The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
Well, let's turn it around:
Which developed countries have seen the bottom 50% do best, and what policies did they follow?
Because it seems that is probably a better way of finding the right answer, than just declaring that it is the fault of "centrist" policies.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
Because they want to win.
Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?
When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
They'll have 150 new faces to call upon. (I've actually tried somewhat to spot obvious plants into future Labour seats, but I've not had any success at all.)
SKS's main problem is how he loses (entirely) the denizens of the left.
Will he be brave enough to let Andy Burnham find a seat?
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
Because they want to win.
Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?
When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
What, really, is wrong with the bench behind Starmer/Reeves?
Admittedly it’s not Churchill’s War Cabinet, but the idea they are all crap after Starmer and Reeves doesn’t really withstand analysis.
I actually think they are one of the stronger Opposition front benches we’ve seen (you and are approx the same age, I think).
It's as weak on talent on the Tory benches. Remember Anneliese Dodds? And Yvette Cooper is massively overrated.
The fact you can't see this is simply a function of your enthusiasm for a change in government.
I suspect you are underestimating some of the available Shadow Cabinet talent although like Johnson, Corbyn ejected the most capable of MPs from his Party.
Let's face it, most of your smarter MPs are languishing on the back benches.
Most mp's aren't smarter as most were elected when they didnt have to actually think. We took away the eu crutch now they are lost and shown to be totally vacant with neither ideals nor ideas and that is all parties.
We can only hope that now they actually need to do something for a living as the eu is not going to make law for them that they give up and we actually get some thinkers and doer's in parliament rather than the idiots we have in all parties now
I am really quite amazed that you have deduced that MPs are in future likely to be smarter because the UK is no longer in the EU.
Well, Brexit bonuses have been rather thin on the ground, so let's hope you are right.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
Because they want to win.
Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?
When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
What, really, is wrong with the bench behind Starmer/Reeves?
Admittedly it’s not Churchill’s War Cabinet, but the idea they are all crap after Starmer and Reeves doesn’t really withstand analysis.
I actually think they are one of the stronger Opposition front benches we’ve seen (you and are approx the same age, I think).
It's as weak on talent on the Tory benches. Remember Anneliese Dodds? And Yvette Cooper is massively overrated.
The fact you can't see this is simply a function of your enthusiasm for a change in government.
I suspect you are underestimating some of the available Shadow Cabinet talent although like Johnson, Corbyn ejected the most capable of MPs from his Party.
Let's face it, most of your smarter MPs are languishing on the back benches.
Most mp's aren't smarter as most were elected when they didnt have to actually think. We took away the eu crutch now they are lost and shown to be totally vacant with neither ideals nor ideas and that is all parties.
We can only hope that now they actually need to do something for a living as the eu is not going to make law for them that they give up and we actually get some thinkers and doer's in parliament rather than the idiots we have in all parties now
I am really quite amazed that you have deduced that MPs are in future likely to be smarter because the UK is no longer in the EU.
Well, Brexit bonuses have been rather thin on the ground, so let's hope you are right.
We won't soon have those pesky EU regulations against ECT, and given the state of the leccy in the Palace of Westminster, there might well be some salutary short and sharp shocks.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
I really am startled at the picture presented here. Something missing or a piece too many in the jigsaw?
'Mr Lal, who in 2020 styled himself as the “chairman and president of the Scottish Conservative Friends of India”, denied working with Alba.[...]
Last April, the Indian Council withdrew its support for Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross for being “unapproachable” and not signing up to its Hinduphobia policy.
Mr Lal said Mr Ross was “immature” and his party was at a “historical reputational low”.[...]
In December, Mr Lal was at the launch of the Together UK Foundation in London alongside Brexiteer Northern Ireland Secretary Steve Baker and former DUP leader Arlene Foster.
He said the group would “inform the public of all the facts of the advantages of the Union”, adding: “I am proud of my country, the United Kingdom and I am proud to be British”.
A week later the Indian Council awarded Rangers Football Club its “special award for Outstanding Achievement for Community Relations”. [,,,]
On February 11 this year, Mr Ahmad’s Muslim Council of the UK issued a statement describing itself as “the leading organisation for the Muslim community in the UK”.
It said it had followed in the footsteps of Mr Lal’s Indian Council of Scotland and withdrawn its support for the SNP-Green government.
In a press release which twice got his own group’s name wrong, Mr Ahmad was quoted agreeing with Mr Lal that Scotland was on the wrong path with Nicola Sturgeon.'
I would be so fucked if someone had access to my WhatsApp messages.
I see several met officers have been fucked over for this. I think it’s a grey area. A friends brother in law is in the West Mids police, dealing with paedophiles. He has to deal with scum day in, day out, horrible stuff. He regularly sends Whatsapp messages that originate among his colleagues that cross lines, often majorly. My colleague at the uni sends them to me. We are probably all contravening some law, somewhere. My Dad, ex Guards and then 30 years in the police says that officers need black humour to deal with stuff. In the old days that was in the pub, telling jokes about things Joe Public would be horrified at. Now it’s on Whatsapp. At what point are people not allowed to tell shit, distasteful jokes among friends?
Isn't the problem that people have always said and communicated stuff that is way over the line for all sorts of reasons - as here. But because of the ubiquity of mediums of communication people keep on effectively, often accidentally, publishing the stuff. And once its out in digital form of any sort it is unstoppable and attributable.
Stick to non overheard conversation and (usually but take care) phone calls as in far off days and you are OK. Almost everything else can end up in court or published for a billion fascinated people to read.
Never publish what you don't want your mum to read on the front page of the Mail.
Truss's downfall must be one of the most public humiliations any UK politician has had to suffer, yet does the lady fall quietly into the background? No she does not. Instead she harangues from the sidelines, as if anyone cares and as if she were right all along.
Is she mental? She doesn't look it but she kind of acts it.
Liz Truss' connection with reality is as non existent as Johnson's connection with the truth. I don't think either are actually mental.
Truss would have more dignity if she just said something like 'we tried, it didn't work', rather than inventing far fetched conspiracy theories which no one believes. It reinforces the notion she is completely out of her depth.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
Because they want to win.
Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?
When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
What, really, is wrong with the bench behind Starmer/Reeves?
Admittedly it’s not Churchill’s War Cabinet, but the idea they are all crap after Starmer and Reeves doesn’t really withstand analysis.
I actually think they are one of the stronger Opposition front benches we’ve seen (you and are approx the same age, I think).
It's as weak on talent on the Tory benches. Remember Anneliese Dodds? And Yvette Cooper is massively overrated.
The fact you can't see this is simply a function of your enthusiasm for a change in government.
I suspect you are underestimating some of the available Shadow Cabinet talent although like Johnson, Corbyn ejected the most capable of MPs from his Party.
Let's face it, most of your smarter MPs are languishing on the back benches.
Most mp's aren't smarter as most were elected when they didnt have to actually think. We took away the eu crutch now they are lost and shown to be totally vacant with neither ideals nor ideas and that is all parties.
We can only hope that now they actually need to do something for a living as the eu is not going to make law for them that they give up and we actually get some thinkers and doer's in parliament rather than the idiots we have in all parties now
I am really quite amazed that you have deduced that MPs are in future likely to be smarter because the UK is no longer in the EU.
Well, Brexit bonuses have been rather thin on the ground, so let's hope you are right.
I didnt deduced I said I hoped they would be now they realise they might actually have to do some work
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
I deliberately didnt include the thatcher years because calling them centrist would get people going on about thatcher being a centrist. However major continued the same policies, so did blair and brown and cameron and may and even johnson on the whole. Sadly bring thatcher into it and you get reactive spitting
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
I would be so fucked if someone had access to my WhatsApp messages.
I see several met officers have been fucked over for this. I think it’s a grey area. A friends brother in law is in the West Mids police, dealing with paedophiles. He has to deal with scum day in, day out, horrible stuff. He regularly sends Whatsapp messages that originate among his colleagues that cross lines, often majorly. My colleague at the uni sends them to me. We are probably all contravening some law, somewhere. My Dad, ex Guards and then 30 years in the police says that officers need black humour to deal with stuff. In the old days that was in the pub, telling jokes about things Joe Public would be horrified at. Now it’s on Whatsapp. At what point are people not allowed to tell shit, distasteful jokes among friends?
