even more a party of rural England than southern England
Yes. But they've always won the rural north. Nothing much changed there. There has always been another Blue Wall running north of the fabled Red Wall). (Incidentally. The Tory results at the most recent Councils, in N Yorks and Cumbria were spectacularly dire by all historical precedent).
North Yorkshire Council still has a clear Tory majority however
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
Sorry, you just realised?
Not just America and China, but Europe too, South Korea certainly, in fact most of the developed world.
It's buried here under some simple shibboleths of Thatcher mythology, which normally boils down to 'we mustn't pick winners and losers'.
It's such dogmatic and intellectually bankruptcy thinking.
The sensible thing is to provide a subsidy for the *outcome* you desire.
X per Y GWh of batteries actually produced in the U.K.
X scaled to the value added in the U.K. - so importing and rebadging gets nothing.
The problem is that this makes politicians feel they are not in control. They want to pick an individual company and bung money at it.
Historically this has nearly always been a disaster for new technology.
I totally agree with this. Picking winners is bad — mainly because you have no bloody way of knowing who is going to be a winner, if it was obvious they wouldn't need your help — but rewarding winners is good.
Certainly my share portfolio is doing well. Corrected onto real terms gains maybe less so. In nominal terms at an all time high despite us being up shit creek.
We also have to face up to the fact that the markets lost faith in Britain’s ability to service its existing debt, so new spending is not east to find.
I favour municipal and special “British development bank” bonds.
Anyone voting for Sunak at the next GE needs to take account of the fact that, given a chance, the membership would replace him with Johnson in a nano-second once the election is out of the way.
I heard the inside story of British Volt this evening. Made me furious.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
There are other ways of making a profit more quickly with less effort. And when we vote with our votes or investment money, we tend to go for quicker easier bucks.
Why wouldn't we?
You accurately describe the chronic British disease of short-termism, yes - which is why we lose out to our competitors in the long-term.
We have zero game.
I don’t know if I’d say zero game precisely.
It makes sense to think of the UK as two separate economies.
The first, centred in London, is at its best when it works “short term”. Industrial subsidies or whatever would just get in the way. Its main issue is a dysfunctional planning system which has created unaffordable housing.
The second, centred in “the North” needs an entirely different policy mix designed to rebuild “industry” in order to gain market share in a rapidly changing global market. It needs investment and long-term strategy. Instead it is basically kept in long-term welfare and public sector dependency.
The population is pretty much split 50/50 between those two economies.
But the civil service. And the politicians of the governing Party, very much aren't split like that
Actually, you’re forgetting the red wall Tory MPs.
But as a class I would regard them as overwhelmingly stupid and lacking any coherent thoughts on growth whatsoever.
No I'm not. The Labour Party still won the majority of seats in the North of England, even in a catastrophic defeat. The Tories remain, at heart, a Party of the South of England in the main.
The Tories won more of the rural North than big cities in the South.
They are even more a party of rural England than southern England
Yes, the Tories are the party for people who don’t want new factories or houses near where they live.
Here's one trouble with the UK: we don't sufficiently encourage investment of our own private wealth - pensions, insurance companies, private wealth - to invest in productive UK assets.
- Defined benefit pensions buy government bonds, corporate bonds and commercial property. Not exactly financing growth drivers.
- Defined contribution pensions buy global tracker equities where less than 10% is UK large cap. Not helpful.
- Individuals private wealth is predominantly tied up in residential property, which is incredibly unproductive.
We need a regulatory and tax system that encourages risk taking in our own country. We have a huge finance sector willing to take advantage of it if we do, but we need some kind of incentive to make our own investors choose productive investments here, not safe bets or going overseas.
Here's one trouble with the UK: we don't sufficiently encourage investment of our own private wealth - pensions, insurance companies, private wealth - to invest in productive UK assets.
- Defined benefit pensions buy government bonds, corporate bonds and commercial property. Not exactly financing growth drivers.
- Defined contribution pensions buy global tracker equities where less than 10% is UK large cap. Not helpful.
- Individuals private wealth is predominantly tied up in residential property, which is incredibly unproductive.
