Fascinating to be reminded that the first “resigner” - and the person whose resignation made Truss realise it was all over - was that notorious Sunakite wet…Suella Braverman.
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
It worked best for those with a property portfolio that saw their wealth grow to unforeseen levels.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
Absolutely, and that moment was probably something like 2005 or earlier.
2007/8 was merely the crisis.
I am not precisely Blair/Brown’s number one fan. But I think Brown gets unfair criticism around the GFC whereas the more systemic issue was an economy distorted into financialisation and housing market dysfunction (and commensurate lack of industrial or regional policy). In turn that made Britain more vulnerable to the GFC but I don’t think he created it, and I don’t think it was the deficits specifically that made the UK more vulnerable.
You could say that New Labour learnt the wrong lessons from the success of the Tories under Thatcher, and then the Tories learnt the wrong lessons from the success of New Labour under Blair.
The virtue of political failure is that nobody wants to be seen as its heir so perhaps now we will get some genuinely new thinking.
is it me or does it appear that the anti-Sunak Tory MPs are circling around a vague notion that by cynically opposing/using the Protocol settlement they can cause enough grief to turf out Sunak and re-install BJ and go for a GE under his leadership - it strikes me as mad but lets be honest, stranger things have happened within the modern Conservative party...
Michigan GOP chair election underscores party’s divisions ahead of 2024 https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3869730-michigan-gop-chair-election-underscores-partys-divisions-ahead-of-2024/ The selection of a far-right election denier to lead Michigan’s state GOP is underscoring divisions within the party as Republican leaders hope to unify heading into 2024. Kristina Karamo’s victory last weekend showed the extent to which the Republican grassroots has embraced election fraud claims, even as many in the party call for a more forward-looking message heading into 2024… … In November, Democrats defended top statewide offices while flipping both chambers of the state legislature, possibly due in part to redistricting. Karamo was the Republican secretary of state nominee last year and hasn’t conceded that race, which she lost by 14 percentage points. DePerno was the unsuccessful Republican nominee for attorney general. Both ran with Trump’s backing.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
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.
Bollocks, to both of you. That's a slur on me and a total misrepresentation of my position.
I have consistently criticised the Conservative Party and its behaviour, as my posts will attest to, although I do have respect for Rishi Sunak, who I like and I think is doing a good fist in very difficult circumstances.
You two just can't handle any criticism of Labour. And, for you, any criticism of Labour must mean I am "championing" the Tories or enabling their behaviour because all you want is a sweeping change of government with nothing getting in its way.
I am determined this site does not become an echo chamber over the next 18 months.
You can be damn sure I will continue to call it as I see it and I'm not going to be put off by insults like this.
Just might take the heat off Forbes for a bit and refocus questions on the competence of Mr Yousaf. Forbes remains value at the current odds in my view.
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
It worked best for those with a property portfolio that saw their wealth grow to unforeseen levels.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
Absolutely, and that moment was probably something like 2005 or earlier.
2007/8 was merely the crisis.
I am not precisely Blair/Brown’s number one fan. But I think Brown gets unfair criticism around the GFC whereas the more systemic issue was an economy distorted into financialisation and housing market dysfunction (and commensurate lack of industrial or regional policy). In turn that made Britain more vulnerable to the GFC but I don’t think he created it, and I don’t think it was the deficits specifically that made the UK more vulnerable.
You could say that New Labour learnt the wrong lessons from the success of the Tories under Thatcher, and then the Tories learnt the wrong lessons from the success of New Labour under Blair.
The virtue of political failure is that nobody wants to be seen as its heir so perhaps now we will get some genuinely new thinking.
That I think is very true. There's a total lack of thinking amongst the British political class, and far too much dining off / manipulation of housing wealth, the money supply, and fiscal policy in an attempt to deliver better growth, rather than doing the hard nine yards on the real underlying problems.
is it me or does it appear that the anti-Sunak Tory MPs are circling around a vague notion that by cynically opposing/using the Protocol settlement they can cause enough grief to turf out Sunak and re-install BJ and go for a GE under his leadership - it strikes me as mad but lets be honest, stranger things have happened within the modern Conservative party...
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
1997-2010 was a veritable Nirvana of good governance.
The case for the prosecution:
Exhibit A: Note reading 'there is no money left'.
The prosecution rests.
The case for the defence:
That's a case for the prosecution.
Again, until 2007 the Government was free wheeling off the success of its predecessor Government and then piling on borrowing on top. Easy to boost wages when you're doing that.
You can't free wheel forever though. When they ran out of road in 2007/08, their problems were revealed in all their ugly detail.
Exactly so. The most insightful thing that can be said there is that neither Conservative nor Labour governments have recovered it since.
1997-2010 the nation was generally happy and content. Not furious.
Thanks to the good governance of the Government that preceded 1997.
Once the bills of 1997-2007, or more particularly 2002-2007 came to needing to be paid, it was a different matter.
So let me get this right, the period of strong economic performance 1997-2010 was all due to the party that had been ejected in 1997... and the period of economic stagnation since 2010 has all been down to the party not in power during that period?
If so, the Tories can best serve the country by going into opposition and delivering a strong economy from there again.
What period of strong economic performance until 2010? And what period of economic stagnation since 2010? Can you not read the chart?
Yes the misleadingly strong performance from 1997-2007 was because Labour inherited a golden economic legacy which coasted them until 2002, and then from 2002 was funded by ever more borrowing until even that wasn't enough when 2007 came around. It was never paid for by economic growth and a balanced budget.
The period of stagnant wages since 2007 was due to the fact that we had to pay for the economic hangover off one Gordon Brown who borrowed from the future to fund his splurges in the past.
Yes, exactly. This is precisely so.
We never hear much about this because we get distracted by "Brexit" and "The Tories". But any serious analysis of Britain's problems would start with this.
It seems I missed out on the opportunity to continue defending Liz Truss on the overnight thread. Oh well, time zones and beer getting in the way as usual!
I still think the Tory MPs should have stood behind her, rather than sought to undermine her from the moment the Queen was buried.
Today’s the first unofficial day of the F1 season, with testing in Bahrain getting underway in half an hour!
Anyone who doesn't think a Johnson return would boost the Tory vote needs to remember all the vox-pops from the public - he has name recognition that Starmer or Sunak would die for. He's a politician who people relate to.
'Keith' and 'Richey' don't even seem to get people to manage to get their first names right in my experience.
The latter is typically said a la Richie Rich, so isn't a lack of name recognition but rather intentional.
I'm not sure - just as about 50% of Brits that I've heard try and say Sajid Javid make a meal of it, the number of Richey Sanooks, or Richey Sunats I hear down these parts make me think its a failure to launch problem....
is it me or does it appear that the anti-Sunak Tory MPs are circling around a vague notion that by cynically opposing/using the Protocol settlement they can cause enough grief to turf out Sunak and re-install BJ and go for a GE under his leadership - it strikes me as mad but lets be honest, stranger things have happened within the modern Conservative party...
Bringing down a Brexiteer PM out of spite, for substantially sorting out his bodged NI Protocol would be peak Johnson.
It would really demonstrate how unfit for government the Tories now are.
Mr. Sandpit, we'll see if any of the cars are poor on reliability, but most of the rest will just be mood music. Interesting to see if any of the midfield can advance, and if Ferrari can hold on given they went relatively backwards last year.
I'm not sure if it's been covered on here already but Kemi Badenoch is very impressive here. Her sword vs shield analogy is a clever piece of rhetoric.
Mr. Sandpit, we'll see if any of the cars are poor on reliability, but most of the rest will just be mood music. Interesting to see if any of the midfield can advance, and if Ferrari can hold on given they went relatively backwards last year.