Isn't the problem that people have always said and communicated stuff that is way over the line for all sorts of reasons - as here. But because of the ubiquity of mediums of communication people keep on effectively, often accidentally, publishing the stuff. And once its out in digital form of any sort it is unstoppable and attributable.
Stick to non overheard conversation and (usually but take care) phone calls as in far off days and you are OK. Almost everything else can end up in court or published for a billion fascinated people to read.
Never publish what you don't want your mum to read on the front page of the Mail.
Absolutely true.
Also important to think not just "what would the boss/GMC/CPS/press think of this post?" but also to be a bit more reflective and think "if it is so awful that I wouldn't want it published, why do I want to say it/make that comment?"
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
I think that I the Scandinavian countries are all richer (per person) than the UK. So is Netherlands etc etc etc.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
I don't think any country has it right currently and that is largely down to corporations buying politicians and getting laws drawn in their favour. A good example is the globalisation of wages but the regionalisation of prices such as when the EU ruled Tesco's couldn't buy levi jeans in non eu countries and sell them cheaper but it was fine for levi's to have jeans made cheaper in non eu countries for sale in the eu.
Globalisation is a thing we are never going to get rid of now but it has to work for both buyers and selllers not just sellers
I would be so fucked if someone had access to my WhatsApp messages.
I see several met officers have been fucked over for this. I think it’s a grey area. A friends brother in law is in the West Mids police, dealing with paedophiles. He has to deal with scum day in, day out, horrible stuff. He regularly sends Whatsapp messages that originate among his colleagues that cross lines, often majorly. My colleague at the uni sends them to me. We are probably all contravening some law, somewhere. My Dad, ex Guards and then 30 years in the police says that officers need black humour to deal with stuff. In the old days that was in the pub, telling jokes about things Joe Public would be horrified at. Now it’s on Whatsapp. At what point are people not allowed to tell shit, distasteful jokes among friends?
Isn't the problem that people have always said and communicated stuff that is way over the line for all sorts of reasons - as here. But because of the ubiquity of mediums of communication people keep on effectively, often accidentally, publishing the stuff. And once its out in digital form of any sort it is unstoppable and attributable.
Stick to non overheard conversation and (usually but take care) phone calls as in far off days and you are OK. Almost everything else can end up in court or published for a billion fascinated people to read.
Never publish what you don't want your mum to read on the front page of the Mail.
Absolutely true.
Also important to think not just "what would the boss/GMC/CPS/press think of this post?" but also to be a bit more reflective and think "if it is so awful that I wouldn't want it published, why do I want to say it/make that comment?"
One more small point. It's a horrible offence against decent conduct in the digital world to say defamatory things about identifiable people under cover of anonymity.
Truss's downfall must be one of the most public humiliations any UK politician has had to suffer, yet does the lady fall quietly into the background? No she does not. Instead she harangues from the sidelines, as if anyone cares and as if she were right all along.
Is she mental? She doesn't look it but she kind of acts it.
I spoke to a former Tory MP at the start of the month who was quite close to Truss.
She genuinely believes she had a mandate* to change the country and there was an institutional coup d'état against her.
*She seems to not grasp 80,000 votes from Tory members isn't a mandate to change the country.
I would be so fucked if someone had access to my WhatsApp messages.
I see several met officers have been fucked over for this. I think it’s a grey area. A friends brother in law is in the West Mids police, dealing with paedophiles. He has to deal with scum day in, day out, horrible stuff. He regularly sends Whatsapp messages that originate among his colleagues that cross lines, often majorly. My colleague at the uni sends them to me. We are probably all contravening some law, somewhere. My Dad, ex Guards and then 30 years in the police says that officers need black humour to deal with stuff. In the old days that was in the pub, telling jokes about things Joe Public would be horrified at. Now it’s on Whatsapp. At what point are people not allowed to tell shit, distasteful jokes among friends?
It's a grey area.
As the judge who sentenced Wayne Couzens noted the police have unique powers and a role that means they need to be judged to a higher standard.
Imagine you were the victim of a racist assault and it then transpired the coppers investigating regularly used racial slurs.
As for me, for example if someone looked at my phone they would see I have friends who regularly use homophobic slurs which I never call out and I occasionally reply with 'OMG, I feel so guilty for laughing at that.'
The reality is I have a lot of gay friends, who use terms I would never use, so in that context those messages are fine.
Same as me, who make people feel guilty for making people laugh at inappropriate jokes.
I have been compared to Jimmy Carr on multiple occasions.
Great article from @rcs1000. Totally agree with it too, the Truss/Boris wing are attempting to rewrite history and the idiot MPs in the Tory party are letting them. Truss was a disaster.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
Because they want to win.
Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?
When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
What, really, is wrong with the bench behind Starmer/Reeves?
Admittedly it’s not Churchill’s War Cabinet, but the idea they are all crap after Starmer and Reeves doesn’t really withstand analysis.
I actually think they are one of the stronger Opposition front benches we’ve seen (you and are approx the same age, I think).
It's as weak on talent on the Tory benches. Remember Anneliese Dodds? And Yvette Cooper is massively overrated.
The fact you can't see this is simply a function of your enthusiasm for a change in government.
The equivalence argument is often used by the right.."they are both as shit as each other bla..bla..so why should we give a fuck?."
Well they are not as shit as each other and we should we should give a fuck. The Tories are absolutely useless..they have a useless ragtag of members and a useless ragtag of people like you Casino championing them...
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
Because they want to win.
Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?
When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
What, really, is wrong with the bench behind Starmer/Reeves?
Admittedly it’s not Churchill’s War Cabinet, but the idea they are all crap after Starmer and Reeves doesn’t really withstand analysis.
I actually think they are one of the stronger Opposition front benches we’ve seen (you and are approx the same age, I think).
It's as weak on talent on the Tory benches. Remember Anneliese Dodds? And Yvette Cooper is massively overrated.
The fact you can't see this is simply a function of your enthusiasm for a change in government.
The equivalence argument is often used by the right.."they are both as shit as each other bla..bla..so why should we give a fuck?."
Well they are not as shit as each other and we should we should give a fuck. The Tories are absolutely useless..they have a useless ragtag of members and a useless ragtag of people like you Casino championing them...
Yes. Casino basically enables this nonsense.
I know he considers himself a doughty and independent-minded commentator, but he continually returns to what are presumably (for him) comforting delusions.
Historians are going to be damning about this era.
I was teaching a young politics student about devolution and power sharing in Northern Ireland earlier. I hope I didn't speak too soon when I said things are now far better than they were thirty years ago.
Great article from @rcs1000. Totally agree with it too, the Truss/Boris wing are attempting to rewrite history and the idiot MPs in the Tory party are letting them. Truss was a disaster.
Most likely scenario is that it is what the Tories in opposition look like. And it might look superficially plausible and appealing to many voters because the rhetoric won't be tested by market reaction, and so won't face the same stringent reality check then when implemented by Truss/Kwarteng.
Imagine Truss' policies enacted in 2029, with a general election mandate.
If there were likes for headers, I would give this header one. Well argued ajd coherent. What I think Truss did right in my view is prioritisinh growth. But her plan for achieving it was, er, unconvincing.
Great article from @rcs1000. Totally agree with it too, the Truss/Boris wing are attempting to rewrite history and the idiot MPs in the Tory party are letting them. Truss was a disaster.
Most likely scenario is that it is what the Tories in opposition look like. And it might look superficially plausible and appealing to many voters because the rhetoric won't be tested by market reaction, and so won't face the same stringent reality check then when implemented by Truss/Kwarteng.
Imagine Truss' policies enacted in 2029, with a general election mandate.
I guess that's when the ghost of Argentina in the early 20th century starts to tap us on the sholder a bit more forcefully.
But ultimately, getting a general election mandate doesn't change the endgame. If you need the gnomes formerly of Zurich to fund your plans, they have a veto. And a big Commons majority doesn't change that.
Rishi may not be great at politics, see the announcement he and Hunt made on public sector pay, however they are delivering relatively competent government for the country. Tax receipts are up, borrowing is down and the economy is starting to grow again and inflation get under control. Even if they don't get the reward at the ballot box as Major and Ken Clarke didn't in 1997 either longer term history will look more kindly on them
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
I don't think any country has it right currently and that is largely down to corporations buying politicians and getting laws drawn in their favour. A good example is the globalisation of wages but the regionalisation of prices such as when the EU ruled Tesco's couldn't buy levi jeans in non eu countries and sell them cheaper but it was fine for levi's to have jeans made cheaper in non eu countries for sale in the eu.
