It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Casino has walked in on his fiancee having sex with her lover, and wants to appoint him best man at the wedding.
The Conservative Party, for all its faults, gets a grip on the nation's finances.
Labour does not. A vote for Labour means even higher taxes or more borrowing.
Unfortunately, the government's grip on public finances depends on assuming that state services cost less to provide than they actually do.
Which has the consequences we are currently seeing.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
What evidence we have suggests that the Tories can only manage an economy into the ground.
Not in the slightest. Unemployment has reached record lows, and we're on a clear path to balance the budget.
The real question is how to improve growth rates, which have languished since the GFC.
Tory austerity, then Brexit and Covid have flatlined growth. The Tories are effectively offering even more austerity, collapsing public services to boot.
The low unemployment rate, which is to be welcomed of course, is a factor of Britain’s flexible labour laws, and is seen worldwide in countries with a similar approach. That approach pre-dates the current government.
I think that's nonsense. The growth rate is clearly feasible from 2008 onwards at a clearly lower rate than before and has been virtually untouched by any of those things.
The record low unemployment rates were achieved under the Cameron administration due to welfare reforms and a continuously growing economy; it's the reason we didn't have a spread of mass unemployment, house price collapse and poverty post 2008 and avoided some of the more serious travails in the eurozone.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
What evidence we have suggests that the Tories can only manage an economy into the ground.
Not in the slightest. Unemployment has reached record lows, and we're on a clear path to balance the budget.
The real question is how to improve growth rates, which have languished since the GFC.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
What evidence we have suggests that the Tories can only manage an economy into the ground.
Not in the slightest. Unemployment has reached record lows, and we're on a clear path to balance the budget.
The real question is how to improve growth rates, which have languished since the GFC.
the budget only looks like it may balance in the future because Hunt has put in makey-believe numbers from 2024 and beyond.
This is a good point, which almost nobody has picked up on. Hunt’s numbers pretty much assume we’ll allow the public service to shut up shop completely.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
What evidence we have suggests that the Tories can only manage an economy into the ground.
Not in the slightest. Unemployment has reached record lows, and we're on a clear path to balance the budget.
The real question is how to improve growth rates, which have languished since the GFC.
Tory austerity, then Brexit and Covid have flatlined growth. The Tories are effectively offering even more austerity, collapsing public services to boot.
The low unemployment rate, which is to be welcomed of course, is a factor of Britain’s flexible labour laws, and is seen worldwide in countries with a similar approach. That approach pre-dates the current government.
I think that's nonsense. The growth rate is clearly feasible from 2008 onwards at a clearly lower rate than before and has been virtually untouched by any of those things.
The record low unemployment rates were achieved under the Cameron administration due to welfare reforms and a continuously growing economy; it's the reason we didn't have a spread of mass unemployment, house price collapse and poverty post 2008 and avoided some of the more serious travails in the eurozone.
It’s not nonsense. The economy has flatlined, and much of it is conscious policy choice.
The record unemployment rates kicked in from the 90s onwards, both Labour and the Tories have left Thatcher’s labour law legacy largely unchanged.
The next election is up for grabs. I for one, do not put any faith into these mid term polls. Remember, the Tories fish from 3 pools, namely the old, the thick and the super rich. Two of those pools are large enough to give them a comfortable victory.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
What evidence we have suggests that the Tories can only manage an economy into the ground.
Not in the slightest. Unemployment has reached record lows, and we're on a clear path to balance the budget.
The real question is how to improve growth rates, which have languished since the GFC.
31% of German energy is produced by coal, compared with 1.9% of the UK, yet the latter literally sits on a bed of coal.
What possible excuse is there for this? And to what extent is the German exporting miracle reliant on cheap but obnoxiously polluting energy?
The case for climate change import tariffs. But yes, a big portion of Germany's industrial might comes from burning lignite, the dirtiest of coal.
The quicker we can accelerate towards virtually unlimited cheap renewable energy the better. Cheap energy isn’t a panacea - look at Iran or Venezuela - but the history of global growth and recession tracks extremely closely to a lagged history of the oil price.
I’m increasingly convinced the gap in GDP growth of the US vs most of the rest of the developed world in the last decade is down to their significantly cheaper industrial and domestic energy costs.
Iceland is another example with its almost unlimited geothermal power, way in excess of what it actually needs. It’s now a big aluminium and carbon fibre manufacturer, among other things.
Maybe Germany with its lignite and the old Russian gas imports was up to the same thing, just in a much dirtier and geopolitically hazardous way.
Countries that build up huge cheap energy resources, and then use them to give a competitive advantage to domestic industry (rather than exporting the energy) do well.
Speaking largely anecdotally, I feel like the GDP gap can be explained by cheap energy, economies of scale, and a culture of investment (government, venture capital, entrepreneurialism).
Ironically, none of those are because the US has less regulation or even lower tax, indeed these things seem to be much more complicated in the US.
There is a path for the UK, but it’s pretty much the opposite of what Sunak thinks.
Living standards in the USA are pretty stagnant for low-middle earners, with life expectancy going into reverse, notwithstanding its higher nominal GDP growth rate.
What is the path you see for the UK?
The US has got some of it right, but as you say it is deeply flawed in other measures.
However, see the points I make about what *does* work, and add the additional distribution achieved in some European countries.
The average Western European is better off than the average Brit or even American, I think. The FT guy has done some good charts on comparative standards of living across the income distribution.
So your answer is more income redistribution?
That doesn't explain America's comparative success - which was your original point, I think - certainly wasn't what @Luckyguy1983 thought he was endorsing when he responded positively to your post, and isn't what I think is true anyway.
I've said on here before I want modest state spending, and less on dealing with the legacies of yesterday (pensions and NHS) and more on shaping the future (infrastructure, science, education, foreign affairs and defence).
Investing in more efficient infrastructure, new technology, and better higher paid jobs will lead to higher growth and productivity - whilst keeping us and our way of life secure at the same time.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
Borrowing was out of control before Truss.
UK Debt was 69% GDP when the Tories took over in 2010; it's 99% now. 13 years of restoring 'full balance and rectitude to the public finances' LOL.
Debt was 69% and shooting up when the Tories took over (post GFC)
They steadied the spiralling debt over the next decade
Then there was covid
Then Ukraine
What do you think the debt level would be now if SKS had been in charge post GFC, and during the interminable period that he wanted to extend covid restrictions?
A good deal less than 99% because we'd not have endured 6 years of strangled growth through ideological austerity nor would we have taken a Brexit hit.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
What evidence we have suggests that the Tories can only manage an economy into the ground.
Not in the slightest. Unemployment has reached record lows, and we're on a clear path to balance the budget.
The real question is how to improve growth rates, which have languished since the GFC.
31% of German energy is produced by coal, compared with 1.9% of the UK, yet the latter literally sits on a bed of coal.
What possible excuse is there for this? And to what extent is the German exporting miracle reliant on cheap but obnoxiously polluting energy?