Yes, it’s testing, so there isn’t much to see apart from the look of the cars themselves, and any reliability issues that suggest a long-term problem. Only the three days of testing this year before the first race, so no-one wants to have to miss any track time.
Anyone who doesn't think a Johnson return would boost the Tory vote needs to remember all the vox-pops from the public - he has name recognition that Starmer or Sunak would die for. He's a politician who people relate to.
'Keith' and 'Richey' don't even seem to get people to manage to get their first names right in my experience.
The latter is typically said a la Richie Rich, so isn't a lack of name recognition but rather intentional.
I'm not sure - just as about 50% of Brits that I've heard try and say Sajid Javid make a meal of it, the number of Richey Sanooks, or Richey Sunats I hear down these parts make me think its a failure to launch problem....
I think that there is a fair amount of racism still in the country, usually expressed obliquely like this. Perhaps 5% of the population won't vote for a British Asian as PM.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
“The Biden administration is considering releasing intelligence it believes shows that China is weighing whether to supply weapons to support Russia’s war in Ukraine, U.S. officials said.”
is it me or does it appear that the anti-Sunak Tory MPs are circling around a vague notion that by cynically opposing/using the Protocol settlement they can cause enough grief to turf out Sunak and re-install BJ and go for a GE under his leadership - it strikes me as mad but lets be honest, stranger things have happened within the modern Conservative party...
Bringing down a Brexiteer PM out of spite, for substantially sorting out his bodged NI Protocol would be peak Johnson.
It would really demonstrate how unfit for government the Tories now are.
I don’t think China is arming Russia. The first para in Foxy’s post contains a premise that Russia will collapse unless they do so, but that seems like a very large stretch.
The West do not want and have no interest in dismembering Russia. The likeliest outcome as it stands in Ukraine is a “frozen” conflict with borders looking similar(ish) to the status quo ante bellum.
A frozen conflict would probably suit China just fine. I can see why an outright Russian defeat would worry them.
Maybe Xi reads PB and is worried about my ideas for the Ukrainian/Republic of China border?
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
Cold turkey or hair of the dog?
The best thing for Conservatives as a movement, an idea is to accept that things are going badly wrong. That a rethink is needed, even if the price of that is accepting a bad defeat in 2024. After all, the quicker you start the detox, the quicker it will be over.
The understandable temptation is to keep going, singing the same songs more loudly. It might work, but denial will probably make things even worse.
But it's an understandable temptation; see the way parties tend to go more extreme after losing. But it slows the swing of the pendulum. If the current crop of Conservative MPs can't bring themselves to think about what's going wrong, it makes it more likely that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
If the current crop of Conservative MPs can't bring themselves to think about what's going wrong, it makes it more likely that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
The big problem is Brexit, and the current crop were selected based on their support of it
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
Cold turkey or hair of the dog?
The best thing for Conservatives as a movement, an idea is to accept that things are going badly wrong. That a rethink is needed, even if the price of that is accepting a bad defeat in 2024. After all, the quicker you start the detox, the quicker it will be over.
The understandable temptation is to keep going, singing the same songs more loudly. It might work, but denial will probably make things even worse.
But it's an understandable temptation; see the way parties tend to go more extreme after losing. But it slows the swing of the pendulum. If the current crop of Conservative MPs can't bring themselves to think about what's going wrong, it makes it more likely that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Best for the party, and best for the country, but not best for someone mid-career inside the party looking for a top job before they retire.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
It seems I missed out on the opportunity to continue defending Liz Truss on the overnight thread. Oh well, time zones and beer getting in the way as usual!
I still think the Tory MPs should have stood behind her, rather than sought to undermine her from the moment the Queen was buried.
Good to see that the spirit of going down with the ship isn’t entirely dead.
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
Worryingly, I couldn't tell what party that was, before clicking the link.
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
I look forward to the last because on current plans we are going to get nowhere near net zero by 2050.
Christ alone knows how we'll get the US, China and India - that pump out more than 50% of global emissions- to do the same.
Mr Jack Yes. I have had legitimate concerns raised with me by businesses across Scotland and by stakeholder groups and I have urged the Scottish Government to pause the scheme. There is no doubt in my mind that the scheme is not just bad for businesses, but bad for stakeholders and consumers. Anecdotally, Aldi will sell 12 bottles of Scottish water for £1.59. Under this scheme, that will become £3.99. If that is not inflationary, if that is not adding to people’s cost of living, I do not know what is. Furthermore, we have not been asked for an exemption for this under the rules of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 by the Scottish Government—no request for an exemption has come. The exemption bar is very high indeed, otherwise what is the point of the UKIM?
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
It worked best for those with a property portfolio that saw their wealth grow to unforeseen levels.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
Absolutely, and that moment was probably something like 2005 or earlier.
2007/8 was merely the crisis.
I am not precisely Blair/Brown’s number one fan. But I think Brown gets unfair criticism around the GFC whereas the more systemic issue was an economy distorted into financialisation and housing market dysfunction (and commensurate lack of industrial or regional policy). In turn that made Britain more vulnerable to the GFC but I don’t think he created it, and I don’t think it was the deficits specifically that made the UK more vulnerable.
You could say that New Labour learnt the wrong lessons from the success of the Tories under Thatcher, and then the Tories learnt the wrong lessons from the success of New Labour under Blair.
The virtue of political failure is that nobody wants to be seen as its heir so perhaps now we will get some genuinely new thinking.
That I think is very true. There's a total lack of thinking amongst the British political class, and far too much dining off / manipulation of housing wealth, the money supply, and fiscal policy in an attempt to deliver better growth, rather than doing the hard nine yards on the real underlying problems.
This kind of management is the one half of the good old British Disease.
I think I have mentioned previously my encounter with a high end investment advisor. He was giving an investment seminar for HNW individuals at one of the big investment banks on space technology.
His advice was stupid and would have involved ITAR - a good way to get you and your clients sent to prison.
Essentially buy, strip, dump and outsource to China.
I had a few words with him at the end of the talk. He became spitting angry at the idea of investing in a business onshore and actually running it. Apparently this was wrong and immoral.
Just might take the heat off Forbes for a bit and refocus questions on the competence of Mr Yousaf. Forbes remains value at the current odds in my view.
Sturgeon will not call off the attack dogs , Murrell's want their patsy in there. They will need some protection in future.
The Conservative Party today — the party of Braverman, Frost and Rees-Mogg — is a balloon of mediocrity kept aloft by hedge fund billionaires, dependent for ideas on ideologically armoured and similarly funded “think tanks” and steered by personal ambition. It is running down the clock. It is running down all our clocks. Why can’t it just go away?
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
It worked best for those with a property portfolio that saw their wealth grow to unforeseen levels.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
Absolutely, and that moment was probably something like 2005 or earlier.
2007/8 was merely the crisis.
I am not precisely Blair/Brown’s number one fan. But I think Brown gets unfair criticism around the GFC whereas the more systemic issue was an economy distorted into financialisation and housing market dysfunction (and commensurate lack of industrial or regional policy). In turn that made Britain more vulnerable to the GFC but I don’t think he created it, and I don’t think it was the deficits specifically that made the UK more vulnerable.
You could say that New Labour learnt the wrong lessons from the success of the Tories under Thatcher, and then the Tories learnt the wrong lessons from the success of New Labour under Blair.
The virtue of political failure is that nobody wants to be seen as its heir so perhaps now we will get some genuinely new thinking.
That I think is very true. There's a total lack of thinking amongst the British political class, and far too much dining off / manipulation of housing wealth, the money supply, and fiscal policy in an attempt to deliver better growth, rather than doing the hard nine yards on the real underlying problems.
This kind of management is the one half of the good old British Disease.
I think I have mentioned previously my encounter with a high end investment advisor. He was giving an investment seminar for HNW individuals at one of the big investment banks on space technology.