Globalisation is a thing we are never going to get rid of now but it has to work for both buyers and selllers not just sellers
So your Nirvana for the poor doesn't exist? Now there's a surprise.
If we look at countries with low taxes and little welfare state, as you seem to aspire to, we do have a few examples:
At the lowest end we have a few petro-states whose source of income is not tax, but the remaining very low tax states are not very pleasant ones to be in the poorer strata of society, nor are they ones with notably high economic growth.
If we take India as a mid-table country, with roughly half the tax as a percentage of GDP, do you think the poor are better off? Obviously poorer in real terms compared to our poor, but do you think their social mobility is better?
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
Because they want to win.
Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?
When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
What, really, is wrong with the bench behind Starmer/Reeves?
Admittedly it’s not Churchill’s War Cabinet, but the idea they are all crap after Starmer and Reeves doesn’t really withstand analysis.
I actually think they are one of the stronger Opposition front benches we’ve seen (you and are approx the same age, I think).
It's as weak on talent on the Tory benches. Remember Anneliese Dodds? And Yvette Cooper is massively overrated.
The fact you can't see this is simply a function of your enthusiasm for a change in government.
The equivalence argument is often used by the right.."they are both as shit as each other bla..bla..so why should we give a fuck?."
Well they are not as shit as each other and we should we should give a fuck. The Tories are absolutely useless..they have a useless ragtag of members and a useless ragtag of people like you Casino championing them...
The current government is useless. We won’t know how useless the Opposition are until they take over.
But many (perhaps most) voters vote on the basis of our sons of bitches being less bad than their sons of bitches.
Rishi may not be great at politics, see the announcement he and Hunt made on public sector pay, however they are delivering relatively competent government for the country. Tax receipts are up, borrowing is down and the economy is starting to grow again and inflation get under control. Even if they don't get the reward at the ballot box as Major and Ken Clarke didn't in 1997 either longer term history will look more kindly on them
The stats at the moment are a bit misleading.
Tax receipts up: the self assessment stats were inflated by large numbers of asset disposals ahead of feared CGT rate rise (which didn’t happen)
Borrowing down: the above, plus significantly cheaper EPG costs than expected as the wholesale gas price plummeted
Economy starting to grow again: that big may be true although it’s always dangerous to trust the ONS. It dies look like the world economy may be turning a corner. Stock markets up and deal volumes starting to increase. But real terms wages are likely to continue falling for some time yet. And mortgage interest rates rising.
Can we have a rebuttal piece to the header from LuckyGuy1983? I’d be interested
The header is (or at least reads like) a rebuttal of Sandpit's comments in the previous thread, which pretty much amounted to the second paragraph of the header.
Would indeed be interesting to read a rebuttal that had something more to add than that (if there is anything more to add).
Great article from @rcs1000. Totally agree with it too, the Truss/Boris wing are attempting to rewrite history and the idiot MPs in the Tory party are letting them. Truss was a disaster.
Most likely scenario is that it is what the Tories in opposition look like. And it might look superficially plausible and appealing to many voters because the rhetoric won't be tested by market reaction, and so won't face the same stringent reality check then when implemented by Truss/Kwarteng.
Imagine Truss' policies enacted in 2029, with a general election mandate.
I guess that's when the ghost of Argentina in the early 20th century starts to tap us on the sholder a bit more forcefully.
But ultimately, getting a general election mandate doesn't change the endgame. If you need the gnomes formerly of Zurich to fund your plans, they have a veto. And a big Commons majority doesn't change that.
It doesn't, but it makes it a lot harder for the Parliamentary party to force the new Prime Minister to change course. Many of the MPs would have been elected to the Commons for the first time in my scenario. They will have spent years campaigning on these policies.
Truss II would survive a lot longer than 49 days. What state would Britain be in by the end of it?
So a big question for the future is: will the British electorate have a higher regard for sound public finances at the general election following Starmer's first term?
Because it's only the voters that can save the country from terminal decline.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
I don't think any country has it right currently and that is largely down to corporations buying politicians and getting laws drawn in their favour. A good example is the globalisation of wages but the regionalisation of prices such as when the EU ruled Tesco's couldn't buy levi jeans in non eu countries and sell them cheaper but it was fine for levi's to have jeans made cheaper in non eu countries for sale in the eu.
Globalisation is a thing we are never going to get rid of now but it has to work for both buyers and selllers not just sellers
No country does it perfectly, obviously.
But some countries have done better than others.
Take Australia. Until 2008, it's economy moved in lockstep with the UK, and since then it's significantly outgrown us. Median wages have increased significantly. Unemployment is negligible. Perhaps we could learn from them.
Or Switzerland. They have limited natural resources (except hydropower), and they've done really well. The median family income is perhaps twice the level of the UK. What are the policies they've enacted that have been so successful.
You are starting from your desired conclusion - that centrist policies are shit. (And, of course, centrist policies are whatever you define them as.)
You're a programmer. Can you imagine if someone started with the conclusion? It would be absurd.
I agree that there has been a rough deal for people in the bottom 50% in the UK, while people with skills and who are internationally mobile like me have done very well. (Albeit I'm in the US not in the UK.)
But you need to identify why that is, and work from places that are doing a better job, otherwise you are being profoundly unserious.
Yes she was stabbed in the back. Yes she tripped over her own feet.
She screwed up, tripped over and fell flat on her face where her colleagues were only too happy to put their pre sharpened knives into her back rather than help her get back up.
Rishi may not be great at politics, see the announcement he and Hunt made on public sector pay, however they are delivering relatively competent government for the country. Tax receipts are up, borrowing is down and the economy is starting to grow again and inflation get under control. Even if they don't get the reward at the ballot box as Major and Ken Clarke didn't in 1997 either longer term history will look more kindly on them
The stats at the moment are a bit misleading.
Tax receipts up: the self assessment stats were inflated by large numbers of asset disposals ahead of feared CGT rate rise (which didn’t happen)
Borrowing down: the above, plus significantly cheaper EPG costs than expected as the wholesale gas price plummeted
Economy starting to grow again: that big may be true although it’s always dangerous to trust the ONS. It dies look like the world economy may be turning a corner. Stock markets up and deal volumes starting to increase. But real terms wages are likely to continue falling for some time yet. And mortgage interest rates rising.
In worldwide economic terms I think that we may well be about to see a shock. If China arms Russia, expect sanctions against China and a new Cold War, with a more powerful economy this time round.
It would be a mistake for China, but the economic shocks of last year would be mere tremors compared to that.
Rishi may not be great at politics, see the announcement he and Hunt made on public sector pay, however they are delivering relatively competent government for the country. Tax receipts are up, borrowing is down and the economy is starting to grow again and inflation get under control. Even if they don't get the reward at the ballot box as Major and Ken Clarke didn't in 1997 either longer term history will look more kindly on them
If there were likes for headers, I would give this header one. Well argued ajd coherent. What I think Truss did right in my view is prioritisinh growth. But her plan for achieving it was, er, unconvincing.
It was the economic equivalent of one of those "eat a pineapple a day for lunch and whatever you like the rest of the time and watch the pounds melt away" fad diets. Easy growth with no pain.
As a country, we could. should and need to be richer than we are. But that's more likely to come from killing some cherished kittens. We need to build a lot more houses, so that people aren't paying through the nose for a decent place to live. We need to spend more on investment and less on ourselves now. We probably need more migration to have people to do the jobs we don't want to, and more spending to mitigate the side effects of that. Whisper it, we might need to rethink the current "ourselves alone" approach to Brexit.
But put like that, the answer to the question "do we want to be rich?" might turn out to be "nah, too difficult". So we look for quick fixes instead.
I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
Rishi may not be great at politics, see the announcement he and Hunt made on public sector pay, however they are delivering relatively competent government for the country. Tax receipts are up, borrowing is down and the economy is starting to grow again and inflation get under control. Even if they don't get the reward at the ballot box as Major and Ken Clarke didn't in 1997 either longer term history will look more kindly on them
Rishi may not be great at politics, see the announcement he and Hunt made on public sector pay, however they are delivering relatively competent government for the country. Tax receipts are up, borrowing is down and the economy is starting to grow again and inflation get under control. Even if they don't get the reward at the ballot box as Major and Ken Clarke didn't in 1997 either longer term history will look more kindly on them
The stats at the moment are a bit misleading.