The case for climate change import tariffs. But yes, a big portion of Germany's industrial might comes from burning lignite, the dirtiest of coal.
The quicker we can accelerate towards virtually unlimited cheap renewable energy the better. Cheap energy isn’t a panacea - look at Iran or Venezuela - but the history of global growth and recession tracks extremely closely to a lagged history of the oil price.
I’m increasingly convinced the gap in GDP growth of the US vs most of the rest of the developed world in the last decade is down to their significantly cheaper industrial and domestic energy costs.
Iceland is another example with its almost unlimited geothermal power, way in excess of what it actually needs. It’s now a big aluminium and carbon fibre manufacturer, among other things.
Maybe Germany with its lignite and the old Russian gas imports was up to the same thing, just in a much dirtier and geopolitically hazardous way.
Countries that build up huge cheap energy resources, and then use them to give a competitive advantage to domestic industry (rather than exporting the energy) do well.
Speaking largely anecdotally, I feel like the GDP gap can be explained by cheap energy, economies of scale, and a culture of investment (government, venture capital, entrepreneurialism).
Ironically, none of those are because the US has less regulation or even lower tax, indeed these things seem to be much more complicated in the US.
There is a path for the UK, but it’s pretty much the opposite of what Sunak thinks.
Living standards in the USA are pretty stagnant for low-middle earners, with life expectancy going into reverse, notwithstanding its higher nominal GDP growth rate.
What is the path you see for the UK?
The US has got some of it right, but as you say it is deeply flawed in other measures.
However, see the points I make about what *does* work, and add the additional distribution achieved in some European countries.
The average Western European is better off than the average Brit or even American, I think. The FT guy has done some good charts on comparative standards of living across the income distribution.
So your answer is more income redistribution?
That doesn't explain America's comparative success - which was your original point, I think - certainly wasn't what @Luckyguy1983 thought he was endorsing when he responded positively to your post, and isn't what I think is true anyway.
I've said on here before I want modest state spending, and less on dealing with the legacies of yesterday (pensions and NHS) and more on shaping the future (infrastructure, science, education, foreign affairs and defence).
Investing in more efficient infrastructure, new technology, and better higher paid jobs will lead to higher growth and productivity - whilst keeping us and our way of life secure at the same time.
We need to enable growth (see US) and spread wealth better (see W Europe).
The current policy is to continue to starve the country into a kind of grinding stagnation.
The next election is up for grabs. I for one, do not put any faith into these mid term polls. Remember, the Tories fish from 3 pools, namely the old, the thick and the super rich. Two of those pools are large enough to give them a comfortable victory.
Which pool is SKS fishing in with the "Rishi wants paedophiles running free" campaign?
Something going on in vanilla where my previous post sticks in the text box the next time I come to post. Requiring a lot of deleting. Anyone else have this?
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
What evidence we have suggests that the Tories can only manage an economy into the ground.
Not in the slightest. Unemployment has reached record lows, and we're on a clear path to balance the budget.
The real question is how to improve growth rates, which have languished since the GFC.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
What evidence we have suggests that the Tories can only manage an economy into the ground.
Not in the slightest. Unemployment has reached record lows, and we're on a clear path to balance the budget.
The real question is how to improve growth rates, which have languished since the GFC.
the budget only looks like it may balance in the future because Hunt has put in makey-believe numbers from 2024 and beyond.
This is a good point, which almost nobody has picked up on. Hunt’s numbers pretty much assume we’ll allow the public service to shut up shop completely.
Hunts approach is very much the "something will turn up" approach. Risky.
The super -rich of our government really cannot see why public sector workers don't like real terms pay cuts to finance their tax cuts.
The obvious misunderstanding of the workers is not to realise that they need to be paid less to spur them to work, while City speculators and rent seekers need to be paid more in order to incentivise.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
They won't, in their present form. The public finances are hugely affected by growth or no growth. The Trussite agenda of borrowing to fund some tax cuts was actually the lower-cost option - far less than a recession will cost. Furthermore, in several instances Sunak has spent quite freely. Paying the BOE £11bn of taxpayers' money to fund it selling bonds at a loss. Coughing up billions to the EU in fines for importing Chinese tat (or something). Hundreds of millions more to the French for doing f**k all about the boats. Hunt and Sunak seem to save the penny-pinching for the taxpayer.
That's cherrypicking, misrepresenting, and then hugely exaggerating some disconnected pieces of evidence to support a conclusion you'd already reached.
Trusses agenda of borrowing to fund tax cuts , with seemingly no care to demonstrate how it would in future balance the books, was just as bonkers as Brown in 2010.
Something going on in vanilla where my previous post sticks in the text box the next time I come to post. Requiring a lot of deleting. Anyone else have this?
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
What evidence we have suggests that the Tories can only manage an economy into the ground.
Not in the slightest. Unemployment has reached record lows, and we're on a clear path to balance the budget.
The real question is how to improve growth rates, which have languished since the GFC.
31% of German energy is produced by coal, compared with 1.9% of the UK, yet the latter literally sits on a bed of coal.
What possible excuse is there for this? And to what extent is the German exporting miracle reliant on cheap but obnoxiously polluting energy?
The case for climate change import tariffs. But yes, a big portion of Germany's industrial might comes from burning lignite, the dirtiest of coal.
The quicker we can accelerate towards virtually unlimited cheap renewable energy the better. Cheap energy isn’t a panacea - look at Iran or Venezuela - but the history of global growth and recession tracks extremely closely to a lagged history of the oil price.
I’m increasingly convinced the gap in GDP growth of the US vs most of the rest of the developed world in the last decade is down to their significantly cheaper industrial and domestic energy costs.
Iceland is another example with its almost unlimited geothermal power, way in excess of what it actually needs. It’s now a big aluminium and carbon fibre manufacturer, among other things.
Maybe Germany with its lignite and the old Russian gas imports was up to the same thing, just in a much dirtier and geopolitically hazardous way.
Countries that build up huge cheap energy resources, and then use them to give a competitive advantage to domestic industry (rather than exporting the energy) do well.
Speaking largely anecdotally, I feel like the GDP gap can be explained by cheap energy, economies of scale, and a culture of investment (government, venture capital, entrepreneurialism).
Ironically, none of those are because the US has less regulation or even lower tax, indeed these things seem to be much more complicated in the US.
There is a path for the UK, but it’s pretty much the opposite of what Sunak thinks.
Living standards in the USA are pretty stagnant for low-middle earners, with life expectancy going into reverse, notwithstanding its higher nominal GDP growth rate.
What is the path you see for the UK?
The US has got some of it right, but as you say it is deeply flawed in other measures.
However, see the points I make about what *does* work, and add the additional distribution achieved in some European countries.
The average Western European is better off than the average Brit or even American, I think. The FT guy has done some good charts on comparative standards of living across the income distribution.
So your answer is more income redistribution?