His advice was stupid and would have involved ITAR - a good way to get you and your clients sent to prison.
Essentially buy, strip, dump and outsource to China.
I had a few words with him at the end of the talk. He became spitting angry at the idea of investing in a business onshore and actually running it. Apparently this was wrong and immoral.
I don't see any value in paying for financial advice.
You can figure it out yourself, or just read Martin Lewis.
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
I look forward to the last because on current plans we are going to get nowhere near net zero by 2050.
Christ alone knows how we'll get the US, China and India - that pump out more than 50% of global emissions- to do the same.
We may well not be able to but the least we can do is try to set an example. “The big boys won’t do it so why should we?” doesn’t cut it as a reason not to.
Just might take the heat off Forbes for a bit and refocus questions on the competence of Mr Yousaf. Forbes remains value at the current odds in my view.
Keeping tight on Forbes, long on Swinney and Robertson.
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
It worked best for those with a property portfolio that saw their wealth grow to unforeseen levels.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
Absolutely, and that moment was probably something like 2005 or earlier.
2007/8 was merely the crisis.
I am not precisely Blair/Brown’s number one fan. But I think Brown gets unfair criticism around the GFC whereas the more systemic issue was an economy distorted into financialisation and housing market dysfunction (and commensurate lack of industrial or regional policy). In turn that made Britain more vulnerable to the GFC but I don’t think he created it, and I don’t think it was the deficits specifically that made the UK more vulnerable.
You could say that New Labour learnt the wrong lessons from the success of the Tories under Thatcher, and then the Tories learnt the wrong lessons from the success of New Labour under Blair.
The virtue of political failure is that nobody wants to be seen as its heir so perhaps now we will get some genuinely new thinking.
That I think is very true. There's a total lack of thinking amongst the British political class, and far too much dining off / manipulation of housing wealth, the money supply, and fiscal policy in an attempt to deliver better growth, rather than doing the hard nine yards on the real underlying problems.
This kind of management is the one half of the good old British Disease.
I think I have mentioned previously my encounter with a high end investment advisor. He was giving an investment seminar for HNW individuals at one of the big investment banks on space technology.
His advice was stupid and would have involved ITAR - a good way to get you and your clients sent to prison.
Essentially buy, strip, dump and outsource to China.
I had a few words with him at the end of the talk. He became spitting angry at the idea of investing in a business onshore and actually running it. Apparently this was wrong and immoral.
I don't see any value in paying for financial advice.
You can figure it out yourself, or just read Martin Lewis.
If you have to ask anyone, ask a trusted friend.
Lewis is outstanding on personal finance, but does not really cover investing. The best UK investing site is monevator.
Self taught will be much better than paid financial advice for over 95% of the population - the exception largely those with complex tax situations rather than those with complex investment situations.
Taught in schools would be even better and is a huge miss for the country. We could very easily raise average wealth significantly, over time, simply by teaching personal finance and investing.
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
Who's ready for a new Edstone?
The Ed-stone said:
- A strong economic foundation. - Higher living standards for working families. - An NHS with the time to care. - Controls on immigration. - A country where the next generation can do better than the last. - Homes to buy and action on rents
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Well at least Brexit has removed the need for immigration from overseas to fill excess vacancies.
Starmer’s policy launch today is risky. He needs to find the right balance between:
- too much detailed policy wonkism, which would bore most voters, look unambitious, and give the government ammunition to critique specific policies (I think this is unlikely) - A vacuous restatement of motherhood and apple pie (I fear this will be the case)
Blair’s pledges in 97 were a tad unambitious but they had the benefit of being specific. The trouble is Starmer can’t do a pledge card like that - yet. Too early in the cycle. And Sunak/Hunt have already announced a similar list.
So why the policy launch? I’m yet to be convinced of the purpose of today, unless it’s simply to keep in the media spotlight.
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
It worked best for those with a property portfolio that saw their wealth grow to unforeseen levels.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
Absolutely, and that moment was probably something like 2005 or earlier.
2007/8 was merely the crisis.
I am not precisely Blair/Brown’s number one fan. But I think Brown gets unfair criticism around the GFC whereas the more systemic issue was an economy distorted into financialisation and housing market dysfunction (and commensurate lack of industrial or regional policy). In turn that made Britain more vulnerable to the GFC but I don’t think he created it, and I don’t think it was the deficits specifically that made the UK more vulnerable.
You could say that New Labour learnt the wrong lessons from the success of the Tories under Thatcher, and then the Tories learnt the wrong lessons from the success of New Labour under Blair.
The virtue of political failure is that nobody wants to be seen as its heir so perhaps now we will get some genuinely new thinking.
That I think is very true. There's a total lack of thinking amongst the British political class, and far too much dining off / manipulation of housing wealth, the money supply, and fiscal policy in an attempt to deliver better growth, rather than doing the hard nine yards on the real underlying problems.
This kind of management is the one half of the good old British Disease.
I think I have mentioned previously my encounter with a high end investment advisor. He was giving an investment seminar for HNW individuals at one of the big investment banks on space technology.
His advice was stupid and would have involved ITAR - a good way to get you and your clients sent to prison.
Essentially buy, strip, dump and outsource to China.
I had a few words with him at the end of the talk. He became spitting angry at the idea of investing in a business onshore and actually running it. Apparently this was wrong and immoral.
I don't see any value in paying for financial advice.
You can figure it out yourself, or just read Martin Lewis.
If you have to ask anyone, ask a trusted friend.
Lewis is outstanding on personal finance, but does not really cover investing. The best UK investing site is monevator.
Self taught will be much better than paid financial advice for over 95% of the population - the exception largely those with complex tax situations rather than those with complex investment situations.
Taught in schools would be even better and is a huge miss for the country. We could very easily raise average wealth significantly, over time, simply by teaching personal finance and investing.
Mr. S, vague and meaningless is fine for Starmer. The Conservatives are busy trying to repel as many voters as possible, particularly if the rumours of the jester's machinations for a return are true.
Labour just needs to be "not those civil war lunatics" to do very well indeed.
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
I look forward to the last because on current plans we are going to get nowhere near net zero by 2050.
Christ alone knows how we'll get the US, China and India - that pump out more than 50% of global emissions- to do the same.
We may well not be able to but the least we can do is try to set an example. “The big boys won’t do it so why should we?” doesn’t cut it as a reason not to.
I didn't argue we should not do so, and I agree we should set an example.
Please read my posts properly for what I actually said rather than what you infer I must have meant.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
Cold turkey or hair of the dog?
The best thing for Conservatives as a movement, an idea is to accept that things are going badly wrong. That a rethink is needed, even if the price of that is accepting a bad defeat in 2024. After all, the quicker you start the detox, the quicker it will be over.
The understandable temptation is to keep going, singing the same songs more loudly. It might work, but denial will probably make things even worse.
But it's an understandable temptation; see the way parties tend to go more extreme after losing. But it slows the swing of the pendulum. If the current crop of Conservative MPs can't bring themselves to think about what's going wrong, it makes it more likely that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Best for the party, and best for the country, but not best for someone mid-career inside the party looking for a top job before they retire.
Unfortunately, them's the breaks. Plenty of good politicians have underachieved because their team was out of office at the zenith of their personal career. And some shocking mediocrities have had/are in top jobs because they were available at the right time.
The best some current ministers can realistically hope for is to be the token greybeard in a decade or so's time.
Starmer’s policy launch today is risky. He needs to find the right balance between:
- too much detailed policy wonkism, which would note most voters, look unambitious, and give the government ammunition to critique specific policies (I think this is unlikely) - A vacuous restatement of motherhood and apple pie (I fear this will be the case)
Blair’s pledges in 97 were a tad unambitious but they had the benefit of being specific. The trouble is Starmer can’t do a pledge card like that - yet. Too early in the cycle. And Sunak/Hunt have already announced a similar list.