Tax receipts up: the self assessment stats were inflated by large numbers of asset disposals ahead of feared CGT rate rise (which didn’t happen)
Borrowing down: the above, plus significantly cheaper EPG costs than expected as the wholesale gas price plummeted
Economy starting to grow again: that big may be true although it’s always dangerous to trust the ONS. It dies look like the world economy may be turning a corner. Stock markets up and deal volumes starting to increase. But real terms wages are likely to continue falling for some time yet. And mortgage interest rates rising.
In worldwide economic terms I think that we may bell be about to see a shock. If China arms Russia, expect sanctions against China and a new Cold War, with a more powerful economy this time round.
It would be a mistake for China, but the economic shocks of last year would be mere tremors compared to that.
It's ironic that the least successful Chinese leader (Zero Covid, anyone) is the one whose managed to hang on to power for the longest.
Rishi may not be great at politics, see the announcement he and Hunt made on public sector pay, however they are delivering relatively competent government for the country. Tax receipts are up, borrowing is down and the economy is starting to grow again and inflation get under control. Even if they don't get the reward at the ballot box as Major and Ken Clarke didn't in 1997 either longer term history will look more kindly on them
The stats at the moment are a bit misleading.
Tax receipts up: the self assessment stats were inflated by large numbers of asset disposals ahead of feared CGT rate rise (which didn’t happen)
Borrowing down: the above, plus significantly cheaper EPG costs than expected as the wholesale gas price plummeted
Economy starting to grow again: that big may be true although it’s always dangerous to trust the ONS. It dies look like the world economy may be turning a corner. Stock markets up and deal volumes starting to increase. But real terms wages are likely to continue falling for some time yet. And mortgage interest rates rising.
In worldwide economic terms I think that we may bell be about to see a shock. If China arms Russia, expect sanctions against China and a new Cold War, with a more powerful economy this time round.
It would be a mistake for China, but the economic shocks of last year would be mere tremors compared to that.
It's ironic that the least successful Chinese leader (Zero Covid, anyone) is the one whose managed to hang on to power for the longest.
Remember my prediction on New Years Day? President Xi to be deposed this year.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
I don't think a return to possible deflation would be a positive sign for the economy!
But I get your point. There is the possibility for a small uplift.
Yes she was stabbed in the back. Yes she tripped over her own feet.
She screwed up, tripped over and fell flat on her face where her colleagues were only too happy to put their pre sharpened knives into her back rather than help her get back up.
Ruthless, but she only has herself to blame.
If we're going with that analogy, I think Truss died instantly when she hit the floor. Any stab wounds she subsequently received in the back were superfluous.
Remember that the first polling deficit of 30% (excepting those by People Polling, which gives much larger Labour leads than other pollsters) was the YouGov with fieldwork dates of 6-7 October. Truss' big speech to conference was on October 5th. And this was shortly after the market reaction to the special budgetary operation, and the u-turn on cutting the highest rate of income tax. It was all self-inflicted, and her political leadership was already dead well before Hunt was brought in to steady the ship on the 14th.
I'd have thought that there's got to be a great political drama to be made out of the source material.
I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
I think you're probably right on all counts.
I suspect, following a failure to cut taxes in March, Rishi blames the terrible May locals performance on his Chancellor. Tries to replace him, falls himself, and is replaced by Boris coming through the middle of a Hunt vs Gove slugfest.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
Switzerland, I reckon.
I’d go for Netherlands first, then Switzerland. The Dutch are the Europeans who are culturally closest to the British (to the extent that they wanted to migrate, if necessary, to Canada, in that chart I posted the other day).
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
Switzerland, I reckon.
Not a bad choice to make, a multicultural country with a lot of devolution and direct democracy, militarily neutral, and with a large overseas born population.
Yes she was stabbed in the back. Yes she tripped over her own feet.
She screwed up, tripped over and fell flat on her face where her colleagues were only too happy to put their pre sharpened knives into her back rather than help her get back up.
Ruthless, but she only has herself to blame.
And one additional point to remember.
A lot of those knives were knowingly put there by Team Truss. She didn't have to get rid of Tom Scholar, or fill the Cabinet with soulmates. By getting rid of (virtually?) all the contrary sources of advice, things were bound to go wrong.
It was a Tom and Jerry plot, where Tom sets a dozen mousetraps in the first scene and steps on them all himself a minute later.
Rishi may not be great at politics, see the announcement he and Hunt made on public sector pay, however they are delivering relatively competent government for the country. Tax receipts are up, borrowing is down and the economy is starting to grow again and inflation get under control. Even if they don't get the reward at the ballot box as Major and Ken Clarke didn't in 1997 either longer term history will look more kindly on them
They won't get, I don't think, to a general election.
Rishi may not be great at politics, see the announcement he and Hunt made on public sector pay, however they are delivering relatively competent government for the country. Tax receipts are up, borrowing is down and the economy is starting to grow again and inflation get under control. Even if they don't get the reward at the ballot box as Major and Ken Clarke didn't in 1997 either longer term history will look more kindly on them
The stats at the moment are a bit misleading.
Tax receipts up: the self assessment stats were inflated by large numbers of asset disposals ahead of feared CGT rate rise (which didn’t happen)
Borrowing down: the above, plus significantly cheaper EPG costs than expected as the wholesale gas price plummeted
Economy starting to grow again: that big may be true although it’s always dangerous to trust the ONS. It dies look like the world economy may be turning a corner. Stock markets up and deal volumes starting to increase. But real terms wages are likely to continue falling for some time yet. And mortgage interest rates rising.
In worldwide economic terms I think that we may well be about to see a shock. If China arms Russia, expect sanctions against China and a new Cold War, with a more powerful economy this time round.
It would be a mistake for China, but the economic shocks of last year would be mere tremors compared to that.
Would they ? Unless it were to become a hot war (Taiwan), I’m not sure it would be as bad as last year.
I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
I think you're probably right on all counts.
I suspect, following a failure to cut taxes in March, Rishi blames the terrible May locals performance on his Chancellor. Tries to replace him, falls himself, and is replaced by Boris coming through the middle of a Hunt vs Gove slugfest.
Even on current polling the Tories are only a fraction below the 28% May got in the 2019 locals. So the fall in Tory voteshare won't likely be that much in May.
Boris may now have about 100 Conservative MPs behind him but he needs about 185 Tory MPs behind him to actually oust Rishi in a VONC
I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
I think you're probably right on all counts.
I suspect, following a failure to cut taxes in March, Rishi blames the terrible May locals performance on his Chancellor. Tries to replace him, falls himself, and is replaced by Boris coming through the middle of a Hunt vs Gove slugfest.
Even on current polling the Tories are only a fraction below the 28% May got in the 2019 locals. So the fall in Tory voteshare won't likely be that much.
Boris may now have about 100 Conservative MPs behind him but he needs about 185 Tory MPs behind him to actually oust Rishi in a VONC
Boris won't precipitate the challenge. But will be the eventual winner when it turns out Rishi can't actually win elections....
If there were likes for headers, I would give this header one. Well argued ajd coherent. What I think Truss did right in my view is prioritisinh growth. But her plan for achieving it was, er, unconvincing.
It was the economic equivalent of one of those "eat a pineapple a day for lunch and whatever you like the rest of the time and watch the pounds melt away" fad diets. Easy growth with no pain.
As a country, we could. should and need to be richer than we are. But that's more likely to come from killing some cherished kittens. We need to build a lot more houses, so that people aren't paying through the nose for a decent place to live. We need to spend more on investment and less on ourselves now. We probably need more migration to have people to do the jobs we don't want to, and more spending to mitigate the side effects of that. Whisper it, we might need to rethink the current "ourselves alone" approach to Brexit.
But put like that, the answer to the question "do we want to be rich?" might turn out to be "nah, too difficult". So we look for quick fixes instead.
There's also the related point that the necessary policies would be courageous (in the Yes Minister sense of losing the next election - and also in the sense of actually being courageous). Short term pain (perceived at least) with only longer term - after the next election or even the one after that - gain.
Yes she was stabbed in the back. Yes she tripped over her own feet.
She screwed up, tripped over and fell flat on her face where her colleagues were only too happy to put their pre sharpened knives into her back rather than help her get back up.
Ruthless, but she only has herself to blame.
If we're going with that analogy, I think Truss died instantly when she hit the floor. Any stab wounds she subsequently received in the back were superfluous.