That doesn't explain America's comparative success - which was your original point, I think - certainly wasn't what @Luckyguy1983 thought he was endorsing when he responded positively to your post, and isn't what I think is true anyway.
I've said on here before I want modest state spending, and less on dealing with the legacies of yesterday (pensions and NHS) and more on shaping the future (infrastructure, science, education, foreign affairs and defence).
Investing in more efficient infrastructure, new technology, and better higher paid jobs will lead to higher growth and productivity - whilst keeping us and our way of life secure at the same time.
The point I agreed with was the cheap energy is at the absolute basis of a a successful economy, because if it's expensive (as at the moment) it is a massive drag on every form of economic activity. It's like competing in the hurdles whilst giving your granny a piggy back.
Sensible governments like Germany's have therefore made arrangements to secure their economy a priority, whilst pretend Governments like ours have done zero to make energy more affordable, but instead created a tax/subsidy loop that levies taxes on energy making it so expensive that a subsidy is then needed for companies and individuals to pay it. They have done nothing on supply, conversely they have deliberately (unless they're just plain thick) undermined North Sea Oil.
Something going on in vanilla where my previous post sticks in the text box the next time I come to post. Requiring a lot of deleting. Anyone else have this?
Select all
Press x
End up with an x at the beginning of your post if you forget to delete it
The next election is up for grabs. I for one, do not put any faith into these mid term polls. Remember, the Tories fish from 3 pools, namely the old, the thick and the super rich. Two of those pools are large enough to give them a comfortable victory.
And Labour fish from the condescending, the unimaginative and the morally superior…
31% of German energy is produced by coal, compared with 1.9% of the UK, yet the latter literally sits on a bed of coal.
What possible excuse is there for this? And to what extent is the German exporting miracle reliant on cheap but obnoxiously polluting energy?
The case for climate change import tariffs. But yes, a big portion of Germany's industrial might comes from burning lignite, the dirtiest of coal.
The quicker we can accelerate towards virtually unlimited cheap renewable energy the better. Cheap energy isn’t a panacea - look at Iran or Venezuela - but the history of global growth and recession tracks extremely closely to a lagged history of the oil price.
I’m increasingly convinced the gap in GDP growth of the US vs most of the rest of the developed world in the last decade is down to their significantly cheaper industrial and domestic energy costs.
Iceland is another example with its almost unlimited geothermal power, way in excess of what it actually needs. It’s now a big aluminium and carbon fibre manufacturer, among other things.
Maybe Germany with its lignite and the old Russian gas imports was up to the same thing, just in a much dirtier and geopolitically hazardous way.
Countries that build up huge cheap energy resources, and then use them to give a competitive advantage to domestic industry (rather than exporting the energy) do well.
Speaking largely anecdotally, I feel like the GDP gap can be explained by cheap energy, economies of scale, and a culture of investment (government, venture capital, entrepreneurialism).
Ironically, none of those are because the US has less regulation or even lower tax, indeed these things seem to be much more complicated in the US.
There is a path for the UK, but it’s pretty much the opposite of what Sunak thinks.
Living standards in the USA are pretty stagnant for low-middle earners, with life expectancy going into reverse, notwithstanding its higher nominal GDP growth rate.
What is the path you see for the UK?
Thing is, despite the supposed successes of the last thirteen years of Conservative-led Government, living standards for most people in this country have been flatlining and life expectancy increases have effectively ground to a halt. And even these statistics doubtless hide further nasty revelations: given that we know that the average pensioner household, allowing for housing costs, now has a higher disposable income than the average working household, old people have been getting better off since 2010 whilst working age households have actually been getting poorer. This helps us to understand why age is by far the most reliable indicator of likely voting intention.
Britain isn't about to become a scientific superpower, a world leader in green industries, or any of the other high falutin' nonsense that Johnson, or Sunak, or anyone on the Labour side for that matter, keeps spouting from time to time. Just as British Telecom came to be described as a big pension scheme with a small phone company attached, so Britain itself is now one vast Bayview Retirement Village with an increasingly tawdry and tatty little country attached to it - and the sole purpose of the country is to keep the retirees fed and watered. And there's really no point in pretending that the Tories care about anything else, even though I'm increasingly convinced that Labour would be no better.
Something going on in vanilla where my previous post sticks in the text box the next time I come to post. Requiring a lot of deleting. Anyone else have this?
Select all
Press x
End up with an x at the beginning of your post if you forget to delete it
Something going on in vanilla where my previous post sticks in the text box the next time I come to post. Requiring a lot of deleting. Anyone else have this?
Select all
Press x
End up with an x at the beginning of your post if you forget to delete it
Press full stop is neater.
But if you're on the vanilla forums itself, there is in the top left hand a button called 'drafts' if it's done this. Click on that, delete the draft using the cross in the top right hand corner of it.
The next election is up for grabs. I for one, do not put any faith into these mid term polls. Remember, the Tories fish from 3 pools, namely the old, the thick and the super rich. Two of those pools are large enough to give them a comfortable victory.
And Labour fish from the condescending, the unimaginative and the morally superior…
The only thing more depressing than a Starmer government is another Sunak one.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
They won't, in their present form. The public finances are hugely affected by growth or no growth. The Trussite agenda of borrowing to fund some tax cuts was actually the lower-cost option - far less than a recession will cost. Furthermore, in several instances Sunak has spent quite freely. Paying the BOE £11bn of taxpayers' money to fund it selling bonds at a loss. Coughing up billions to the EU in fines for importing Chinese tat (or something). Hundreds of millions more to the French for doing f**k all about the boats. Hunt and Sunak seem to save the penny-pinching for the taxpayer.
That's cherrypicking, misrepresenting, and then hugely exaggerating some disconnected pieces of evidence to support a conclusion you'd already reached.
Trusses agenda of borrowing to fund tax cuts , with seemingly no care to demonstrate how it would in future balance the books, was just as bonkers as Brown in 2010.
Could you just remind me of the net losses or profits on QE since 2009?
I.e., including any money remitted from the BoE to the Treasury.
Or are you just going to pick on a single datapoint based around the BoE rebalancing its gilt holding?
I don't see why I should do that, when the Bank's decision to sell its bonds at a loss, and the Treasury's agreement to fund that loss, is a deliberate policy choice and one that stands at odds other Central Banks, notably the ECB who have not sold bonds at a loss, and the Fed, which has sold them but is not bwing funded by the US Treasury for doing so. It is right to question the wisdom of this expenditure when the public finances are as squeezed as we are told they are.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
What evidence we have suggests that the Tories can only manage an economy into the ground.
Not in the slightest. Unemployment has reached record lows, and we're on a clear path to balance the budget.
The real question is how to improve growth rates, which have languished since the GFC.
The next election is up for grabs. I for one, do not put any faith into these mid term polls. Remember, the Tories fish from 3 pools, namely the old, the thick and the super rich. Two of those pools are large enough to give them a comfortable victory.