We need a regulatory and tax system that encourages risk taking in our own country. We have a huge finance sector willing to take advantage of it if we do, but we need some kind of incentive to make our own investors choose productive investments here, not safe bets or going overseas.
This has long been the case. Very broadly, British investors have found it more profitable to invest abroad than at home.
Here's one trouble with the UK: we don't sufficiently encourage investment of our own private wealth - pensions, insurance companies, private wealth - to invest in productive UK assets.
- Defined benefit pensions buy government bonds, corporate bonds and commercial property. Not exactly financing growth drivers.
- Defined contribution pensions buy global tracker equities where less than 10% is UK large cap. Not helpful.
- Individuals private wealth is predominantly tied up in residential property, which is incredibly unproductive.
We need a regulatory and tax system that encourages risk taking in our own country. We have a huge finance sector willing to take advantage of it if we do, but we need some kind of incentive to make our own investors choose productive investments here, not safe bets or going overseas.
This has long been the case. Very broadly, British investors have found it more profitable to invest abroad than at home.
I come again to my “two economies” thesis.
It was the same in the days of the Empire. Investing in the Empire was far more popular than investing in the UK.
I think we've always been a bit messy - a bit Boris. We were never like the Germans. More triumph and disaster and scraping through by the skin of our teeth. Somehow used to be a lot more triumphs than disasters though.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
No. I don’t accept this.
A citizenship is a citizenship. There should be no second class of citizenship.
Begum should be tried in the UK. If she’s been groomed or whatever, that’s a reason for some sort of clemency. But citizenship should be sacrosanct.
Sorry cannot agree here citizenship is not only a right, it also carries responsibilities. Everyone these days loves to talk about rights but never talk about responsibilities that go with those rights.
Begum renounced her human rights when she signed up with ISIS and decided to renounce her humanity, she renounced her citizenship rights when she renounced her responsibilities to act as a uk citizen.
You want human rights live up to your responsibilites as human, clue beheading people or celebrating it isn't doing it.
Want to keep your rights as a citizen then live up to the responsibilites of being a citizen.
Here's one trouble with the UK: we don't sufficiently encourage investment of our own private wealth - pensions, insurance companies, private wealth - to invest in productive UK assets.
- Defined benefit pensions buy government bonds, corporate bonds and commercial property. Not exactly financing growth drivers.
- Defined contribution pensions buy global tracker equities where less than 10% is UK large cap. Not helpful.
- Individuals private wealth is predominantly tied up in residential property, which is incredibly unproductive.
We need a regulatory and tax system that encourages risk taking in our own country. We have a huge finance sector willing to take advantage of it if we do, but we need some kind of incentive to make our own investors choose productive investments here, not safe bets or going overseas.
This has long been the case. Very broadly, British investors have found it more profitable to invest abroad than at home.
I come again to my “two economies” thesis.
It was the same in the days of the Empire. Investing in the Empire was far more popular than investing in the UK.
I think we've always been a bit messy - a bit Boris. We were never like the Germans. More triumph and disaster and scraping through by the skin of our teeth. Somehow used to be a lot more triumphs than disasters though.
Yes. And why not? It’s not really for the government to direct individual investment.
Rather, the government needs to use its tax, regulatory and monetary fiat power to incent or support local investment.
Broadly speaking, the government needs to let London trade as profitably as it can, while placing the power of the state behind strategic domestic investment.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
No. I don’t accept this.
A citizenship is a citizenship. There should be no second class of citizenship.
Begum should be tried in the UK. If she’s been groomed or whatever, that’s a reason for some sort of clemency. But citizenship should be sacrosanct.
Sorry cannot agree here citizenship is not only a right, it also carries responsibilities. Everyone these days loves to talk about rights but never talk about responsibilities that go with those rights.
Begum renounced her human rights when she signed up with ISIS and decided to renounce her humanity, she renounced her citizenship rights when she renounced her responsibilities to act as a uk citizen.
You want human rights live up to your responsibilites as human, clue beheading people or celebrating it isn't doing it.
Want to keep your rights as a citizen then live up to the responsibilites of being a citizen.