Remember that the first polling deficit of 30% (excepting those by People Polling, which gives much larger Labour leads than other pollsters) was the YouGov with fieldwork dates of 6-7 October. Truss' big speech to conference was on October 5th. And this was shortly after the market reaction to the special budgetary operation, and the u-turn on cutting the highest rate of income tax. It was all self-inflicted, and her political leadership was already dead well before Hunt was brought in to steady the ship on the 14th.
I'd have thought that there's got to be a great political drama to be made out of the source material.
And they weren’t ‘stabs in the back’; they were public declarations of enough is enough.
I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
I think you're probably right on all counts.
I suspect, following a failure to cut taxes in March, Rishi blames the terrible May locals performance on his Chancellor. Tries to replace him, falls himself, and is replaced by Boris coming through the middle of a Hunt vs Gove slugfest.
If Boris returns, I really pity the people of Britain. It’s an incredibly sobering prospect.
I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
I think you're probably right on all counts.
I suspect, following a failure to cut taxes in March, Rishi blames the terrible May locals performance on his Chancellor. Tries to replace him, falls himself, and is replaced by Boris coming through the middle of a Hunt vs Gove slugfest.
Even on current polling the Tories are only a fraction below the 28% May got in the 2019 locals. So the fall in Tory voteshare won't likely be that much.
Boris may now have about 100 Conservative MPs behind him but he needs about 185 Tory MPs behind him to actually oust Rishi in a VONC
I can't see any way that Johnson could command a majority in the House of Commons. Too many MPs hate him, no?
Yes she was stabbed in the back. Yes she tripped over her own feet.
She screwed up, tripped over and fell flat on her face where her colleagues were only too happy to put their pre sharpened knives into her back rather than help her get back up.
Ruthless, but she only has herself to blame.
If we're going with that analogy, I think Truss died instantly when she hit the floor. Any stab wounds she subsequently received in the back were superfluous.
Remember that the first polling deficit of 30% (excepting those by People Polling, which gives much larger Labour leads than other pollsters) was the YouGov with fieldwork dates of 6-7 October. Truss' big speech to conference was on October 5th. And this was shortly after the market reaction to the special budgetary operation, and the u-turn on cutting the highest rate of income tax. It was all self-inflicted, and her political leadership was already dead well before Hunt was brought in to steady the ship on the 14th.
I'd have thought that there's got to be a great political drama to be made out of the source material.
It could be a remake of "The Damned United".
Great film BTW. Certainly the best film about football.
I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
I think you're probably right on all counts.
I suspect, following a failure to cut taxes in March, Rishi blames the terrible May locals performance on his Chancellor. Tries to replace him, falls himself, and is replaced by Boris coming through the middle of a Hunt vs Gove slugfest.
Even on current polling the Tories are only a fraction below the 28% May got in the 2019 locals. So the fall in Tory voteshare won't likely be that much.
Boris may now have about 100 Conservative MPs behind him but he needs about 185 Tory MPs behind him to actually oust Rishi in a VONC
I can't see any way that Johnson could command a majority in the House of Commons. Too many MPs hate him, no?
I think now yes. His best hope is to let Rishi and Hunt lose the next general election, let them take the blame, hope to hold Uxbridge or find a safer seat, then take over as Leader of the Opposition. A shellshocked Tories would take him back in that scenario and he could then have fun as Leader of the Opposition with no responsibility while PM Starmer then has to deal with the economy and strikes
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
Switzerland, I reckon.
A tough one. They started from a totally different place. They still only have one city larger than Northampton and their labour foce is 30 per cent skilled Western European immigrants. Essentially they are a periphery of the wider German-speaking economy, with no established or recent concentration of low skills, meaningful deprivation, multigenerational urban poverty, et cetera.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
Switzerland, I reckon.
I’d go for Netherlands first, then Switzerland. The Dutch are the Europeans who are culturally closest to the British (to the extent that they wanted to migrate, if necessary, to Canada, in that chart I posted the other day).
Culturally I think they are quite different to the Brits. Much more socially confident, direct, none of the painful cultural introversion. The Americans of Europe.
I like the idea of taking the successful policies from other countries instead of trying to invent our own. But on the other hand, copying directly doesn’t work. No culture or economy starts from the same point of has the same strengths. We need to find the right approach to be the best UK we can be.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
Switzerland, I reckon.
Well:
Plenty of devolution, open economy, great training and secondary education, lots of direct democracy, a tax system that encourages saving and investment.
I'm not that keen on a lot of the social conformity, but we could certainly do a lot worse.
Yes she was stabbed in the back. Yes she tripped over her own feet.
She screwed up, tripped over and fell flat on her face where her colleagues were only too happy to put their pre sharpened knives into her back rather than help her get back up.
Ruthless, but she only has herself to blame.
If we're going with that analogy, I think Truss died instantly when she hit the floor. Any stab wounds she subsequently received in the back were superfluous.
Remember that the first polling deficit of 30% (excepting those by People Polling, which gives much larger Labour leads than other pollsters) was the YouGov with fieldwork dates of 6-7 October. Truss' big speech to conference was on October 5th. And this was shortly after the market reaction to the special budgetary operation, and the u-turn on cutting the highest rate of income tax. It was all self-inflicted, and her political leadership was already dead well before Hunt was brought in to steady the ship on the 14th.
I'd have thought that there's got to be a great political drama to be made out of the source material.
And they weren’t ‘stabs in the back’; they were public declarations of enough is enough.
I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
I think you're probably right on all counts.
I suspect, following a failure to cut taxes in March, Rishi blames the terrible May locals performance on his Chancellor. Tries to replace him, falls himself, and is replaced by Boris coming through the middle of a Hunt vs Gove slugfest.
Even on current polling the Tories are only a fraction below the 28% May got in the 2019 locals. So the fall in Tory voteshare won't likely be that much.
Boris may now have about 100 Conservative MPs behind him but he needs about 185 Tory MPs behind him to actually oust Rishi in a VONC
I can't see any way that Johnson could command a majority in the House of Commons. Too many MPs hate him, no?
I think now yes. His best hope is to let Rishi and Hunt lose the next general election, let them take the blame, hope to hold Uxbridge or find a safer seat, then take over as Leader of the Opposition. A shellshocked Tories would take him back in that scenario and he could then have fun as Leader of the Opposition with no responsibility while PM Starmer then has to deal with the economy and strikes
The idea that Johnson could become PM again, the fourth in a year, is a fantasy by his cult followers, and frankly if it came about the voters would deliver a terminal blow to the party at the GE, and deservedly so
Rishi may not be great at politics, see the announcement he and Hunt made on public sector pay, however they are delivering relatively competent government for the country. Tax receipts are up, borrowing is down and the economy is starting to grow again and inflation get under control. Even if they don't get the reward at the ballot box as Major and Ken Clarke didn't in 1997 either longer term history will look more kindly on them
The stats at the moment are a bit misleading.
Tax receipts up: the self assessment stats were inflated by large numbers of asset disposals ahead of feared CGT rate rise (which didn’t happen)
Borrowing down: the above, plus significantly cheaper EPG costs than expected as the wholesale gas price plummeted
Economy starting to grow again: that big may be true although it’s always dangerous to trust the ONS. It dies look like the world economy may be turning a corner. Stock markets up and deal volumes starting to increase. But real terms wages are likely to continue falling for some time yet. And mortgage interest rates rising.
In worldwide economic terms I think that we may well be about to see a shock. If China arms Russia, expect sanctions against China and a new Cold War, with a more powerful economy this time round.
It would be a mistake for China, but the economic shocks of last year would be mere tremors compared to that.
You and I might think it would be a mistake for China, but would they?
If they do nothing, then Russia faces the prospect of complete defeat in Ukraine, and conversely the West receives the boost of a major victory. The West is revitalised with a new sense of purpose and confidence, and, for a while at least, does not have to worry about Russia's shattered military posing a serious threat.
If China provides Russia with military equipment, weapons and ammunition then China will certainly pay an economic cost, to an extent, but they may judge that they are better placed to pay the cost of an economic rupture with the West, than the West is to pay the cost of an economic rupture with China. They will ensure that the West has to devote considerable resources to supply Ukraine with enough military resources to avoid defeat at the hands of the Chinese-supplied Russian army, or the West may even be forced to watch as Ukraine accepts some degree of defeat in this phase of the war. The West will be disheartened, and continuing war, or the Russian threat of war, in Europe will distract the West's attention from other parts of the world. The West may find that an uncomfortable number of countries value a good relationship with China more highly than they value a good relationship with the West. China will be able to learn valuable lessons about how its equipment fares in combat against Western equipment.