And Labour fish from the condescending, the unimaginative and the morally superior…
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
Borrowing was out of control before Truss.
UK Debt was 69% GDP when the Tories took over in 2010; it's 99% now. 13 years of restoring 'full balance and rectitude to the public finances' LOL.
Debt was 69% and shooting up when the Tories took over (post GFC)
They steadied the spiralling debt over the next decade
Then there was covid
Then Ukraine
What do you think the debt level would be now if SKS had been in charge post GFC, and during the interminable period that he wanted to extend covid restrictions?
A good deal less than 99% because we'd not have endured 6 years of strangled growth through ideological austerity nor would we have taken a Brexit hit.
I think that was the same "ideological austerity" that banjaxed the Kamikwazi budget
ie the 'markets' told Gideon (first time I've ever called him that! But you know who I mean) that he had to reduce borrowing
Something going on in vanilla where my previous post sticks in the text box the next time I come to post. Requiring a lot of deleting. Anyone else have this?
Select all
Press x
End up with an x at the beginning of your post if you forget to delete it
Press full stop is neater.
But if you're on the vanilla forums itself, there is in the top left hand a button called 'drafts' if it's done this. Click on that, delete the draft using the cross in the top right hand corner of it.
The other option is to post from the website rather than the forum. Fewer tools, but does delete drafts automatically.
Something going on in vanilla where my previous post sticks in the text box the next time I come to post. Requiring a lot of deleting. Anyone else have this?
Select all
Press x
End up with an x at the beginning of your post if you forget to delete it
Press full stop is neater.
But if you're on the vanilla forums itself, there is in the top left hand a button called 'drafts' if it's done this. Click on that, delete the draft using the cross in the top right hand corner of it.
Mine will only save the draft if I do more than one full stop - I usually do 3.
The next election is up for grabs. I for one, do not put any faith into these mid term polls. Remember, the Tories fish from 3 pools, namely the old, the thick and the super rich. Two of those pools are large enough to give them a comfortable victory.
And Labour fish from the condescending, the unimaginative and the morally superior…
Something going on in vanilla where my previous post sticks in the text box the next time I come to post. Requiring a lot of deleting. Anyone else have this?
Select all
Press x
End up with an x at the beginning of your post if you forget to delete it
Press full stop is neater.
But if you're on the vanilla forums itself, there is in the top left hand a button called 'drafts' if it's done this. Click on that, delete the draft using the cross in the top right hand corner of it.
Something going on in vanilla where my previous post sticks in the text box the next time I come to post. Requiring a lot of deleting. Anyone else have this?
Select all
Press x
End up with an x at the beginning of your post if you forget to delete it
Press full stop is neater.
But if you're on the vanilla forums itself, there is in the top left hand a button called 'drafts' if it's done this. Click on that, delete the draft using the cross in the top right hand corner of it.
The other option is to post from the website rather than the forum. Fewer tools, but does delete drafts automatically.
The next election is up for grabs. I for one, do not put any faith into these mid term polls. Remember, the Tories fish from 3 pools, namely the old, the thick and the super rich. Two of those pools are large enough to give them a comfortable victory.
And Labour fish from the condescending, the unimaginative and the morally superior…
The only thing more depressing than a Starmer government is another Sunak one.
Step back from the noise and the spats, and that's the landscape, and it's going to need an incredible earthquake to change it over the next 18 months.
Starmer is uninspiring, and may well not solve the UK's problems. (Though in terms of the old joke about how many psychatrists does it take to change a lightbulb- one, but the lightbulb must want to change- I'm not sure the UK is really ready to change for the better yet.) But he's clearly not an idiot, clearly in the range of plausible ways of running the country, and shouldn't be rejected out of hand. And with a voter coalition where working age people outumber the retired, he has some space to slay some of the sacred cows cluttering up the place.
But the really important thing is this. The current government has stuffed up in several important ways since 2019. If they don't merit being chased out like rascals, who does?
When the current Prime Minister, as Chancellor, was borrowing vast sums, those of us having the audacity to question this reckless spending were told by supporters of the then Prime Minister not to worry - it was borrowing, borrowing is fine, borrowing is nothing to worry about.
The truth is borrowing is fine if it’s done by a Conservative Chancellor, debt and deficit rises are fine if they happen under a Conservative Government.
Labour, in Government, by contrast, can’t tax, borrow or spend and if they do it is labelled irresponsible.
It’s a curious double standard. The biggest example of this is when Labour cut taxes - Labour tax cuts are always wrong, Conservative tax cuts are always right.
Nailing it down - the Conservatives have led the Government for the past 13 years. Too much of that had been wasted by their fatuous self indulgence wasting time on needless referenda and changing leader every five minutes.
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
Something going on in vanilla where my previous post sticks in the text box the next time I come to post. Requiring a lot of deleting. Anyone else have this?
Select all
Press x
End up with an x at the beginning of your post if you forget to delete it
Press full stop is neater.
But if you're on the vanilla forums itself, there is in the top left hand a button called 'drafts' if it's done this. Click on that, delete the draft using the cross in the top right hand corner of it.
The other option is to post from the website rather than the forum. Fewer tools, but does delete drafts automatically.
When the current Prime Minister, as Chancellor, was borrowing vast sums, those of us having the audacity to question this reckless spending were told by supporters of the then Prime Minister not to worry - it was borrowing, borrowing is fine, borrowing is nothing to worry about.
The truth is borrowing is fine if it’s done by a Conservative Chancellor, debt and deficit rises are fine if they happen under a Conservative Government.
Labour, in Government, by contrast, can’t tax, borrow or spend and if they do it is labelled irresponsible.
It’s a curious double standard. The biggest example of this is when Labour cut taxes - Labour tax cuts are always wrong, Conservative tax cuts are always right.
Nailing it down - the Conservatives have led the Government for the past 13 years. Too much of that had been wasted by their fatuous self indulgence wasting time on needless referenda and changing leader every five minutes.
Although that's not confined to them. Do you remember Brown tried to wriggle off the hook he'd impaled himself on by saying he'd claimed to have ended 'Tory boom and bust?'
Even if that were true (which it wasn't) it somehow implied that Labour busts were perfectly acceptable compared to Tory ones.
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
Rishi and the team need to deliver real progress on inflation by the end of this year, then set out sensible and prudent financial and other policies by Spring 2024.
I expect these amazing policies to consist of an endless age of austerity (except with respect to state pension rises,) in order to fund some tax cuts. It'll probably go down quite well.
31% of German energy is produced by coal, compared with 1.9% of the UK, yet the latter literally sits on a bed of coal.
What possible excuse is there for this? And to what extent is the German exporting miracle reliant on cheap but obnoxiously polluting energy?
The case for climate change import tariffs. But yes, a big portion of Germany's industrial might comes from burning lignite, the dirtiest of coal.
The quicker we can accelerate towards virtually unlimited cheap renewable energy the better. Cheap energy isn’t a panacea - look at Iran or Venezuela - but the history of global growth and recession tracks extremely closely to a lagged history of the oil price.