So why the policy launch? I’m yet to be convinced of the purpose of today, unless it’s simply to keep in the media spotlight.
So far his plan has been to follow the wise proverb of not interrupting your enemy when they are making a mistake. He probably did not realise that the Tories would make so many mistakes he would never get a go......
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
It worked best for those with a property portfolio that saw their wealth grow to unforeseen levels.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
Absolutely, and that moment was probably something like 2005 or earlier.
2007/8 was merely the crisis.
I am not precisely Blair/Brown’s number one fan. But I think Brown gets unfair criticism around the GFC whereas the more systemic issue was an economy distorted into financialisation and housing market dysfunction (and commensurate lack of industrial or regional policy). In turn that made Britain more vulnerable to the GFC but I don’t think he created it, and I don’t think it was the deficits specifically that made the UK more vulnerable.
You could say that New Labour learnt the wrong lessons from the success of the Tories under Thatcher, and then the Tories learnt the wrong lessons from the success of New Labour under Blair.
The virtue of political failure is that nobody wants to be seen as its heir so perhaps now we will get some genuinely new thinking.
That I think is very true. There's a total lack of thinking amongst the British political class, and far too much dining off / manipulation of housing wealth, the money supply, and fiscal policy in an attempt to deliver better growth, rather than doing the hard nine yards on the real underlying problems.
This kind of management is the one half of the good old British Disease.
I think I have mentioned previously my encounter with a high end investment advisor. He was giving an investment seminar for HNW individuals at one of the big investment banks on space technology.
His advice was stupid and would have involved ITAR - a good way to get you and your clients sent to prison.
Essentially buy, strip, dump and outsource to China.
I had a few words with him at the end of the talk. He became spitting angry at the idea of investing in a business onshore and actually running it. Apparently this was wrong and immoral.
I don't see any value in paying for financial advice.
You can figure it out yourself, or just read Martin Lewis.
If you have to ask anyone, ask a trusted friend.
Certainly I could have given better advice that guy. He was advising investing in Branson….
My picks would have made far more money.
And I’m not a domain expert.
The problem is “experts” who aren’t.
Which brings us back to management. For such people actually owning a car factory, or whatever, is something they don’t know about. Or want to learn. Much easier to buy something, and try and flog it quick for 10%
Mr. S, vague and meaningless is fine for Starmer. The Conservatives are busy trying to repel as many voters as possible, particularly if the rumours of the jester's machinations for a return are true.
Labour just needs to be "not those civil war lunatics" to do very well indeed.
Two things to remember here on timing as we go into 2024.
The first is inflation. Citi is forecasting it drops to 2% in Q4. I doubt it will be that low but it is likely to come down dramatically and, if the GE is at the end of 1H24, the comparables effect will be advantageous for them.
The second is tax receipts. Next year is likely to be another high year, because of the wage increases that private firms have given to their staff together with momentum in the self-employed space. That's likely to give the government room for tax cuts and / or more spending.
None of this may count if the voters see the Tories like they did in 1997 but that is not a given.
Starmer’s policy launch today is risky. He needs to find the right balance between:
- too much detailed policy wonkism, which would note most voters, look unambitious, and give the government ammunition to critique specific policies (I think this is unlikely) - A vacuous restatement of motherhood and apple pie (I fear this will be the case)
Blair’s pledges in 97 were a tad unambitious but they had the benefit of being specific. The trouble is Starmer can’t do a pledge card like that - yet. Too early in the cycle. And Sunak/Hunt have already announced a similar list.
So why the policy launch? I’m yet to be convinced of the purpose of today, unless it’s simply to keep in the media spotlight.
I think there's a lot of pressure to start to add some detail to Labour's plans. That word cloud the other day (week?) suggested that people don't really know what Labour are about. That said, I think you're right, there are real risks here and my opinion is that this might be a bit early. On the other hand, if Labour have calculated that the Tories don't have the headspace to adequately respond, and are so divided that they will struggle to cherry pick the goodies from their policy, then they have the chance to start setting the agenda, leaving the Government dancing to Labour's tune.
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
It worked best for those with a property portfolio that saw their wealth grow to unforeseen levels.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
Absolutely, and that moment was probably something like 2005 or earlier.
2007/8 was merely the crisis.
I am not precisely Blair/Brown’s number one fan. But I think Brown gets unfair criticism around the GFC whereas the more systemic issue was an economy distorted into financialisation and housing market dysfunction (and commensurate lack of industrial or regional policy). In turn that made Britain more vulnerable to the GFC but I don’t think he created it, and I don’t think it was the deficits specifically that made the UK more vulnerable.
You could say that New Labour learnt the wrong lessons from the success of the Tories under Thatcher, and then the Tories learnt the wrong lessons from the success of New Labour under Blair.
The virtue of political failure is that nobody wants to be seen as its heir so perhaps now we will get some genuinely new thinking.
That I think is very true. There's a total lack of thinking amongst the British political class, and far too much dining off / manipulation of housing wealth, the money supply, and fiscal policy in an attempt to deliver better growth, rather than doing the hard nine yards on the real underlying problems.
This kind of management is the one half of the good old British Disease.
I think I have mentioned previously my encounter with a high end investment advisor. He was giving an investment seminar for HNW individuals at one of the big investment banks on space technology.
His advice was stupid and would have involved ITAR - a good way to get you and your clients sent to prison.
Essentially buy, strip, dump and outsource to China.
I had a few words with him at the end of the talk. He became spitting angry at the idea of investing in a business onshore and actually running it. Apparently this was wrong and immoral.
I don't see any value in paying for financial advice.
You can figure it out yourself, or just read Martin Lewis.
If you have to ask anyone, ask a trusted friend.
Certainly I could have given better advice that guy. He was advising investing in Branson….
My picks would have made far more money.
And I’m not a domain expert.
The problem is “experts” who aren’t.
Which brings us back to management. For such people actually owning a car factory, or whatever, is something they don’t know about. Or want to learn. Much easier to buy something, and try and flog it quick for 10%
I think the most important investment advice is on how to use the various tax wrappers and allowances in the most effective way, avoid breaching the pension lifetime cap and so on. It’s one area where professionals are truly helpful.
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
I look forward to the last because on current plans we are going to get nowhere near net zero by 2050.
Christ alone knows how we'll get the US, China and India - that pump out more than 50% of global emissions- to do the same.
We may well not be able to but the least we can do is try to set an example. “The big boys won’t do it so why should we?” doesn’t cut it as a reason not to.
I didn't argue we should not do so, and I agree we should set an example.
Please read my posts properly for what I actually said rather than what you infer I must have meant.
Not much chance of that happening with the frothers on here, they are blinkered and show their ignorance constantly.
Mr. S, vague and meaningless is fine for Starmer. The Conservatives are busy trying to repel as many voters as possible, particularly if the rumours of the jester's machinations for a return are true.
Labour just needs to be "not those civil war lunatics" to do very well indeed.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
Just might take the heat off Forbes for a bit and refocus questions on the competence of Mr Yousaf. Forbes remains value at the current odds in my view.
Keeping tight on Forbes, long on Swinney and Robertson.
Starmer’s policy launch today is risky. He needs to find the right balance between:
- too much detailed policy wonkism, which would note most voters, look unambitious, and give the government ammunition to critique specific policies (I think this is unlikely) - A vacuous restatement of motherhood and apple pie (I fear this will be the case)
Blair’s pledges in 97 were a tad unambitious but they had the benefit of being specific. The trouble is Starmer can’t do a pledge card like that - yet. Too early in the cycle. And Sunak/Hunt have already announced a similar list.