All the while, Chinese demographics are developing rapidly in an unfavourable direction. the window of opportunity for China to use its current economic strength to make geopolitical gains is narrowing. If they want to retake Taiwan they cannot afford to wait too long, and it will be easier if the West is weaker, distracted and disheartened.
I can see China making the same calculation that Putin made a year ago. They either act now, or not at all. And they really don't want to not act at all. That would be the worst.
I've heard stories about my wife's Nana, who spent a lot of her life hoarding tea, following her experience during the Emergency (WWII) of not being able to obtain the stuff. Is there anything I will regret not laying in generous supplies of in advance, should the economy be be sent to shit because of a new Cold War, and a prolonged war in Ukraine?
The super-cynical, Lee Kuan Yew-type viewpoint would be that the major Western countries have large populations that can rely on voting power or soft-heartedness to vote themselves an income, be they pensioners, the multi-generational urban poor, farmers, and so on. Then everyone else pays tax levels to fund them, and you get a society that organises itself on the basis that work won't be rewarded. Singapore and Switzerland both tried to avoid this by regulating admission to their countries, but they were starting as small trading spots, peripheries to a global-scale economy.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
Switzerland, I reckon.
A tough one. They started from a totally different place. They still only have one city larger than Northampton and their labour foce is 30 per cent skilled Western European immigrants. Essentially they are a periphery of the wider German-speaking economy, with no established or recent concentration of low skills, meaningful deprivation, multigenerational urban poverty, et cetera.
That's only achieved by drawing Swiss city boundaries very tightly,
Zurich's urban area (not including Zug) has a population of 1.4m, Geneva 610k, Basel 557k, and Lausanne 438k - all of which are comfortably bigger than Northampton (which is, what, 250k?)
Rishi may not be great at politics, see the announcement he and Hunt made on public sector pay, however they are delivering relatively competent government for the country. Tax receipts are up, borrowing is down and the economy is starting to grow again and inflation get under control. Even if they don't get the reward at the ballot box as Major and Ken Clarke didn't in 1997 either longer term history will look more kindly on them
They won't get, I don't think, to a general election.
I think they will, one which they will lose, handsomely. And as it stands would be my first election since I was 18 and voted Labour in 2001, in which I will not vote Tory.
I think enough MPs are going to end resigned to defeat and trundle along with Rishi to the eventual loss, or will choose to retire and look for alternative prospects instead of being an MP anymore.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
Switzerland, I reckon.
A tough one. They started from a totally different place. They still only have one city larger than Northampton and their labour foce is 30 per cent skilled Western European immigrants. Essentially they are a periphery of the wider German-speaking economy, with no established or recent concentration of low skills, meaningful deprivation, multigenerational urban poverty, et cetera.
That's only achieved by drawing Swiss city boundaries very tightly,
Zurich's urban area (not including Zug) has a population of 1.4m, Geneva 610k, Basel 557k, and Lausanne 438k - all of which are comfortably bigger than Northampton (which is, what, 250k?)
That's fair. It was a provocative statement. We could revise it to say one metro area larger than the Sheffield metro area, which is less dramatic, but still gets the point across. We are still talking about a periphery to a larger economy with major, more proletarian cities.
The header is well-written and a good length. It raises some points that we're familiar with from btl debates about the Truss period, polished up and presented nicely as an opinion piece. As an overall analysis of Truss's economic policy I find it weak, and the arguments being rebutted are straw man arguments. But it is meant to be more a collection of light-hearted snark about Truss, and on that level it works.
The header is well-written and a good length. It raises some points that we're familiar with from btl debates about the Truss period, polished up and presented nicely as an opinion piece. As an overall analysis of the Truss's economic policy I find it weak, and the arguments being rebutted are straw man arguments. But it is meant to be more a collection of light-hearted snark about Truss, and on that level it works.
You say without any rebuttal to the actual factual points made. Most notably Truss behaving more similarly to Callahan than Thatcher.
The super-cynical, Lee Kuan Yew-type viewpoint would be that the major Western countries have large populations that can rely on voting power or soft-heartedness to vote themselves an income, be they pensioners, the multi-generational urban poor, farmers, and so on. Then everyone else pays tax levels to fund them, and you get a society that organises itself on the basis that work won't be rewarded. Singapore and Switzerland both tried to avoid this by regulating admission to their countries, but they were starting as small trading spots, peripheries to a global-scale economy.
Both Switzerland and Singapore are countries with a great deal of immigration, albeit ones that set it up so that immigrants have to pay their way.
Taiwan might well be another country to copy economically (though one with poor demographics and real threat of conquest).
These are all countries though that trade in high tech manufacturing, and to an extent financial services. It ain't obvious that the Red Wall wants that.
Rishi may not be great at politics, see the announcement he and Hunt made on public sector pay, however they are delivering relatively competent government for the country. Tax receipts are up, borrowing is down and the economy is starting to grow again and inflation get under control. Even if they don't get the reward at the ballot box as Major and Ken Clarke didn't in 1997 either longer term history will look more kindly on them
The stats at the moment are a bit misleading.
Tax receipts up: the self assessment stats were inflated by large numbers of asset disposals ahead of feared CGT rate rise (which didn’t happen)
Borrowing down: the above, plus significantly cheaper EPG costs than expected as the wholesale gas price plummeted
Economy starting to grow again: that big may be true although it’s always dangerous to trust the ONS. It dies look like the world economy may be turning a corner. Stock markets up and deal volumes starting to increase. But real terms wages are likely to continue falling for some time yet. And mortgage interest rates rising.
In worldwide economic terms I think that we may well be about to see a shock. If China arms Russia, expect sanctions against China and a new Cold War, with a more powerful economy this time round.
It would be a mistake for China, but the economic shocks of last year would be mere tremors compared to that.
You and I might think it would be a mistake for China, but would they?
If they do nothing, then Russia faces the prospect of complete defeat in Ukraine, and conversely the West receives the boost of a major victory. The West is revitalised with a new sense of purpose and confidence, and, for a while at least, does not have to worry about Russia's shattered military posing a serious threat.
If China provides Russia with military equipment, weapons and ammunition then China will certainly pay an economic cost, to an extent, but they may judge that they are better placed to pay the cost of an economic rupture with the West, than the West is to pay the cost of an economic rupture with China. They will ensure that the West has to devote considerable resources to supply Ukraine with enough military resources to avoid defeat at the hands of the Chinese-supplied Russian army, or the West may even be forced to watch as Ukraine accepts some degree of defeat in this phase of the war. The West will be disheartened, and continuing war, or the Russian threat of war, in Europe will distract the West's attention from other parts of the world. The West may find that an uncomfortable number of countries value a good relationship with China more highly than they value a good relationship with the West. China will be able to learn valuable lessons about how its equipment fares in combat against Western equipment.
All the while, Chinese demographics are developing rapidly in an unfavourable direction. the window of opportunity for China to use its current economic strength to make geopolitical gains is narrowing. If they want to retake Taiwan they cannot afford to wait too long, and it will be easier if the West is weaker, distracted and disheartened.
I can see China making the same calculation that Putin made a year ago. They either act now, or not at all. And they really don't want to not act at all. That would be the worst.
I've heard stories about my wife's Nana, who spent a lot of her life hoarding tea, following her experience during the Emergency (WWII) of not being able to obtain the stuff. Is there anything I will regret not laying in generous supplies of in advance, should the economy be be sent to shit because of a new Cold War, and a prolonged war in Ukraine?
I think it would be a mistake for China, in the longer term, as they would be chaining themselves to the corpse that is Russia. They may see advantages in the short term, and therein lies the danger.
I would think the optimum for China in the Russo-Ukranian war would be a grinding stalemate that ties up both NATO and Russia, while their Belt and Road initiative ties up the rest of the Eurasian and African economies.
On the China supplying Russia question, what if they start supplying weapons….and Russia still loses.
Not an impossible outcome.
It depends on your view of how wars are won or lost. If war is fundamentally a matter of logistics - i.e. being able to supply an army in the field so that it can actually fight - then it follows that war is even more fundamentally a question of industrial production, of being able to produce the supplies that logistics moves to your army in the field.