I’m increasingly convinced the gap in GDP growth of the US vs most of the rest of the developed world in the last decade is down to their significantly cheaper industrial and domestic energy costs.
Iceland is another example with its almost unlimited geothermal power, way in excess of what it actually needs. It’s now a big aluminium and carbon fibre manufacturer, among other things.
Maybe Germany with its lignite and the old Russian gas imports was up to the same thing, just in a much dirtier and geopolitically hazardous way.
Countries that build up huge cheap energy resources, and then use them to give a competitive advantage to domestic industry (rather than exporting the energy) do well.
Speaking largely anecdotally, I feel like the GDP gap can be explained by cheap energy, economies of scale, and a culture of investment (government, venture capital, entrepreneurialism).
Ironically, none of those are because the US has less regulation or even lower tax, indeed these things seem to be much more complicated in the US.
There is a path for the UK, but it’s pretty much the opposite of what Sunak thinks.
The correlation between cheap energy and growth isn't complete. Nigeria and South Korea are the exceptions in each direction.
Certainly not complete. Nigeria is more easily explained as the resource curse: if you export your cheap energy rather than using it domestically then you’re selling the country out. The US is the world’s largest oil producer, yet they don’t export that much. They use it.
South Korea a harder one. But then nothing is ever explained by one single factor. I wonder if there’s a phenomenon (let’s call it bullied younger brother syndrome) whereby a country that was treated like shit by its neighbour but understands enough about what made them successful creates an economic miracle by working famed hard, improving on the neighbour’s formula and exacting a kind of long term revenge.
See exhibits a, b and c: Korea, Poland, Ireland.
I think your analysis of the US is misleading
They were massive *importers* of energy. And then they discovered shale. And it was cheaper to use that source than export and buy other!hydrocarbons.
But they were already an established economic force before they discovered this new engine (sorry) of growth
The next election is up for grabs. I for one, do not put any faith into these mid term polls. Remember, the Tories fish from 3 pools, namely the old, the thick and the super rich. Two of those pools are large enough to give them a comfortable victory.
And Labour fish from the condescending, the unimaginative and the morally superior…
Is that your definition of London? The Tory stain will be largely removed from London. Tories less than 5 seats in our great capital I would say.
The next election is up for grabs. I for one, do not put any faith into these mid term polls. Remember, the Tories fish from 3 pools, namely the old, the thick and the super rich. Two of those pools are large enough to give them a comfortable victory.
And Labour fish from the condescending, the unimaginative and the morally superior…
Is that your definition of London? The Tory stain will be largely removed from London. Tories less than 5 seats in our great capital I would say.
Any of those in places that see themselves as London, rather than "Kent/Essex, actually"?
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
Borrowing was out of control before Truss.
UK Debt was 69% GDP when the Tories took over in 2010; it's 99% now. 13 years of restoring 'full balance and rectitude to the public finances' LOL.
And I suspect you were one of those who was complaining that the Tories were trying to reduce the inherited deficit too fast… not to mention arguing their support plans for coronavirus were too mean…
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
It’s not a party political issue. Well, apart from each party will oppose different bits of any change.
I was watching a video in the company of a couple of councillors (different parties), a little while ago. The subject was a lady from the commerce commission from the Port of Brownsville, in Texas. She was describing the process by which SpaceX built their facility in the area.
Both councillors, nominally enemies, were united in condemnation. She had betrayed the local people, in their view, by not blocking such a development. To them, a vital part of local government is stopping inconvenience to even a few percent of the locals.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
Borrowing was out of control before Truss.
UK Debt was 69% GDP when the Tories took over in 2010; it's 99% now. 13 years of restoring 'full balance and rectitude to the public finances' LOL.
And I suspect you were one of those who was complaining that the Tories were trying to reduce the inherited deficit too fast… not to mention arguing their support plans for coronavirus were too mean…
I was certainly complaining that squeezing growth through austerity was the wrong approach, and we can all see now how right I was.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
Borrowing was out of control before Truss.
UK Debt was 69% GDP when the Tories took over in 2010; it's 99% now. 13 years of restoring 'full balance and rectitude to the public finances' LOL.
And I suspect you were one of those who was complaining that the Tories were trying to reduce the inherited deficit too fast… not to mention arguing their support plans for coronavirus were too mean…
Suzi Boniface argued last night on Sky that we should give the nurses what they want because we’ll get some of it back through VAT etc.
And look at what happened next. They sold the vaccine centre they were building near Oxford to the Yanks, and then...
Catalent, the USA based pharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing business, which bought the UK’s Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre (VMIC) in April, promising to invest up to $160 million (£120 million) to complete the building of the facility and equip it with state-of-the-art capabilities has rowed back on its promises, according to a report in today’s Times.
Calatent has seen it share price plunge recently and has paused work to complete the facility, based at Harwell Campus in Oxfordshire.
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
The Government and its supporters have no interest in economic development. Absolutely none. Their sole objective is to enrich themselves by ensuring that whatever pool of wealth remains is redistributed upwards into a smaller number of hands, at a faster rate than that at which it shrinks.
I'm old enough to remember when Labour pledged to borrow many billions more because interest rates were at historic lows, so it wouldn't really cost anything
Something going on in vanilla where my previous post sticks in the text box the next time I come to post. Requiring a lot of deleting. Anyone else have this?
Select all
Press x
End up with an x at the beginning of your post if you forget to delete it
Press full stop is neater.
But if you're on the vanilla forums itself, there is in the top left hand a button called 'drafts' if it's done this. Click on that, delete the draft using the cross in the top right hand corner of it.
The other option is to post from the website rather than the forum. Fewer tools, but does delete drafts automatically.
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
The next election is up for grabs. I for one, do not put any faith into these mid term polls. Remember, the Tories fish from 3 pools, namely the old, the thick and the super rich. Two of those pools are large enough to give them a comfortable victory.
And Labour fish from the condescending, the unimaginative and the morally superior…
There isn't the tiniest chance of understanding elections without the realisation that most people are none of these things and vote the best they can for themselves and the country in a way which is thoughtful, decent and loyal. In particular while most people are not old, mostly they will be one day and it is not (yet) a failing.
So, for example, loads of people would vote for Farage in order to reform the EU, (and ultimately Brexited when the EU was obviously not willing to get the message); but would never put him in the House of Commons.
A lot of older people vote Tory because they have looked at socialism and decided it doesn't work. many of them are in the process of deciding Toryism doesn't work either.
Something going on in vanilla where my previous post sticks in the text box the next time I come to post. Requiring a lot of deleting. Anyone else have this?
Select all
Press x
End up with an x at the beginning of your post if you forget to delete it
Press full stop is neater.
But if you're on the vanilla forums itself, there is in the top left hand a button called 'drafts' if it's done this. Click on that, delete the draft using the cross in the top right hand corner of it.
The other option is to post from the website rather than the forum. Fewer tools, but does delete drafts automatically.