Frankly we revoke rights far too few times
I agree about the responsibilities. Including the responsibility to pay your taxes.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
No. I don’t accept this.
A citizenship is a citizenship. There should be no second class of citizenship.
Begum should be tried in the UK. If she’s been groomed or whatever, that’s a reason for some sort of clemency. But citizenship should be sacrosanct.
Sorry cannot agree here citizenship is not only a right, it also carries responsibilities. Everyone these days loves to talk about rights but never talk about responsibilities that go with those rights.
Begum renounced her human rights when she signed up with ISIS and decided to renounce her humanity, she renounced her citizenship rights when she renounced her responsibilities to act as a uk citizen.
You want human rights live up to your responsibilites as human, clue beheading people or celebrating it isn't doing it.
Want to keep your rights as a citizen then live up to the responsibilites of being a citizen.
Frankly we revoke rights far too few times
I agree about the responsibilities. Including the responsibility to pay your taxes.
Anyone voting for Sunak at the next GE needs to take account of the fact that, given a chance, the membership would replace him with Johnson in a nano-second once the election is out of the way.
It's a good point.
It would make sense for Labour to highlight that possibility by including a measure in their manifesto along the lines of 'any change in PM has to be followed by a GE within 6 months'.
It would have the added benefit for Starmer of protecting him against leadership challenges.
Complete the full renationalisation of rail. Build full fat HS2 Glasgow to St Pancras via Newcastle, Leeds and Nottingham. Build Crossrail 2. Extend to Chingford/Walthamstow/Epping.
National energy provider, build nuclear, more offshore, tidal, owned by the public.
Education, training. Get young people into jobs where they can learn soft skills quickly. Fill labour gaps, subsidise where necessary.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
No. I don’t accept this.
A citizenship is a citizenship. There should be no second class of citizenship.
Begum should be tried in the UK. If she’s been groomed or whatever, that’s a reason for some sort of clemency. But citizenship should be sacrosanct.
Sorry cannot agree here citizenship is not only a right, it also carries responsibilities. Everyone these days loves to talk about rights but never talk about responsibilities that go with those rights.
Begum renounced her human rights when she signed up with ISIS and decided to renounce her humanity, she renounced her citizenship rights when she renounced her responsibilities to act as a uk citizen.
You want human rights live up to your responsibilites as human, clue beheading people or celebrating it isn't doing it.
Want to keep your rights as a citizen then live up to the responsibilites of being a citizen.
Frankly we revoke rights far too few times
No matter how vile or stupid someone is, they cannot renounce their "human rights" or their "humanity" unless they morph into an alien being from the Triangulum Galaxy. Human rights are for all humans - the clue is in the description. Once you start revoking rights, where do you stop? And who gets to decide?
If Begum is not merely a gullible fool, if she is in some way malicious, then hand her over the authorities and prosecute her.
This is very exciting. A workable battery with four times the energy density of the current state of the art would be transformative in many ways. Regional aviation, for one.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
No. I don’t accept this.
A citizenship is a citizenship. There should be no second class of citizenship.
Begum should be tried in the UK. If she’s been groomed or whatever, that’s a reason for some sort of clemency. But citizenship should be sacrosanct.
Sorry cannot agree here citizenship is not only a right, it also carries responsibilities. Everyone these days loves to talk about rights but never talk about responsibilities that go with those rights.
Begum renounced her human rights when she signed up with ISIS and decided to renounce her humanity, she renounced her citizenship rights when she renounced her responsibilities to act as a uk citizen.
You want human rights live up to your responsibilites as human, clue beheading people or celebrating it isn't doing it.
Want to keep your rights as a citizen then live up to the responsibilites of being a citizen.
Frankly we revoke rights far too few times
No matter how vile or stupid someone is, they cannot renounce their "human rights" or their "humanity" unless they morph into an alien being from the Triangulum Galaxy. Human rights are for all humans - the clue is in the description. Once you start revoking rights, where do you stop? And who gets to decide?
If Begum is not merely a gullible fool, if she is in some way malicious, then hand her over the authorities and prosecute her.