So why the policy launch? I’m yet to be convinced of the purpose of today, unless it’s simply to keep in the media spotlight.
I think there's a lot of pressure to start to add some detail to Labour's plans. That word cloud the other day (week?) suggested that people don't really know what Labour are about. That said, I think you're right, there are real risks here and my opinion is that this might be a bit early. On the other hand, if Labour have calculated that the Tories don't have the headspace to adequately respond, and are so divided that they will struggle to cherry pick the goodies from their policy, then they have the chance to start setting the agenda, leaving the Government dancing to Labour's tune.
I suppose there is also the risk (opportunity) however slim of an early GE. So there needs to be some sort of platform. It’s probably too late for something like a showpiece policy forum - with representatives from some other parties, industry, public etc - or big listening tour. Those things happen earlier in the cycle.
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
Compare with Blair's five pledges:
1) Cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7-year-olds by using money from the assisted places scheme. 2) Fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing. 3) Cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100,000,000 saved from NHS red tape. 4) Get 250,000 under-25s off benefits and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities. 5) No rise in income tax rates, cut VAT on heating to 5% and inflation and interest rates as low as possible.
Starmer’s policy launch today is risky. He needs to find the right balance between:
- too much detailed policy wonkism, which would note most voters, look unambitious, and give the government ammunition to critique specific policies (I think this is unlikely) - A vacuous restatement of motherhood and apple pie (I fear this will be the case)
Blair’s pledges in 97 were a tad unambitious but they had the benefit of being specific. The trouble is Starmer can’t do a pledge card like that - yet. Too early in the cycle. And Sunak/Hunt have already announced a similar list.
So why the policy launch? I’m yet to be convinced of the purpose of today, unless it’s simply to keep in the media spotlight.
I think there's a lot of pressure to start to add some detail to Labour's plans. That word cloud the other day (week?) suggested that people don't really know what Labour are about. That said, I think you're right, there are real risks here and my opinion is that this might be a bit early. On the other hand, if Labour have calculated that the Tories don't have the headspace to adequately respond, and are so divided that they will struggle to cherry pick the goodies from their policy, then they have the chance to start setting the agenda, leaving the Government dancing to Labour's tune.
Labour will have to deal with high inflation, tax, high demands on the NHS, Defence, investment in Net Zero, housing prices/ shortages, geopolitical rivalry, and mass migration. Fallout from Covid. Try not to get sucked into Wokery - suspect they'll fail badly on that one, and turbocharge It.
The gloss will come off quickly once the Tories are out. I'd say inside 18-24 months.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
Cold turkey or hair of the dog?
The best thing for Conservatives as a movement, an idea is to accept that things are going badly wrong. That a rethink is needed, even if the price of that is accepting a bad defeat in 2024. After all, the quicker you start the detox, the quicker it will be over.
The understandable temptation is to keep going, singing the same songs more loudly. It might work, but denial will probably make things even worse.
But it's an understandable temptation; see the way parties tend to go more extreme after losing. But it slows the swing of the pendulum. If the current crop of Conservative MPs can't bring themselves to think about what's going wrong, it makes it more likely that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Best for the party, and best for the country, but not best for someone mid-career inside the party looking for a top job before they retire.
Unfortunately, them's the breaks. Plenty of good politicians have underachieved because their team was out of office at the zenith of their personal career. And some shocking mediocrities have had/are in top jobs because they were available at the right time.
The best some current ministers can realistically hope for is to be the token greybeard in a decade or so's time.
The trouble with this notion is the Conservatives in office have no intention of giving up, not least because they are of the opinion it is circumstances rather than policy decisions that are doing for them.
The Party is also now run by people with not a scintilla of modesty or morality which is why they will happily go down the rabbit hole of opportune populism before you can say, "you will be hanged by the neck until pronounced dead. May God have mercy on your soul".
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
It worked best for those with a property portfolio that saw their wealth grow to unforeseen levels.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
Absolutely, and that moment was probably something like 2005 or earlier.
2007/8 was merely the crisis.
I am not precisely Blair/Brown’s number one fan. But I think Brown gets unfair criticism around the GFC whereas the more systemic issue was an economy distorted into financialisation and housing market dysfunction (and commensurate lack of industrial or regional policy). In turn that made Britain more vulnerable to the GFC but I don’t think he created it, and I don’t think it was the deficits specifically that made the UK more vulnerable.
You could say that New Labour learnt the wrong lessons from the success of the Tories under Thatcher, and then the Tories learnt the wrong lessons from the success of New Labour under Blair.
The virtue of political failure is that nobody wants to be seen as its heir so perhaps now we will get some genuinely new thinking.
That I think is very true. There's a total lack of thinking amongst the British political class, and far too much dining off / manipulation of housing wealth, the money supply, and fiscal policy in an attempt to deliver better growth, rather than doing the hard nine yards on the real underlying problems.
This kind of management is the one half of the good old British Disease.
I think I have mentioned previously my encounter with a high end investment advisor. He was giving an investment seminar for HNW individuals at one of the big investment banks on space technology.
His advice was stupid and would have involved ITAR - a good way to get you and your clients sent to prison.
Essentially buy, strip, dump and outsource to China.
I had a few words with him at the end of the talk. He became spitting angry at the idea of investing in a business onshore and actually running it. Apparently this was wrong and immoral.
I don't see any value in paying for financial advice.
You can figure it out yourself, or just read Martin Lewis.
If you have to ask anyone, ask a trusted friend.
Lewis is outstanding on personal finance, but does not really cover investing. The best UK investing site is monevator.
Self taught will be much better than paid financial advice for over 95% of the population - the exception largely those with complex tax situations rather than those with complex investment situations.
Taught in schools would be even better and is a huge miss for the country. We could very easily raise average wealth significantly, over time, simply by teaching personal finance and investing.
For most of us, there's not much to teach. See Scott Adam's (before he went tonto) one page guide.
The bigger problem is having spare cash to have to decide what to do with. And that probably depends on moving to a situation where every spare penny anyone has ends up in house price inflation.
Just might take the heat off Forbes for a bit and refocus questions on the competence of Mr Yousaf. Forbes remains value at the current odds in my view.
Keeping tight on Forbes, long on Swinney and Robertson.
Laying Yousaf.
It really is like betting on a donkey derby.
As a founder of the Royal Society For Preventing Cruelty And Insults To Equus Asinus, could you please withdraw that remark?
Many horses regard donkeys as friends. I have not met a horse that would adopt any of the candidates as a friend.
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
It worked best for those with a property portfolio that saw their wealth grow to unforeseen levels.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
Absolutely, and that moment was probably something like 2005 or earlier.
2007/8 was merely the crisis.
I am not precisely Blair/Brown’s number one fan. But I think Brown gets unfair criticism around the GFC whereas the more systemic issue was an economy distorted into financialisation and housing market dysfunction (and commensurate lack of industrial or regional policy). In turn that made Britain more vulnerable to the GFC but I don’t think he created it, and I don’t think it was the deficits specifically that made the UK more vulnerable.
You could say that New Labour learnt the wrong lessons from the success of the Tories under Thatcher, and then the Tories learnt the wrong lessons from the success of New Labour under Blair.
The virtue of political failure is that nobody wants to be seen as its heir so perhaps now we will get some genuinely new thinking.
That I think is very true. There's a total lack of thinking amongst the British political class, and far too much dining off / manipulation of housing wealth, the money supply, and fiscal policy in an attempt to deliver better growth, rather than doing the hard nine yards on the real underlying problems.
This kind of management is the one half of the good old British Disease.
I think I have mentioned previously my encounter with a high end investment advisor. He was giving an investment seminar for HNW individuals at one of the big investment banks on space technology.