I'm old enough to remember when Labour pledged to borrow many billions more because interest rates were at historic lows, so it wouldn't really cost anything
That was the right approach though. (Not that Corbyn would have invested any of it sensibly).
And look at what happened next. They sold the vaccine centre they were building near Oxford to the Yanks, and then...
Catalent, the USA based pharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing business, which bought the UK’s Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre (VMIC) in April, promising to invest up to $160 million (£120 million) to complete the building of the facility and equip it with state-of-the-art capabilities has rowed back on its promises, according to a report in today’s Times.
Calatent has seen it share price plunge recently and has paused work to complete the facility, based at Harwell Campus in Oxfordshire.
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
The Government and its supporters have no interest in economic development. Absolutely none. Their sole objective is to enrich themselves by ensuring that whatever pool of wealth remains is redistributed upwards into a smaller number of hands, at a faster rate than that at which it shrinks.
If you see the comments on that Times story about intergenerational inequality, the core vote really couldn’t give a toss. Their aim is simply to ride the Stannah Stairway up and down unto infinity while their grandchildren starve.
The next election is up for grabs. I for one, do not put any faith into these mid term polls. Remember, the Tories fish from 3 pools, namely the old, the thick and the super rich. Two of those pools are large enough to give them a comfortable victory.
And Labour fish from the condescending, the unimaginative and the morally superior…
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
Borrowing was out of control before Truss.
UK Debt was 69% GDP when the Tories took over in 2010; it's 99% now. 13 years of restoring 'full balance and rectitude to the public finances' LOL.
And I suspect you were one of those who was complaining that the Tories were trying to reduce the inherited deficit too fast… not to mention arguing their support plans for coronavirus were too mean…
I was certainly complaining that squeezing growth through austerity was the wrong approach, and we can all see now how right I was.
Of course you were. Impossible to prove, but if it makes you feel better to repeat it SP be my guest.
Just found out that a 2 bedroom bungalow in my area recently sold for £450K. Ridiculous.
Do you live in Westminster, in which case it is a bargain or in in Treorchy, in which case the asking price is way over the odds?
Should we not start from the proposition that a free transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller cannot be ridiculous but must be rational and explicable, whether its £100 million for a Vermeer (bargain if available) or 25p for a bar of chocolate, or a house costing what a house costs.
The laws of supply and demand suggest that what would be ridiculous if if the price is so high there are no buyers, or so low there are 10,000 eager purchasers.
A lot of older people vote Tory because they have looked at socialism and decided it doesn't work. many of them are in the process of deciding Toryism doesn't work either.
The motive is primarily economic self-interest. The richer two-thirds of the over-50 vote consists mainly of owners of massively valuable houses that have appreciated in value out of all proportion to earned incomes, who have simultaneously benefited from generous, older-style occupational pension schemes as well as triple-locked state pensions (either already in payment, or to become available within the next few years.) Those at the older end of the age distribution can use equity release to fund a very comfortable lifestyle if they choose, whilst looking forward to passing on the remainder of their estates to their kids tax-free; the younger ones are anticipating massive, life-transforming windfalls from their elderly parents when they pop-off.
This is the Tory base, and the adherence of 90%+ of them to that party will be rooted in the fact that right-leaning Government pays dividends. They've done fantastically out of the last 13 years, and will keep voting accordingly.
The Government doesn't particularly care about the poorer third of pensioners who aren't well off and will therefore tend towards Labour, although doubtless a combination of the triple lock and socially conservative rhetoric about issues like immigration, prisons and defence will lure some of them onside anyway, votes that ministers will happily accept.
Just found out that a 2 bedroom bungalow in my area recently sold for £450K. Ridiculous.
Do you live in Westminster, in which case it is a bargain or in in Treorchy, in which case the asking price is way over the odds?
Should we not start from the proposition that a free transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller cannot be ridiculous but must be rational and explicable, whether its £100 million for a Vermeer (bargain if available) or 25p for a bar of chocolate, or a house costing what a house costs.
The laws of supply and demand suggest that what would be ridiculous if if the price is so high there are no buyers, or so low there are 10,000 eager purchasers.
Bungalows also appear to be at a premium at the moment as not many are being built.
Just found out that a 2 bedroom bungalow in my area recently sold for £450K. Ridiculous.
Do you live in Westminster, in which case it is a bargain or in in Treorchy, in which case the asking price is way over the odds?
I was idly looking at a rather opulent house not far from me that's in the market for £2.6m. Kind of money you'd need to siphon off a decent amount of #indyref donations to pay for though. Plenty of drive-way space to park a campervan mind you.
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
It’s not a party political issue. Well, apart from each party will oppose different bits of any change.
I was watching a video in the company of a couple of councillors (different parties), a little while ago. The subject was a lady from the commerce commission from the Port of Brownsville, in Texas. She was describing the process by which SpaceX built their facility in the area.
Both councillors, nominally enemies, were united in condemnation. She had betrayed the local people, in their view, by not blocking such a development. To them, a vital part of local government is stopping inconvenience to even a few percent of the locals.
I was (by mistake) watching a youtube video with Elon Musk a while back. He was asked why he built his latest battery factory in Texas and said he'd managed to build it and make it start rolling product out the door in 18 months - less time it would have taken him to get a planning permit in California which would have just given the green light for NIMBY's to start legal action about it.
Not the whole story, obviously. But it rang a bell.
The next election is up for grabs. I for one, do not put any faith into these mid term polls. Remember, the Tories fish from 3 pools, namely the old, the thick and the super rich. Two of those pools are large enough to give them a comfortable victory.
And Labour fish from the condescending, the unimaginative and the morally superior…
Is that your definition of London? The Tory stain will be largely removed from London. Tories less than 5 seats in our great capital I would say.
Any of those in places that see themselves as London, rather than "Kent/Essex, actually"?
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
Audrey Fforbes Hamilton is still well off, just not as rich as Peter de Vere who she had to sell her late husband's estate to. Classic old money v new money
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
Audrey Fforbes Hamilton is still well off, just not as rich as Peter de Vere who she had to sell her late husband's estate to. Classic old money v new money
No she wasn't. She had bouncing cheques and had to sell her furniture.
What she did have was a determination not to *appear* poor.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
According to the Bank of England, £10 in 1997 was equivalent to £11.41 in 2006, with average annual inflation of 1.5%
This is the graph of average doctor's pay (so not just junior doctors, but still) covering the same period, from the BMJ
It DOUBLES over that 97-06 period
But reduces since 2010 - hardly surprising they are not happy.
They got a 90% real terms increase over the previous decade
Their 35% demand is ignorant and insolent
It's neither. Their pay has pretty much stagnated for 20 years; they have a case.
Now, many could argue that they're in the same or similar boat but MPs for example have seen their pay go up by 31% since 2010.
To be fair they have had to devote significant extra time from changing from the old fiddling expenses systems to the new fiddling expenses systems. Only fair they get compensated for that imo.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
Borrowing was out of control before Truss.