I didnt say they voluntary renounce them, they act like a barbarian and not a human then the acts they choose to do renounce them. Britain could not prosecute her because she has done nothing here. She is fine with violating the human rights of others so she no longer gets those human rights to hide behind fuck her. I would have some sympathy with the grooming take if she had ever shown remorse but she hasn't so fuck her.
You have to remember as well that Rishi actively loathes industrial investment.
It’s in his early profiles, and indeed reiterated in his Maes speech. He stands at the very font of those shibboleths mentioned by @Casino_Royale
But those are usually just code for someone like Sunak making enormous amounts of money.
The trouble is that the UK is very good at very productive, profitable stuff like law and finance. If we could have everyone in the country working for hedge funds, we'd all be rich like Rishi and we wouldn't need an NHS. (I exaggerate and simplify- partly for comic effect, but also because I'm a physics teacher and it's what I do.)
Trouble is that, to the extent that the UK works, it is a small number of very sucessful companies dragging along a tail of much less productive ones. And the bits that work probably don't give a roadmap for improving the bits that don't. Indeed, the habits driving the sucesses probably work against developing the rest.
That is probably to do with the fact that Parliament is packed with ex-lawyers, ex-bankers etc. Not exactly brimming over with the self-employed or technologists.
Everyone hates parting with money and loves earning it and they all want their profit in the next financial quarter and not in 5 or 10 years time.
You have to remember as well that Rishi actively loathes industrial investment.
It’s in his early profiles, and indeed reiterated in his Maes speech. He stands at the very font of those shibboleths mentioned by @Casino_Royale
But those are usually just code for someone like Sunak making enormous amounts of money.
The trouble is that the UK is very good at very productive, profitable stuff like law and finance. If we could have everyone in the country working for hedge funds, we'd all be rich like Rishi and we wouldn't need an NHS. (I exaggerate and simplify- partly for comic effect, but also because I'm a physics teacher and it's what I do.)
Trouble is that, to the extent that the UK works, it is a small number of very sucessful companies dragging along a tail of much less productive ones. And the bits that work probably don't give a roadmap for improving the bits that don't. Indeed, the habits driving the sucesses probably work against developing the rest.
That is probably to do with the fact that Parliament is packed with ex-lawyers, ex-bankers etc. Not exactly brimming over with the self-employed or technologists.
Everyone hates parting with money and loves earning it and they all want their profit in the next financial quarter and not in 5 or 10 years time.
Short-termism is another British success story.
There are more ex SPADs, MPs researchers and councillors in the Commons now than ex bankers and lawyers, let alone ex tech.
You have to remember as well that Rishi actively loathes industrial investment.
It’s in his early profiles, and indeed reiterated in his Maes speech. He stands at the very font of those shibboleths mentioned by @Casino_Royale
But those are usually just code for someone like Sunak making enormous amounts of money.
The trouble is that the UK is very good at very productive, profitable stuff like law and finance. If we could have everyone in the country working for hedge funds, we'd all be rich like Rishi and we wouldn't need an NHS. (I exaggerate and simplify- partly for comic effect, but also because I'm a physics teacher and it's what I do.)
Trouble is that, to the extent that the UK works, it is a small number of very sucessful companies dragging along a tail of much less productive ones. And the bits that work probably don't give a roadmap for improving the bits that don't. Indeed, the habits driving the sucesses probably work against developing the rest.
That is probably to do with the fact that Parliament is packed with ex-lawyers, ex-bankers etc. Not exactly brimming over with the self-employed or technologists.
Everyone hates parting with money and loves earning it and they all want their profit in the next financial quarter and not in 5 or 10 years time.
Short-termism is another British success story.
There are more ex SPADs, MPs researchers and councillors in the Commons now than ex bankers and lawyers, let alone ex tech.
The next most popular is ex business though
Too many "Business people" these days are little more than jumped-up accountants or finance people. A lot of theory and a lot of bullsh*t. Many of them could not manage a coffee club.
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
It'd be brilliant for Ukraine and terrible for the EU. It's going to be a depopulated, ruined husk of half a country that's going to need many billions to rebuild it.