His advice was stupid and would have involved ITAR - a good way to get you and your clients sent to prison.
Essentially buy, strip, dump and outsource to China.
I had a few words with him at the end of the talk. He became spitting angry at the idea of investing in a business onshore and actually running it. Apparently this was wrong and immoral.
I don't see any value in paying for financial advice.
You can figure it out yourself, or just read Martin Lewis.
If you have to ask anyone, ask a trusted friend.
Certainly I could have given better advice that guy. He was advising investing in Branson….
My picks would have made far more money.
And I’m not a domain expert.
The problem is “experts” who aren’t.
Which brings us back to management. For such people actually owning a car factory, or whatever, is something they don’t know about. Or want to learn. Much easier to buy something, and try and flog it quick for 10%
I think the most important investment advice is on how to use the various tax wrappers and allowances in the most effective way, avoid breaching the pension lifetime cap and so on. It’s one area where professionals are truly helpful.
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
It worked best for those with a property portfolio that saw their wealth grow to unforeseen levels.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
Absolutely, and that moment was probably something like 2005 or earlier.
2007/8 was merely the crisis.
I am not precisely Blair/Brown’s number one fan. But I think Brown gets unfair criticism around the GFC whereas the more systemic issue was an economy distorted into financialisation and housing market dysfunction (and commensurate lack of industrial or regional policy). In turn that made Britain more vulnerable to the GFC but I don’t think he created it, and I don’t think it was the deficits specifically that made the UK more vulnerable.
You could say that New Labour learnt the wrong lessons from the success of the Tories under Thatcher, and then the Tories learnt the wrong lessons from the success of New Labour under Blair.
The virtue of political failure is that nobody wants to be seen as its heir so perhaps now we will get some genuinely new thinking.
That I think is very true. There's a total lack of thinking amongst the British political class, and far too much dining off / manipulation of housing wealth, the money supply, and fiscal policy in an attempt to deliver better growth, rather than doing the hard nine yards on the real underlying problems.
This kind of management is the one half of the good old British Disease.
I think I have mentioned previously my encounter with a high end investment advisor. He was giving an investment seminar for HNW individuals at one of the big investment banks on space technology.
His advice was stupid and would have involved ITAR - a good way to get you and your clients sent to prison.
Essentially buy, strip, dump and outsource to China.
I had a few words with him at the end of the talk. He became spitting angry at the idea of investing in a business onshore and actually running it. Apparently this was wrong and immoral.
I don't see any value in paying for financial advice.
You can figure it out yourself, or just read Martin Lewis.
If you have to ask anyone, ask a trusted friend.
Certainly I could have given better advice that guy. He was advising investing in Branson….
My picks would have made far more money.
And I’m not a domain expert.
The problem is “experts” who aren’t.
Which brings us back to management. For such people actually owning a car factory, or whatever, is something they don’t know about. Or want to learn. Much easier to buy something, and try and flog it quick for 10%
I think the most important investment advice is on how to use the various tax wrappers and allowances in the most effective way, avoid breaching the pension lifetime cap and so on. It’s one area where professionals are truly helpful.
That’s the wrapper, not the present. Which is perhaps why “investment” in the U.K. often leaves you with an empty box.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
She represents most evangelical Christians and indeed traditionalist Catholics
Andz the C of E. "Banns for gay marriage? Piss off, you second-class Christian. Have a blessing and be bloody grateful if your local parson is even willing to do it."
Starmer’s policy launch today is risky. He needs to find the right balance between:
- too much detailed policy wonkism, which would note most voters, look unambitious, and give the government ammunition to critique specific policies (I think this is unlikely) - A vacuous restatement of motherhood and apple pie (I fear this will be the case)
Blair’s pledges in 97 were a tad unambitious but they had the benefit of being specific. The trouble is Starmer can’t do a pledge card like that - yet. Too early in the cycle. And Sunak/Hunt have already announced a similar list.
So why the policy launch? I’m yet to be convinced of the purpose of today, unless it’s simply to keep in the media spotlight.
I think there's a lot of pressure to start to add some detail to Labour's plans. That word cloud the other day (week?) suggested that people don't really know what Labour are about. That said, I think you're right, there are real risks here and my opinion is that this might be a bit early. On the other hand, if Labour have calculated that the Tories don't have the headspace to adequately respond, and are so divided that they will struggle to cherry pick the goodies from their policy, then they have the chance to start setting the agenda, leaving the Government dancing to Labour's tune.
Labour will have to deal with high inflation, tax, high demands on the NHS, Defence, investment in Net Zero, housing prices/ shortages, geopolitical rivalry, and mass migration. Fallout from Covid. Try not to get sucked into Wokery - suspect they'll fail badly on that one, and turbocharge It.
The gloss will come off quickly once the Tories are out. I'd say inside 18-24 months.
Indeed. Come 2026 everyone will be saying 'please can we have Liz back'! Possibly 😈
Just might take the heat off Forbes for a bit and refocus questions on the competence of Mr Yousaf. Forbes remains value at the current odds in my view.
Keeping tight on Forbes, long on Swinney and Robertson.
Laying Yousaf.
It really is like betting on a donkey derby.
As a founder of the Royal Society For Preventing Cruelty And Insults To Equus Asinus, could you please withdraw that remark?
Many horses regard donkeys as friends. I have not met a horse that would adopt any of the candidates as a friend.
In fairness to Malky, he wasn't advocating organising one - simply suggesting that there wasn't much else in the line of pb at present.
Mr. S, vague and meaningless is fine for Starmer. The Conservatives are busy trying to repel as many voters as possible, particularly if the rumours of the jester's machinations for a return are true.
Labour just needs to be "not those civil war lunatics" to do very well indeed.
Bit of a cavalier attitude
If Labour all sign up to a covenant or something?
I wouldn't let all the Naseby dominating the responses, it might have some positives.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
Cold turkey or hair of the dog?
The best thing for Conservatives as a movement, an idea is to accept that things are going badly wrong. That a rethink is needed, even if the price of that is accepting a bad defeat in 2024. After all, the quicker you start the detox, the quicker it will be over.
The understandable temptation is to keep going, singing the same songs more loudly. It might work, but denial will probably make things even worse.
But it's an understandable temptation; see the way parties tend to go more extreme after losing. But it slows the swing of the pendulum. If the current crop of Conservative MPs can't bring themselves to think about what's going wrong, it makes it more likely that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Best for the party, and best for the country, but not best for someone mid-career inside the party looking for a top job before they retire.
Unfortunately, them's the breaks. Plenty of good politicians have underachieved because their team was out of office at the zenith of their personal career. And some shocking mediocrities have had/are in top jobs because they were available at the right time.
The best some current ministers can realistically hope for is to be the token greybeard in a decade or so's time.
The trouble with this notion is the Conservatives in office have no intention of giving up, not least because they are of the opinion it is circumstances rather than policy decisions that are doing for them.
The Party is also now run by people with not a scintilla of modesty or morality which is why they will happily go down the rabbit hole of opportune populism before you can say, "you will be hanged by the neck until pronounced dead. May God have mercy on your soul".
Mr. S, vague and meaningless is fine for Starmer. The Conservatives are busy trying to repel as many voters as possible, particularly if the rumours of the jester's machinations for a return are true.
Labour just needs to be "not those civil war lunatics" to do very well indeed.
Bit of a cavalier attitude
If Labour all sign up to a covenant or something?
I wouldn't let all the Naseby dominating the responses, it might have some positives.
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
Compare with Blair's five pledges:
1) Cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7-year-olds by using money from the assisted places scheme. 2) Fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing. 3) Cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100,000,000 saved from NHS red tape. 4) Get 250,000 under-25s off benefits and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities. 5) No rise in income tax rates, cut VAT on heating to 5% and inflation and interest rates as low as possible.