UK Debt was 69% GDP when the Tories took over in 2010; it's 99% now. 13 years of restoring 'full balance and rectitude to the public finances' LOL.
And I suspect you were one of those who was complaining that the Tories were trying to reduce the inherited deficit too fast… not to mention arguing their support plans for coronavirus were too mean…
I was certainly complaining that squeezing growth through austerity was the wrong approach, and we can all see now how right I was.
Of course you were. Impossible to prove, but if it makes you feel better to repeat it SP be my guest.
So if you didn't want austerity (which wasn't austerity as nothing was actually cut just the rate of increase in spending was slowed) how can you complain about the current debt to gdp. Simple fact is when labour left power we were borrowing 100 odd bn a year. The only way to stop debt growing was to cut spending immediately by 100 bn a year. Austerity as its termed was just slowing the rate of borrowing as tax receipts increased. Hell I have no truck with the tories but....
You cannot both complain about austerity and the level of debt to GDP without being totally two faced
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
Audrey Fforbes Hamilton is still well off, just not as rich as Peter de Vere who she had to sell her late husband's estate to. Classic old money v new money
According to the Bank of England, £10 in 1997 was equivalent to £11.41 in 2006, with average annual inflation of 1.5%
This is the graph of average doctor's pay (so not just junior doctors, but still) covering the same period, from the BMJ
It DOUBLES over that 97-06 period
But reduces since 2010 - hardly surprising they are not happy.
They got a 90% real terms increase over the previous decade
Their 35% demand is ignorant and insolent
It's neither. Their pay has pretty much stagnated for 20 years; they have a case.
Now, many could argue that they're in the same or similar boat but MPs for example have seen their pay go up by 31% since 2010.
MPs might only have their job for a year
Doctors have a job for as long as they want
Increasingly many do not want to keep it, at least in this country. Therein lies the problem.
Retention of skilled medical and nursing staff is not entirely a pay related issue, but that is a large part of it.
The Junior doctors dispute is the first real Generation Z strike. A group of people who did everything that they should at school, deferred gratification etc, but realise that they will never get to what the Boomers, or Gen X have. Their pay cannot get them a decent flat. Doctors are unusually intelligent, good at networking, and a bit entitled, so have a solidarity unknown to other Gen Z, but this strike is a harbinger of the future.
The next election is up for grabs. I for one, do not put any faith into these mid term polls. Remember, the Tories fish from 3 pools, namely the old, the thick and the super rich. Two of those pools are large enough to give them a comfortable victory.
And Labour fish from the condescending, the unimaginative and the morally superior…
Sounds like a winning coalition, electorally speaking.
Just found out that a 2 bedroom bungalow in my area recently sold for £450K. Ridiculous.
Do you live in Westminster, in which case it is a bargain or in in Treorchy, in which case the asking price is way over the odds?
Should we not start from the proposition that a free transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller cannot be ridiculous but must be rational and explicable, whether its £100 million for a Vermeer (bargain if available) or 25p for a bar of chocolate, or a house costing what a house costs.
The laws of supply and demand suggest that what would be ridiculous if if the price is so high there are no buyers, or so low there are 10,000 eager purchasers.
Humans are far from rational and often ridiculous.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
Borrowing was out of control before Truss.
UK Debt was 69% GDP when the Tories took over in 2010; it's 99% now. 13 years of restoring 'full balance and rectitude to the public finances' LOL.
And I suspect you were one of those who was complaining that the Tories were trying to reduce the inherited deficit too fast… not to mention arguing their support plans for coronavirus were too mean…
I was certainly complaining that squeezing growth through austerity was the wrong approach, and we can all see now how right I was.
Of course you were. Impossible to prove, but if it makes you feel better to repeat it SP be my guest.
So if you didn't want austerity (which wasn't austerity as nothing was actually cut just the rate of increase in spending was slowed) how can you complain about the current debt to gdp. Simple fact is when labour left power we were borrowing 100 odd bn a year. The only way to stop debt growing was to cut spending immediately by 100 bn a year. Austerity as its termed was just slowing the rate of borrowing as tax receipts increased. Hell I have no truck with the tories but....
You cannot both complain about austerity and the level of debt to GDP without being totally two faced
You always ignore the third point of the spending - borrowing - taxation triangle.
There was and is a HUGE amount of wealth out there in the country, most of it doing nothing more productive than pumping up property prices or investing offshore. The wealth could and should have been tapped to reduce borrowing while maintaining public services.
But of course, that would have hit the super-rich, media owning, Tory donors.
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
Audrey Fforbes Hamilton is still well off, just not as rich as Peter de Vere who she had to sell her late husband's estate to. Classic old money v new money
No she wasn't. She had bouncing cheques and had to sell her furniture.
What she did have was a determination not to *appear* poor.
She lived in the Old Lodge with her butler, hardly a council estate
I'm old enough to remember when Labour pledged to borrow many billions more because interest rates were at historic lows, so it wouldn't really cost anything
Ah now it makes sense why Truss and Kwarteng were so keen to drive them up, an effective gotcha line vs Labour is priceless.
I know the lads like a holiday snap: belly full of Scotch lamb, local amber ale & Nerol d’Avolo, and before the midgie season. Not one of the famous lochs but no prizes for a correct guess.
Years ago I learned about a firm in California which would find an "endangered" species for you -- if you wanted to block development in your area. (I admired their ingenuity, but not their morals.)
Don't know if they are still in operation, though I hope not.
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
Audrey Fforbes Hamilton is still well off, just not as rich as Peter de Vere who she had to sell her late husband's estate to. Classic old money v new money
No she wasn't. She had bouncing cheques and had to sell her furniture.
What she did have was a determination not to *appear* poor.
She lived in the Old Lodge with her butler, hardly a council estate
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
It’s not a party political issue. Well, apart from each party will oppose different bits of any change.
I was watching a video in the company of a couple of councillors (different parties), a little while ago. The subject was a lady from the commerce commission from the Port of Brownsville, in Texas. She was describing the process by which SpaceX built their facility in the area.
Both councillors, nominally enemies, were united in condemnation. She had betrayed the local people, in their view, by not blocking such a development. To them, a vital part of local government is stopping inconvenience to even a few percent of the locals.
I was (by mistake) watching a youtube video with Elon Musk a while back. He was asked why he built his latest battery factory in Texas and said he'd managed to build it and make it start rolling product out the door in 18 months - less time it would have taken him to get a planning permit in California which would have just given the green light for NIMBY's to start legal action about it.
Not the whole story, obviously. But it rang a bell.
Well, that is the exact policy that a number of local governments in Texas have adopted, encouraged by the state government in Houston.
The system of planning in California is similarly supported by a coalition of interest groups who see the ability to build a factory in 18 months as wrong.
So, in the part of the US that specifically says it will make it really easy to build factories, it’s easy to build factories. And in the part of the US that says that a careful and lengthy process is required, then the process is lengthy.