I think France, Germany, Hungary and Greece, as a minimum, would veto anyway.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
No. I don’t accept this.
A citizenship is a citizenship. There should be no second class of citizenship.
Begum should be tried in the UK. If she’s been groomed or whatever, that’s a reason for some sort of clemency. But citizenship should be sacrosanct.
Sorry cannot agree here citizenship is not only a right, it also carries responsibilities. Everyone these days loves to talk about rights but never talk about responsibilities that go with those rights.
Begum renounced her human rights when she signed up with ISIS and decided to renounce her humanity, she renounced her citizenship rights when she renounced her responsibilities to act as a uk citizen.
You want human rights live up to your responsibilites as human, clue beheading people or celebrating it isn't doing it.
Want to keep your rights as a citizen then live up to the responsibilites of being a citizen.
Frankly we revoke rights far too few times
No matter how vile or stupid someone is, they cannot renounce their "human rights" or their "humanity" unless they morph into an alien being from the Triangulum Galaxy. Human rights are for all humans - the clue is in the description. Once you start revoking rights, where do you stop? And who gets to decide?
If Begum is not merely a gullible fool, if she is in some way malicious, then hand her over the authorities and prosecute her.
I didnt say they voluntary renounce them, they act like a barbarian and not a human then the acts they choose to do renounce them. Britain could not prosecute her because she has done nothing here. She is fine with violating the human rights of others so she no longer gets those human rights to hide behind fuck her. I would have some sympathy with the grooming take if she had ever shown remorse but she hasn't so fuck her.
The UK will prosecute UK national who commit crimes overseas
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
No. I don’t accept this.
A citizenship is a citizenship. There should be no second class of citizenship.
Begum should be tried in the UK. If she’s been groomed or whatever, that’s a reason for some sort of clemency. But citizenship should be sacrosanct.
Sorry cannot agree here citizenship is not only a right, it also carries responsibilities. Everyone these days loves to talk about rights but never talk about responsibilities that go with those rights.
Begum renounced her human rights when she signed up with ISIS and decided to renounce her humanity, she renounced her citizenship rights when she renounced her responsibilities to act as a uk citizen.
You want human rights live up to your responsibilites as human, clue beheading people or celebrating it isn't doing it.
Want to keep your rights as a citizen then live up to the responsibilites of being a citizen.
Frankly we revoke rights far too few times
No matter how vile or stupid someone is, they cannot renounce their "human rights" or their "humanity" unless they morph into an alien being from the Triangulum Galaxy. Human rights are for all humans - the clue is in the description. Once you start revoking rights, where do you stop? And who gets to decide?
If Begum is not merely a gullible fool, if she is in some way malicious, then hand her over the authorities and prosecute her.
I didnt say they voluntary renounce them, they act like a barbarian and not a human then the acts they choose to do renounce them. Britain could not prosecute her because she has done nothing here. She is fine with violating the human rights of others so she no longer gets those human rights to hide behind fuck her. I would have some sympathy with the grooming take if she had ever shown remorse but she hasn't so fuck her.
The UK will prosecute UK national who commit crimes overseas
You can guarantee she won't end up being prosecuted or at best get a light sentence due to the "oh but human rights crowd" in the guardian. She chose to move to a shithole let her rot there
Complete the full renationalisation of rail. Build full fat HS2 Glasgow to St Pancras via Newcastle, Leeds and Nottingham. Build Crossrail 2. Extend to Chingford/Walthamstow/Epping.
National energy provider, build nuclear, more offshore, tidal, owned by the public.
Education, training. Get young people into jobs where they can learn soft skills quickly. Fill labour gaps, subsidise where necessary.
Build a bridge to France (if feasible).
Join Schengen. Join EEA.
I would vote for that, especially if zero-hour contracts where banned as well
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
No. I don’t accept this.
A citizenship is a citizenship. There should be no second class of citizenship.
Begum should be tried in the UK. If she’s been groomed or whatever, that’s a reason for some sort of clemency. But citizenship should be sacrosanct.