Specific, measurable, achievable and realistic- they have to be SMART to be meaningful.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
She represents most evangelical Christians and indeed traditionalist Catholics
Andz the C of E. "Banns for gay marriage? Piss off, you second-class Christian. Have a blessing and be bloody grateful if your local parson is even willing to do it."
And that is of course much more than the Free Church of Scotland or Roman Catholics, neither of whom will offer a blessing at all let alone marriage
The equines are closer than some on PB like to think.
But NB voodoo poll. In particular, this is *not* confined to subscribers of the National, so far as I can tell, with all that that implies (but as I am one, I can't be sure - if you aren;t and find you can't enter, please say so).
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
I look forward to the last because on current plans we are going to get nowhere near net zero by 2050.
Christ alone knows how we'll get the US, China and India - that pump out more than 50% of global emissions- to do the same.
We may well not be able to but the least we can do is try to set an example. “The big boys won’t do it so why should we?” doesn’t cut it as a reason not to.
I didn't argue we should not do so, and I agree we should set an example.
Please read my posts properly for what I actually said rather than what you infer I must have meant.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
She represents most evangelical Christians and indeed traditionalist Catholics
Andz the C of E. "Banns for gay marriage? Piss off, you second-class Christian. Have a blessing and be bloody grateful if your local parson is even willing to do it."
And that is of course much more than the Free Church of Scotland or Roman Catholics, neither of whom will offer a blessing at all let alone marriage
Can't you see that that is not enough, in the most grudging possible way? In a church of a state which permits gay marriage withoutj let or hindrance? The FCS and RCC are not state churches (the Vatican being a church state, which is quite different).
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
True - but he's struggling to make much impact during his long-form interview on R4 right now. It's devoid of detail and the Q&A is running along the lines of Q: "Having these missions is all well and good, but what are you actually going to do to achieve them?"......A: "Let me take that head on. What people want to know is not just what we want to achieve but how we will go about it; people are crying out for real change...." followed by a stream of waffle.
Hopefully Starmer is simply playing for time and won't remain someone incapable of offering any specifics.
Edit/ interview just finished. A masterclass in repeating over and over that people want specifics whilst being careful not to mention a single one....
PEOPLE of faith will be reluctant to enter politics in the wake of attacks on Kate Forbes over her moral views, the Catholic Church has warned.
In a dramatic intervention, the church's spokesman in Scotland Peter Kearney said political parties had helped foster a culture of intolerance towards people's "religious orientations".
It came as one of the country's most prominent historians Sir Tom Devine said Ms Forbes should be praised for her "steadfast personal commitment" to her principles as a backlash began against criticisms of the finance secretary.
'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.
“The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.
“It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.
“For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'
and
'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.
However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.
Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”
Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.
Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
Cold turkey or hair of the dog?
The best thing for Conservatives as a movement, an idea is to accept that things are going badly wrong. That a rethink is needed, even if the price of that is accepting a bad defeat in 2024. After all, the quicker you start the detox, the quicker it will be over.
The understandable temptation is to keep going, singing the same songs more loudly. It might work, but denial will probably make things even worse.
But it's an understandable temptation; see the way parties tend to go more extreme after losing. But it slows the swing of the pendulum. If the current crop of Conservative MPs can't bring themselves to think about what's going wrong, it makes it more likely that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
If Labour had chosen Dennis Healey not Michael Foot in 1980 after losing power in 1979 would they have beaten Thatcher in 1983? If the Conservatives had picked Ken Clarke rather than William Hague after losing power in 1997 would they have beaten Blair in 2001? If Labour had picked David Miliband not Ed Miliband after losing power in 2010 would they have beaten David Cameron in 2015?
Probably not in each case. It might just have been a bit closer
Starmer’s policy launch today is risky. He needs to find the right balance between:
- too much detailed policy wonkism, which would note most voters, look unambitious, and give the government ammunition to critique specific policies (I think this is unlikely) - A vacuous restatement of motherhood and apple pie (I fear this will be the case)
Blair’s pledges in 97 were a tad unambitious but they had the benefit of being specific. The trouble is Starmer can’t do a pledge card like that - yet. Too early in the cycle. And Sunak/Hunt have already announced a similar list.
So why the policy launch? I’m yet to be convinced of the purpose of today, unless it’s simply to keep in the media spotlight.
I think there's a lot of pressure to start to add some detail to Labour's plans. That word cloud the other day (week?) suggested that people don't really know what Labour are about. That said, I think you're right, there are real risks here and my opinion is that this might be a bit early. On the other hand, if Labour have calculated that the Tories don't have the headspace to adequately respond, and are so divided that they will struggle to cherry pick the goodies from their policy, then they have the chance to start setting the agenda, leaving the Government dancing to Labour's tune.
My problem with Starmer is that every time he does add detail, it’s a policy I don’t like. No, we’re not going to get closer to the EU, Brexit means Brexit. Yes, we are going to clobber private education.
If the boundary changes go ahead I’ll be in a seat that Labour is within touching distance of capturing (Lib Dems very distant third), and right now I think I’d either spoil my ballot or vote Lib Dem. Which given that I’m somewhere in the social liberal/social democrat area isn’t great.
But then Starmer is eight gazillion points ahead so what do I know.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
True - but he's struggling to make much impact during his long-form interview on R4 right now. It's devoid of detail and the Q&A is running along the lines of Q: "Having these missions is all well and good, but what are you actually going to do to achieve them?"......A: "Let me take that head on. What people want to know is not just what we want to achieve but how we will go about it; people are crying out for real change...." followed by a stream of waffle.
Hopefully Starmer is simply playing for time and won't remain someone incapable of offering any specifics.
It’s not a general election campaign. These are not campaign pledges. They are statement of high level priorities for a Labour government. All good. Everyone is impatient to get going, but the timetable is set by Sunak. We have months of him hanging on yet.
Comments
Fascinating to be reminded that the first “resigner” - and the person whose resignation made Truss realise it was all over - was that notorious Sunakite wet…Suella Braverman.
The virtue of political failure is that nobody wants to be seen as its heir so perhaps now we will get some genuinely new thinking.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/22/florida-reporter-shooting-00084100
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3869730-michigan-gop-chair-election-underscores-partys-divisions-ahead-of-2024/
The selection of a far-right election denier to lead Michigan’s state GOP is underscoring divisions within the party as Republican leaders hope to unify heading into 2024.
Kristina Karamo’s victory last weekend showed the extent to which the Republican grassroots has embraced election fraud claims, even as many in the party call for a more forward-looking message heading into 2024…
… In November, Democrats defended top statewide offices while flipping both chambers of the state legislature, possibly due in part to redistricting. Karamo was the Republican secretary of state nominee last year and hasn’t conceded that race, which she lost by 14 percentage points. DePerno was the unsuccessful Republican nominee for attorney general. Both ran with Trump’s backing.
I have consistently criticised the Conservative Party and its behaviour, as my posts will attest to, although I do have respect for Rishi Sunak, who I like and I think is doing a good fist in very difficult circumstances.
You two just can't handle any criticism of Labour. And, for you, any criticism of Labour must mean I am "championing" the Tories or enabling their behaviour because all you want is a sweeping change of government with nothing getting in its way.
I am determined this site does not become an echo chamber over the next 18 months.
You can be damn sure I will continue to call it as I see it and I'm not going to be put off by insults like this.
Just might take the heat off Forbes for a bit and refocus questions on the competence of Mr Yousaf. Forbes remains value at the current odds in my view.
We never hear much about this because we get distracted by "Brexit" and "The Tories". But any serious analysis of Britain's problems would start with this.
I still think the Tory MPs should have stood behind her, rather than sought to undermine her from the moment the Queen was buried.