So if Russia gets access to the industrial production capacity of China, then it's hard to see how it could be knocked out of the war. China can supply many thousands of trucks to improve Russia's logistics. It can provide armoured vehicles to equip new military units. It could provide very large quantities of artillery ammunition for Russia's artillery.
If the Chinese can produce the weapons as quickly as Ukraine destroys them, and Russia can continue to conscript its population to fight with those weapons, then there's no victory for Ukraine in the war.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
Switzerland, I reckon.
A tough one. They started from a totally different place. They still only have one city larger than Northampton and their labour foce is 30 per cent skilled Western European immigrants. Essentially they are a periphery of the wider German-speaking economy, with no established or recent concentration of low skills, meaningful deprivation, multigenerational urban poverty, et cetera.
That's only achieved by drawing Swiss city boundaries very tightly,
Zurich's urban area (not including Zug) has a population of 1.4m, Geneva 610k, Basel 557k, and Lausanne 438k - all of which are comfortably bigger than Northampton (which is, what, 250k?)
That's fair. It was a provocative statement. We could revise it to say one metro area larger than the Sheffield metro area, which is less dramatic, but still gets the point across. We are still talking about a periphery to a larger economy with major, more proletarian cities.
The biggest difference between us and the Swiss is the fact that supply of low skilled migrants is much higher here than to Switzerland, because we are seen as less socially conformist, we have greater cultural presence and we speak English. The result is that Switzerland gets fewer low skilled migrants, requiring less subsidization and having less downward pressure on wages at the bottom.
The social conformity also reduces anti-social behaviour, so you get less petty crime and welfare abuse.
The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes. It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.
This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.
Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.
The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.
If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, was roughly stable until the start of the 80s and then rose rapidly during that decade as incomes became less equal. It hasn't changed much since the end of the 80s. So if you're looking for someone to blame, Thatcher would be a prime candidate, though I suppose those who followed can also be blamed for not rectifying the results of her policies.
Low Gini coefficients measure distribution of income, rather than amount, so countries like Ukraine and Moldova score well, so not the whole story.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
Your view doesnt show the whole story either....maybe poorer countries have better gini figures do they also have people working 40 hours a week needing food banks and in work benefits? I doubt it because poorer countries probably cant afford it.
So which country should we model the economy and politics on in the modern world?
Switzerland, I reckon.
A tough one. They started from a totally different place. They still only have one city larger than Northampton and their labour foce is 30 per cent skilled Western European immigrants. Essentially they are a periphery of the wider German-speaking economy, with no established or recent concentration of low skills, meaningful deprivation, multigenerational urban poverty, et cetera.
That's only achieved by drawing Swiss city boundaries very tightly,
Zurich's urban area (not including Zug) has a population of 1.4m, Geneva 610k, Basel 557k, and Lausanne 438k - all of which are comfortably bigger than Northampton (which is, what, 250k?)
EPG makes a good point, I think, that to some extent the Swiss model is predatory on Germany, France and Italy.
Lost Password - China has been reluctant to supply Russia with weapons thus far, so why now? It's clear Putin has been in trouble for some time. They are obviously worried about western sanctions. That said there are obvious precedents for countries getting involved to stop others from losing wars.
I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
I think you're probably right on all counts.
I suspect, following a failure to cut taxes in March, Rishi blames the terrible May locals performance on his Chancellor. Tries to replace him, falls himself, and is replaced by Boris coming through the middle of a Hunt vs Gove slugfest.
Even on current polling the Tories are only a fraction below the 28% May got in the 2019 locals. So the fall in Tory voteshare won't likely be that much.
Boris may now have about 100 Conservative MPs behind him but he needs about 185 Tory MPs behind him to actually oust Rishi in a VONC
I can't see any way that Johnson could command a majority in the House of Commons. Too many MPs hate him, no?
I think now yes. His best hope is to let Rishi and Hunt lose the next general election, let them take the blame, hope to hold Uxbridge or find a safer seat, then take over as Leader of the Opposition. A shellshocked Tories would take him back in that scenario and he could then have fun as Leader of the Opposition with no responsibility while PM Starmer then has to deal with the economy and strikes
The idea that Johnson could become PM again, the fourth in a year, is a fantasy by his cult followers, and frankly if it came about the voters would deliver a terminal blow to the party at the GE, and deservedly so
Would the Tories poll less than today's YouGov 22% under Johnson? No, I don't think so.
Whilst Boris is marmite, those who like him really are willing to come out and vote for him. Rishi's problem is that whilst he doesn't scare the horses, no-one really wants a dull technocrat leading, and Hunt's is that they don't want their taxes to be put up by a technocrat who always seems to be smirking. And if they want high tax centrism, why not go the whole hog and vote Starmer?
I was talking to a friend tonight whom I thought was probably Tory, or at least a v likely Tory voter and I was surprised when he said that the Tories had got pretty much every major decision wrong since Cameron ..were in hoc to business and needed a decade out of power to re-evaluate what they should be about.
As a longtime Tory voter, I think that's about right. I don't want the Party humiliated but it might well be.
Comments
Which developed countries have seen the bottom 50% do best, and what policies did they follow?
Because it seems that is probably a better way of finding the right answer, than just declaring that it is the fault of "centrist" policies.
I thought we were a better country than that.
Well, Brexit bonuses have been rather thin on the ground, so let's hope you are right.
https://twitter.com/marcuscarslaw1/status/1628493413615079430?s=61&t=N8C0hGF-FIqHqgHpzDdoKA
'Mr Lal, who in 2020 styled himself as the “chairman and president of the Scottish Conservative Friends of India”, denied working with Alba.[...]
Last April, the Indian Council withdrew its support for Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross for being “unapproachable” and not signing up to its Hinduphobia policy.
Mr Lal said Mr Ross was “immature” and his party was at a “historical reputational low”.[...]
In December, Mr Lal was at the launch of the Together UK Foundation in London alongside Brexiteer Northern Ireland Secretary Steve Baker and former DUP leader Arlene Foster.
He said the group would “inform the public of all the facts of the advantages of the Union”, adding: “I am proud of my country, the United Kingdom and I am proud to be British”.
A week later the Indian Council awarded Rangers Football Club its “special award for Outstanding Achievement for Community Relations”.
[,,,]
On February 11 this year, Mr Ahmad’s Muslim Council of the UK issued a statement describing itself as “the leading organisation for the Muslim community in the UK”.
It said it had followed in the footsteps of Mr Lal’s Indian Council of Scotland and withdrawn its support for the SNP-Green government.
In a press release which twice got his own group’s name wrong, Mr Ahmad was quoted agreeing with Mr Lal that Scotland was on the wrong path with Nicola Sturgeon.'
Then we voted for the swivel eyed loons and here we are
Stick to non overheard conversation and (usually but take care) phone calls as in far off days and you are OK. Almost everything else can end up in court or published for a billion fascinated people to read.
Never publish what you don't want your mum to read on the front page of the Mail.
If we confine it to the better developed economies, then the top countries are pretty much all in Europe. Countries that in varying degrees that exemplify Social Democracy.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country
It seems highly possible to have a successful economy while maintaining lower income inequality.
No country is perfect of course. But we could have it so much better.
Also important to think not just "what would the boss/GMC/CPS/press think of this post?" but also to be a bit more reflective and think "if it is so awful that I wouldn't want it published, why do I want to say it/make that comment?"
Globalisation is a thing we are never going to get rid of now but it has to work for both buyers and selllers not just sellers
Couldn't agree more.
Well they are not as shit as each other and we should we should give a fuck. The Tories are absolutely useless..they have a useless ragtag of members and a useless ragtag of people like you Casino championing them...
I know he considers himself a doughty and independent-minded commentator, but he continually returns to what are presumably (for him) comforting delusions.
Historians are going to be damning about this era.
Omagh: Off-duty police officer shot
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-64736670
I was teaching a young politics student about devolution and power sharing in Northern Ireland earlier. I hope I didn't speak too soon when I said things are now far better than they were thirty years ago.
Imagine Truss' policies enacted in 2029, with a general election mandate.
What I think Truss did right in my view is prioritisinh growth. But her plan for achieving it was, er, unconvincing.
But ultimately, getting a general election mandate doesn't change the endgame. If you need the gnomes formerly of Zurich to fund your plans, they have a veto. And a big Commons majority doesn't change that.
If we look at countries with low taxes and little welfare state, as you seem to aspire to, we do have a few examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio
At the lowest end we have a few petro-states whose source of income is not tax, but the remaining very low tax states are not very pleasant ones to be in the poorer strata of society, nor are they ones with notably high economic growth.