Sorry cannot agree here citizenship is not only a right, it also carries responsibilities. Everyone these days loves to talk about rights but never talk about responsibilities that go with those rights.
Begum renounced her human rights when she signed up with ISIS and decided to renounce her humanity, she renounced her citizenship rights when she renounced her responsibilities to act as a uk citizen.
You want human rights live up to your responsibilites as human, clue beheading people or celebrating it isn't doing it.
Want to keep your rights as a citizen then live up to the responsibilites of being a citizen.
Frankly we revoke rights far too few times
No matter how vile or stupid someone is, they cannot renounce their "human rights" or their "humanity" unless they morph into an alien being from the Triangulum Galaxy. Human rights are for all humans - the clue is in the description. Once you start revoking rights, where do you stop? And who gets to decide?
If Begum is not merely a gullible fool, if she is in some way malicious, then hand her over the authorities and prosecute her.
I didnt say they voluntary renounce them, they act like a barbarian and not a human then the acts they choose to do renounce them. Britain could not prosecute her because she has done nothing here. She is fine with violating the human rights of others so she no longer gets those human rights to hide behind fuck her. I would have some sympathy with the grooming take if she had ever shown remorse but she hasn't so fuck her.
The UK will prosecute UK national who commit crimes overseas
You can guarantee she won't end up being prosecuted or at best get a light sentence due to the "oh but human rights crowd" in the guardian. She chose to move to a shithole let her rot there
If she does come back (very good bet to win this year's Strictly if she does) then you can take comfort from the fact that we at least let all her kids die.
You have to remember as well that Rishi actively loathes industrial investment.
It’s in his early profiles, and indeed reiterated in his Maes speech. He stands at the very font of those shibboleths mentioned by @Casino_Royale
But those are usually just code for someone like Sunak making enormous amounts of money.
The trouble is that the UK is very good at very productive, profitable stuff like law and finance. If we could have everyone in the country working for hedge funds, we'd all be rich like Rishi and we wouldn't need an NHS. (I exaggerate and simplify- partly for comic effect, but also because I'm a physics teacher and it's what I do.)
Trouble is that, to the extent that the UK works, it is a small number of very sucessful companies dragging along a tail of much less productive ones. And the bits that work probably don't give a roadmap for improving the bits that don't. Indeed, the habits driving the sucesses probably work against developing the rest.
That is probably to do with the fact that Parliament is packed with ex-lawyers, ex-bankers etc. Not exactly brimming over with the self-employed or technologists.
Everyone hates parting with money and loves earning it and they all want their profit in the next financial quarter and not in 5 or 10 years time.
Short-termism is another British success story.
There are more ex SPADs, MPs researchers and councillors in the Commons now than ex bankers and lawyers, let alone ex tech.
The next most popular is ex business though
Too many "Business people" these days are little more than jumped-up accountants or finance people. A lot of theory and a lot of bullsh*t. Many of them could not manage a coffee club.
Maybe, though the top 3 backgrounds for newly elected MPs in terms of previous occupation in 2019 were councillor first for all main parties, then political/social/policy researcher for Labour, the LDs and SNP and business for the Tories, then political/social/policy researcher for the Tories and lawyer for Labour and business for the LDs and SNP
Comments
During the Jim Crow era, black-owned businesses became a thing. Black-owned restaurants, law firms, accountants, hotels, small businesses became important, when 13% of the population were barred, either by State law, or by common practice, from accessing these services.
A sad side-effect of desegregation was that a lot of black professionals lost out. Black consumers sought out the businesses from which they had been barred, but few white people were interested in moving in the other direction. It’s hugely to the credit of black professionals that they mostly supported civil rights, despite the economic loss.
Nothing like that pre-Desegregation black professional class exists in the UK.
Suffice to say: America and China incubate and subsidise their nascent tech industries.
We do jack shit.
I wouldn't want Britain anywhere near it mind.
Not just America and China, but Europe too, South Korea certainly, in fact most of the developed world.
It's such dogmatic and intellectually bankruptcy thinking.
Why wouldn't we?
I wouldn't like a situation where a Government could choose to revoke my citizenship and force me out the country simply because I publicly and peacefully disagreed with a particular policy.