Today’s the first unofficial day of the F1 season, with testing in Bahrain getting underway in half an hour!
We should do far more of it.
It would really demonstrate how unfit for government the Tories now are.
Mr. Sandpit, we'll see if any of the cars are poor on reliability, but most of the rest will just be mood music. Interesting to see if any of the midfield can advance, and if Ferrari can hold on given they went relatively backwards last year.
I think Lammy is good.
I think Rayner fulfills the Prescott job well.
And if Labour wins they’ll have a load of new talent coming in any way.
When you do things for political points instead of actually wanting to solve the problem, this is the result.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1628652105526349827
The 5 missions
- Secure the highest sustained growth in G7
- Build an NHS fit for future
- Make Britain’s streets safe
- Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage
- Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
The best thing for Conservatives as a movement, an idea is to accept that things are going badly wrong. That a rethink is needed, even if the price of that is accepting a bad defeat in 2024. After all, the quicker you start the detox, the quicker it will be over.
The understandable temptation is to keep going, singing the same songs more loudly. It might work, but denial will probably make things even worse.
But it's an understandable temptation; see the way parties tend to go more extreme after losing. But it slows the swing of the pendulum. If the current crop of Conservative MPs can't bring themselves to think about what's going wrong, it makes it more likely that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
- Apple pie
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Christ alone knows how we'll get the US, China and India - that pump out more than 50% of global emissions- to do the same.
Today @ScotSecofState said in House of Commons that ‘we have not been asked for an exemption’.
Lorna Slater saying that it is ‘well underway’ is extremely misleading and disingenuous.
https://twitter.com/mrblairbowman/status/1628500276721119235?s=20
(UKIMA = UK Internal Market Act)
Mr Jack
Yes. I have had legitimate concerns raised with me by businesses across Scotland and by stakeholder groups and I have urged the Scottish Government to pause the scheme. There is no doubt in my mind that the scheme is not just bad for businesses, but bad for stakeholders and consumers. Anecdotally, Aldi will sell 12 bottles of Scottish water for £1.59. Under this scheme, that will become £3.99. If that is not inflationary, if that is not adding to people’s cost of living, I do not know what is. Furthermore, we have not been asked for an exemption for this under the rules of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 by the Scottish Government—no request for an exemption has come. The exemption bar is very high indeed, otherwise what is the point of the UKIM?
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-02-22/debates/E9F4FB52-6A12-4963-95F0-546103A897AA/details#contribution-318CB5BA-ED2D-442B-9288-98658D6ED196
I think I have mentioned previously my encounter with a high end investment advisor. He was giving an investment seminar for HNW individuals at one of the big investment banks on space technology.
His advice was stupid and would have involved ITAR - a good way to get you and your clients sent to prison.
Essentially buy, strip, dump and outsource to China.
I had a few words with him at the end of the talk. He became spitting angry at the idea of investing in a business onshore and actually running it. Apparently this was wrong and immoral.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nobody-wants-what-the-tories-are-selling-8tmqdpr9x
You can figure it out yourself, or just read Martin Lewis.
If you have to ask anyone, ask a trusted friend.
Laying Yousaf.
Self taught will be much better than paid financial advice for over 95% of the population - the exception largely those with complex tax situations rather than those with complex investment situations.
Taught in schools would be even better and is a huge miss for the country. We could very easily raise average wealth significantly, over time, simply by teaching personal finance and investing.
- A strong economic foundation.
- Higher living standards for working families.
- An NHS with the time to care.
- Controls on immigration.
- A country where the next generation can do better than the last.
- Homes to buy and action on rents
Keir's look vaguer and smaller to me.
Keir's cobble rather than the Ed's stone.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-64716502.amp
- too much detailed policy wonkism, which would bore most voters, look unambitious, and give the government ammunition to critique specific policies (I think this is unlikely)
- A vacuous restatement of motherhood and apple pie (I fear this will be the case)
Blair’s pledges in 97 were a tad unambitious but they had the benefit of being specific. The trouble is Starmer can’t do a pledge card like that - yet. Too early in the cycle. And Sunak/Hunt have already announced a similar list.
So why the policy launch? I’m yet to be convinced of the purpose of today, unless it’s simply to keep in the media spotlight.
Labour just needs to be "not those civil war lunatics" to do very well indeed.
Please read my posts properly for what I actually said rather than what you infer I must have meant.
The best some current ministers can realistically hope for is to be the token greybeard in a decade or so's time.
My picks would have made far more money.
And I’m not a domain expert.
The problem is “experts” who aren’t.
Which brings us back to management. For such people actually owning a car factory, or whatever, is something they don’t know about. Or want to learn. Much easier to buy something, and try and flog it quick for 10%
NHS Scotland plan to recruit 800 GPs by 2027 likely to fail, Audit Scotland warns
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,nhs-scotland-plan-to-recruit-800-gps-by-2027-likely-to-fail-audit-scotland-warns
The first is inflation. Citi is forecasting it drops to 2% in Q4. I doubt it will be that low but it is likely to come down dramatically and, if the GE is at the end of 1H24, the comparables effect will be advantageous for them.
The second is tax receipts. Next year is likely to be another high year, because of the wage increases that private firms have given to their staff together with momentum in the self-employed space. That's likely to give the government room for tax cuts and / or more spending.
None of this may count if the voters see the Tories like they did in 1997 but that is not a given.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
1) Cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7-year-olds by using money from the assisted places scheme.
2) Fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing.
3) Cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100,000,000 saved from NHS red tape.
4) Get 250,000 under-25s off benefits and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities.
5) No rise in income tax rates, cut VAT on heating to 5% and inflation and interest rates as low as possible.
The gloss will come off quickly once the Tories are out. I'd say inside 18-24 months.
The Party is also now run by people with not a scintilla of modesty or morality which is why they will happily go down the rabbit hole of opportune populism before you can say, "you will be hanged by the neck until pronounced dead. May God have mercy on your soul".
The bigger problem is having spare cash to have to decide what to do with. And that probably depends on moving to a situation where every spare penny anyone has ends up in house price inflation.
Many horses regard donkeys as friends. I have not met a horse that would adopt any of the candidates as a friend.
"We have five missions to give us focus."
LOL
He'll still win but I expect Rishi to put up a decent fight in a campaign.
Of course, in 1997 we had money.
Good day all.
But NB voodoo poll. In particular, this is *not* confined to subscribers of the National, so far as I can tell, with all that that implies (but as I am one, I can't be sure - if you aren;t and find you can't enter, please say so).
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23333311.kate-forbes-humza-yousaf-ash-regan-poll-next/
Hopefully Starmer is simply playing for time and won't remain someone incapable of offering any specifics.
Edit/ interview just finished. A masterclass in repeating over and over that people want specifics whilst being careful not to mention a single one....
In a dramatic intervention, the church's spokesman in Scotland Peter Kearney said political parties had helped foster a culture of intolerance towards people's "religious orientations".
It came as one of the country's most prominent historians Sir Tom Devine said Ms Forbes should be praised for her "steadfast personal commitment" to her principles as a backlash began against criticisms of the finance secretary.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23340706.catholic-church-warns-damage-politics-attacks-forbes/
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23340640.muslim-council-britain-cautions-media-uk-council-confusion/
'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.
“The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.
“It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.
“For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'
and
'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.
However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.
Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”
Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.
Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
Probably not in each case. It might just have been a bit closer
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23339862.alan-cumming-backs-humza-yousaf-snp-leadership-contest/
If the boundary changes go ahead I’ll be in a seat that Labour is within touching distance of capturing (Lib Dems very distant third), and right now I think I’d either spoil my ballot or vote Lib Dem. Which given that I’m somewhere in the social liberal/social democrat area isn’t great.
But then Starmer is eight gazillion points ahead so what do I know.