If we take India as a mid-table country, with roughly half the tax as a percentage of GDP, do you think the poor are better off? Obviously poorer in real terms compared to our poor, but do you think their social mobility is better?
But many (perhaps most) voters vote on the basis of our sons of bitches being less bad than their sons of bitches.
Tax receipts up: the self assessment stats were inflated by large numbers of asset disposals ahead of feared CGT rate rise (which didn’t happen)
Borrowing down: the above, plus significantly cheaper EPG costs than expected as the wholesale gas price plummeted
Economy starting to grow again: that big may be true although it’s always dangerous to trust the ONS. It dies look like the world economy may be turning a corner. Stock markets up and deal volumes starting to increase. But real terms wages are likely to continue falling for some time yet. And mortgage interest rates rising.
Would indeed be interesting to read a rebuttal that had something more to add than that (if there is anything more to add).
Truss II would survive a lot longer than 49 days. What state would Britain be in by the end of it?
So a big question for the future is: will the British electorate have a higher regard for sound public finances at the general election following Starmer's first term?
Because it's only the voters that can save the country from terminal decline.
But some countries have done better than others.
Take Australia. Until 2008, it's economy moved in lockstep with the UK, and since then it's significantly outgrown us. Median wages have increased significantly. Unemployment is negligible. Perhaps we could learn from them.
Or Switzerland. They have limited natural resources (except hydropower), and they've done really well. The median family income is perhaps twice the level of the UK. What are the policies they've enacted that have been so successful.
You are starting from your desired conclusion - that centrist policies are shit. (And, of course, centrist policies are whatever you define them as.)
You're a programmer. Can you imagine if someone started with the conclusion? It would be absurd.
I agree that there has been a rough deal for people in the bottom 50% in the UK, while people with skills and who are internationally mobile like me have done very well. (Albeit I'm in the US not in the UK.)
But you need to identify why that is, and work from places that are doing a better job, otherwise you are being profoundly unserious.
Yes she was stabbed in the back.
Yes she tripped over her own feet.
She screwed up, tripped over and fell flat on her face where her colleagues were only too happy to put their pre sharpened knives into her back rather than help her get back up.
Ruthless, but she only has herself to blame.
It would be a mistake for China, but the economic shocks of last year would be mere tremors compared to that.
As a country, we could. should and need to be richer than we are. But that's more likely to come from killing some cherished kittens. We need to build a lot more houses, so that people aren't paying through the nose for a decent place to live. We need to spend more on investment and less on ourselves now. We probably need more migration to have people to do the jobs we don't want to, and more spending to mitigate the side effects of that. Whisper it, we might need to rethink the current "ourselves alone" approach to Brexit.
But put like that, the answer to the question "do we want to be rich?" might turn out to be "nah, too difficult". So we look for quick fixes instead.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
She was stabbed in her feet and tripped over her back
Replica of a 6th century instrument.
https://twitter.com/realVoxVulgaris/status/1628139084228050944
But I get your point. There is the possibility for a small uplift.
Remember that the first polling deficit of 30% (excepting those by People Polling, which gives much larger Labour leads than other pollsters) was the YouGov with fieldwork dates of 6-7 October. Truss' big speech to conference was on October 5th. And this was shortly after the market reaction to the special budgetary operation, and the u-turn on cutting the highest rate of income tax. It was all self-inflicted, and her political leadership was already dead well before Hunt was brought in to steady the ship on the 14th.
I'd have thought that there's got to be a great political drama to be made out of the source material.
I suspect, following a failure to cut taxes in March, Rishi blames the terrible May locals performance on his Chancellor. Tries to replace him, falls himself, and is replaced by Boris coming through the middle of a Hunt vs Gove slugfest.
The Dutch are the Europeans who are culturally closest to the British (to the extent that they wanted to migrate, if necessary, to Canada, in that chart I posted the other day).
A lot of those knives were knowingly put there by Team Truss. She didn't have to get rid of Tom Scholar, or fill the Cabinet with soulmates. By getting rid of (virtually?) all the contrary sources of advice, things were bound to go wrong.
It was a Tom and Jerry plot, where Tom sets a dozen mousetraps in the first scene and steps on them all himself a minute later.
That's all, folks.
Unless it were to become a hot war (Taiwan), I’m not sure it would be as bad as last year.
Boris may now have about 100 Conservative MPs behind him but he needs about 185 Tory MPs behind him to actually oust Rishi in a VONC
Great film BTW. Certainly the best film about football.
(Or to test Wilf’s Swing).
I like the idea of taking the successful policies from other countries instead of trying to invent our own. But on the other hand, copying directly doesn’t work. No culture or economy starts from the same point of has the same strengths. We need to find the right approach to be the best UK we can be.
Plenty of devolution, open economy, great training and secondary education, lots of direct democracy, a tax system that encourages saving and investment.
I'm not that keen on a lot of the social conformity, but we could certainly do a lot worse.
If they do nothing, then Russia faces the prospect of complete defeat in Ukraine, and conversely the West receives the boost of a major victory. The West is revitalised with a new sense of purpose and confidence, and, for a while at least, does not have to worry about Russia's shattered military posing a serious threat.
If China provides Russia with military equipment, weapons and ammunition then China will certainly pay an economic cost, to an extent, but they may judge that they are better placed to pay the cost of an economic rupture with the West, than the West is to pay the cost of an economic rupture with China. They will ensure that the West has to devote considerable resources to supply Ukraine with enough military resources to avoid defeat at the hands of the Chinese-supplied Russian army, or the West may even be forced to watch as Ukraine accepts some degree of defeat in this phase of the war. The West will be disheartened, and continuing war, or the Russian threat of war, in Europe will distract the West's attention from other parts of the world. The West may find that an uncomfortable number of countries value a good relationship with China more highly than they value a good relationship with the West. China will be able to learn valuable lessons about how its equipment fares in combat against Western equipment.
All the while, Chinese demographics are developing rapidly in an unfavourable direction. the window of opportunity for China to use its current economic strength to make geopolitical gains is narrowing. If they want to retake Taiwan they cannot afford to wait too long, and it will be easier if the West is weaker, distracted and disheartened.
I can see China making the same calculation that Putin made a year ago. They either act now, or not at all. And they really don't want to not act at all. That would be the worst.
I've heard stories about my wife's Nana, who spent a lot of her life hoarding tea, following her experience during the Emergency (WWII) of not being able to obtain the stuff. Is there anything I will regret not laying in generous supplies of in advance, should the economy be be sent to shit because of a new Cold War, and a prolonged war in Ukraine?
Zurich's urban area (not including Zug) has a population of 1.4m, Geneva 610k, Basel 557k, and Lausanne 438k - all of which are comfortably bigger than Northampton (which is, what, 250k?)
Not an impossible outcome.
I think enough MPs are going to end resigned to defeat and trundle along with Rishi to the eventual loss, or will choose to retire and look for alternative prospects instead of being an MP anymore.
Taiwan might well be another country to copy economically (though one with poor demographics and real threat of conquest).
These are all countries though that trade in high tech manufacturing, and to an extent financial services. It ain't obvious that the Red Wall wants that.
I would think the optimum for China in the Russo-Ukranian war would be a grinding stalemate that ties up both NATO and Russia, while their Belt and Road initiative ties up the rest of the Eurasian and African economies.
So if Russia gets access to the industrial production capacity of China, then it's hard to see how it could be knocked out of the war. China can supply many thousands of trucks to improve Russia's logistics. It can provide armoured vehicles to equip new military units. It could provide very large quantities of artillery ammunition for Russia's artillery.
If the Chinese can produce the weapons as quickly as Ukraine destroys them, and Russia can continue to conscript its population to fight with those weapons, then there's no victory for Ukraine in the war.
The social conformity also reduces anti-social behaviour, so you get less petty crime and welfare abuse.
Nevertheless, there’s a hell of a lot to learn.
Whilst Boris is marmite, those who like him really are willing to come out and vote for him. Rishi's problem is that whilst he doesn't scare the horses, no-one really wants a dull technocrat leading, and Hunt's is that they don't want their taxes to be put up by a technocrat who always seems to be smirking. And if they want high tax centrism, why not go the whole hog and vote Starmer?
As a longtime Tory voter, I think that's about right. I don't want the Party humiliated but it might well be.