Other countries and systems have far more "radical" solutions than removing citizenship if individuals publicly question Government policy but in a democracy I should have the right to disagree and to express that disagreement within the law openly.
One of my problems with the Johnson administration was the way legislation was introduced which by-passed and weakened the sovereignty of the legislature in favour of the executive by placing power in the hands of Ministers.
I'm all for taking back control from Brussels but not if it means handing it directly to Ministers and weakening the scrutinising and accountability functions of Parliament.
Gove, I think - despite being a gawky Lannistery twat - would have got all this.
Still think he should have been given a few years at the premiership. He'd have done shit.
But those shibboleths are immensely strong in the UK (as they are, btw, in NZ).
I find it interesting that in the “land of the free” there is no such taboo. Far from it.
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
We have zero game.
As much as you can, ignore the patter, watch the hands.
I'm interested in what works in securing Britain's long-term prosperity, integrity and maximises its scope for global leadership.
Nothing else.
X per Y GWh of batteries actually produced in the U.K.
X scaled to the value added in the U.K. - so importing and rebadging gets nothing.
The problem is that this makes politicians feel they are not in control. They want to pick an individual company and bung money at it.
Historically this has nearly always been a disaster for new technology.
It makes sense to think of the UK as two separate economies.
The first, centred in London, is at its best when it works “short term”. Industrial subsidies or whatever would just get in the way. Its main issue is a dysfunctional planning system which has created unaffordable housing.
The second, centred in “the North” needs an entirely different policy mix designed to rebuild “industry” in order to gain market share in a rapidly changing global market. It needs investment and long-term strategy. Instead it is basically kept in long-term welfare and public sector dependency.
The population is pretty much split 50/50 between those two economies.
1. UK entrepreneurs wanting to sell out fast to a foreign company to get their pot of gold
2. Taxation set up to encourage short term capital gain over long term business investment
3. UK Government unwilling to stand up for British companies due to:
-Overzealous interpretation of EU competition and state aid law by Government agencies
-America gets on the phone and demands that UK ministers withdraw their national security objection to US acquisition of UK company
-'Thatcher' and non-interference in markets dogma
-Grift, preferments, etc.
Rip off Britain has been going on for a very long time.
And I note the people advocating the use of this power never seem to suggest using it on convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell who has 3 nationalities.
I think she would beat any of the three "B"s with the members in a future contest.
I guess much will depend on what the parliamentary Conservative party looks like after the next election. I guess, on balance, older and maybe less ideological. Maybe that would improve her chances of getting through to the last round.
In the current climate doesn't look like any governing party will be popular for long
No paid work materialised.
Even if he bears a significant responsibility for the long running clusterfuck in education, he has showed competence and energy in other departments, Which distinguishes him from most of the rest.
This page gives the current value of the famous Norwegian sovereign wealth fund.
https://www.nbim.no/
But as a class I would regard them as overwhelmingly stupid and lacking any coherent thoughts on growth whatsoever.
And we wouldn’t have had a government preoccupied for half a decade with irrelevancies.
With startups, government share ownership isn’t the issue. It’s having competent management and a plan that might work. British Volt didn’t seem to have either.
There is a different case for buying into existing businesses - Rolls Royce jet engines, OneWeb etc. There you have actual assets, track records, ongoing sales etc….
It’s in his early profiles, and indeed reiterated in his Maes speech. He stands at the very font of those shibboleths mentioned by @Casino_Royale
The trick is to pay for the outcome you want, not pay for the hotel bills of subsidy farmers.
The Labour Party still won the majority of seats in the North of England, even in a catastrophic defeat.
The Tories remain, at heart, a Party of the South of England in the main.
They do not split 50/50 at all.
Not even close.
They are even more a party of rural England than southern England
Invest. Invest. Invest.
But we were discussing how it might have gone slightly better.
Which requires 51% of Tory MPs to vote for it to be successful, so little chance
But they've always won the rural north. Nothing much changed there.
There has always been another Blue Wall running north of the fabled Red Wall).
(Incidentally. The Tory results at the most recent Councils, in N Yorks and Cumbria were spectacularly dire by all historical precedent).
Sunak is less popular than all of his recent predecessors were at this point, including Boris Johnson, Theresa May and Gordon Brown.
By Ben Walker"
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2023/02/rishi-sunak-day-100-least-popular-prime-minister
Trouble is that, to the extent that the UK works, it is a small number of very sucessful companies dragging along a tail of much less productive ones. And the bits that work probably don't give a roadmap for improving the bits that don't. Indeed, the habits driving the sucesses probably work against developing the rest.
*speaking in achievement terms, natch...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yorkshire_County_Council
By contrast London, Reading, Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol, Southampton, Brighton, Exeter etc all are controlled by Labour
R&D
Industrial strategy
Public sector capital
I favour municipal and special “British development bank” bonds.
(Absolutely love my blanket-poncho with mini heaters in it. Magic for WFH days.)
What could possibly go wrong?
Corruption, mismanagement, incompetence, gigantic waste ...
Actually, more to the point, what could possibly go right?
- Defined benefit pensions buy government bonds, corporate bonds and commercial property. Not exactly financing growth drivers.
- Defined contribution pensions buy global tracker equities where less than 10% is UK large cap. Not helpful.
- Individuals private wealth is predominantly tied up in residential property, which is incredibly unproductive.
We need a regulatory and tax system that encourages risk taking in our own country. We have a huge finance sector willing to take advantage of it if we do, but we need some kind of incentive to make our own investors choose productive investments here, not safe bets or going overseas.
It’s no longer working (if it ever worked).
As @Malmesbury points out, the government needs to incent industries and success, rather than individual “winners”.
Otherwise the risk is corruption etc as you say.
Very broadly, British investors have found it more profitable to invest abroad than at home.
I come again to my “two economies” thesis.
I think we've always been a bit messy - a bit Boris. We were never like the Germans. More triumph and disaster and scraping through by the skin of our teeth. Somehow used to be a lot more triumphs than disasters though.
Begum renounced her human rights when she signed up with ISIS and decided to renounce her humanity, she renounced her citizenship rights when she renounced her responsibilities to act as a uk citizen.
You want human rights live up to your responsibilites as human, clue beheading people or celebrating it isn't doing it.
Want to keep your rights as a citizen then live up to the responsibilites of being a citizen.
Frankly we revoke rights far too few times
Rather, the government needs to use its tax, regulatory and monetary fiat power to incent or support local investment.
Broadly speaking, the government needs to let London trade as profitably as it can, while placing the power of the state behind strategic domestic investment.
https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/status/1621240150494744577?s=46&t=O8v_87FHNL5Y8_eAJQUmgw
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1621236330763288576
It would make sense for Labour to highlight that possibility by including a measure in their manifesto along the lines of 'any change in PM has to be followed by a GE within 6 months'.
It would have the added benefit for Starmer of protecting him against leadership challenges.
National energy provider, build nuclear, more offshore, tidal, owned by the public.
Education, training. Get young people into jobs where they can learn soft skills quickly. Fill labour gaps, subsidise where necessary.
Build a bridge to France (if feasible).
Join Schengen. Join EEA.
R
U
S
S
Her time. Our time. Tea time.
If Begum is not merely a gullible fool, if she is in some way malicious, then hand her over the authorities and prosecute her.
All the polls show Sunak polls above his party if anything
A workable battery with four times the energy density of the current state of the art would be transformative in many ways. Regional aviation, for one.
https://techxplore.com/news/2023-02-chemistry-ultra-high-power-density-batteries.html
Some ways off commercial reality, but looks promising.
Everyone hates parting with money and loves earning it and they all want their profit in the next financial quarter and not in 5 or 10 years time.
Short-termism is another British success story.
The next most popular is ex business though
I think France, Germany, Hungary and Greece, as a minimum, would veto anyway.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/709126/universal-jurisdiction-note-web.pdf
Brrrrr.
I cannot see anyone better than Sunak to lead the Tories. What a state, eh?
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7483/CBP-7483.pdf