I know the lads like a holiday snap: belly full of Scotch lamb, local amber ale & Nerol d’Avolo, and before the midgie season. Not one of the famous lochs but no prizes for a correct guess.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
Borrowing was out of control before Truss.
UK Debt was 69% GDP when the Tories took over in 2010; it's 99% now. 13 years of restoring 'full balance and rectitude to the public finances' LOL.
And I suspect you were one of those who was complaining that the Tories were trying to reduce the inherited deficit too fast… not to mention arguing their support plans for coronavirus were too mean…
I was certainly complaining that squeezing growth through austerity was the wrong approach, and we can all see now how right I was.
Of course you were. Impossible to prove, but if it makes you feel better to repeat it SP be my guest.
So if you didn't want austerity (which wasn't austerity as nothing was actually cut just the rate of increase in spending was slowed) how can you complain about the current debt to gdp. Simple fact is when labour left power we were borrowing 100 odd bn a year. The only way to stop debt growing was to cut spending immediately by 100 bn a year. Austerity as its termed was just slowing the rate of borrowing as tax receipts increased. Hell I have no truck with the tories but....
You cannot both complain about austerity and the level of debt to GDP without being totally two faced
You always ignore the third point of the spending - borrowing - taxation triangle.
There was and is a HUGE amount of wealth out there in the country, most of it doing nothing more productive than pumping up property prices or investing offshore. The wealth could and should have been tapped to reduce borrowing while maintaining public services.
But of course, that would have hit the super-rich, media owning, Tory donors.
And you ignore the taxation point as well, we are paying higher taxes than anytime in the last 40 odd years.....where is this tax coming from? The majority you hit are going to be those that have to pay 100 a month more and tax are going to be those for whom that 100 pounds means going from stretching the pay just about till the end of the month to going without meals at the end of the month. It is always easy to shout "tax the rich" but there really aren't enough of them to make up the shortfall we were borrowing.
And dont even shout a wealth tax on property because that would mean either
a) You have to allow the income poor to defer it till they sell up or die in which case you won't get extra tax for a long time
or
b) kick little old ladies out of their home because it was bought 50 years ago and has appreciated in value but they are still subsisting purely on a state pension.
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
Audrey Fforbes Hamilton is still well off, just not as rich as Peter de Vere who she had to sell her late husband's estate to. Classic old money v new money
No she wasn't. She had bouncing cheques and had to sell her furniture.
What she did have was a determination not to *appear* poor.
She lived in the Old Lodge with her butler, hardly a council estate
Comments
Which has the consequences we are currently seeing.
The record low unemployment rates were achieved under the Cameron administration due to welfare reforms and a continuously growing economy; it's the reason we didn't have a spread of mass unemployment, house price collapse and poverty post 2008 and avoided some of the more serious travails in the eurozone.
The record unemployment rates kicked in from the 90s onwards, both Labour and the Tories have left Thatcher’s labour law legacy largely unchanged.
That doesn't explain America's comparative success - which was your original point, I think - certainly wasn't what @Luckyguy1983 thought he was endorsing when he responded positively to your post, and isn't what I think is true anyway.
I've said on here before I want modest state spending, and less on dealing with the legacies of yesterday (pensions and NHS) and more on shaping the future (infrastructure, science, education, foreign affairs and defence).
Investing in more efficient infrastructure, new technology, and better higher paid jobs will lead to higher growth and productivity - whilst keeping us and our way of life secure at the same time.
The current policy is to continue to starve the country into a kind of grinding stagnation.
Coz it's caught some here hook, line and sinker
The super -rich of our government really cannot see why public sector workers don't like real terms pay cuts to finance their tax cuts.
The obvious misunderstanding of the workers is not to realise that they need to be paid less to spur them to work, while City speculators and rent seekers need to be paid more in order to incentivise.
I.e., including any money remitted from the BoE to the Treasury.
Or are you just going to pick on a single datapoint based around the BoE rebalancing its gilt holding?
Sensible governments like Germany's have therefore made arrangements to secure their economy a priority, whilst pretend Governments like ours have done zero to make energy more affordable, but instead created a tax/subsidy loop that levies taxes on energy making it so expensive that a subsidy is then needed for companies and individuals to pay it. They have done nothing on supply, conversely they have deliberately (unless they're just plain thick) undermined North Sea Oil.
Press x
End up with an x at the beginning of your post if you forget to delete it
Britain isn't about to become a scientific superpower, a world leader in green industries, or any of the other high falutin' nonsense that Johnson, or Sunak, or anyone on the Labour side for that matter, keeps spouting from time to time. Just as British Telecom came to be described as a big pension scheme with a small phone company attached, so Britain itself is now one vast Bayview Retirement Village with an increasingly tawdry and tatty little country attached to it - and the sole purpose of the country is to keep the retirees fed and watered. And there's really no point in pretending that the Tories care about anything else, even though I'm increasingly convinced that Labour would be no better.
But if you're on the vanilla forums itself, there is in the top left hand a button called 'drafts' if it's done this. Click on that, delete the draft using the cross in the top right hand corner of it.
ie the 'markets' told Gideon (first time I've ever called him that! But you know who I mean) that he had to reduce borrowing
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2022-07-15-oxford-vaccine-saved-most-lives-its-first-year-rollout
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-glitch-put-voting-intentions-data-of-millions-at-risk
"Labour glitch put voting intentions data of millions at risk
Exclusive: experts say sensitive information could potentially have been harvested and used for targeted election interference"
Starmer is uninspiring, and may well not solve the UK's problems. (Though in terms of the old joke about how many psychatrists does it take to change a lightbulb- one, but the lightbulb must want to change- I'm not sure the UK is really ready to change for the better yet.) But he's clearly not an idiot, clearly in the range of plausible ways of running the country, and shouldn't be rejected out of hand. And with a voter coalition where working age people outumber the retired, he has some space to slay some of the sacred cows cluttering up the place.
But the really important thing is this. The current government has stuffed up in several important ways since 2019. If they don't merit being chased out like rascals, who does?
When the current Prime Minister, as Chancellor, was borrowing vast sums, those of us having the audacity to question this reckless spending were told by supporters of the then Prime Minister not to worry - it was borrowing, borrowing is fine, borrowing is nothing to worry about.
The truth is borrowing is fine if it’s done by a Conservative Chancellor, debt and deficit rises are fine if they happen under a Conservative Government.
Labour, in Government, by contrast, can’t tax, borrow or spend and if they do it is labelled irresponsible.
It’s a curious double standard. The biggest example of this is when Labour cut taxes - Labour tax cuts are always wrong, Conservative tax cuts are always right.
Nailing it down - the Conservatives have led the Government for the past 13 years. Too much of that had been wasted by their fatuous self indulgence wasting time on needless referenda and changing leader every five minutes.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
Even if that were true (which it wasn't) it somehow implied that Labour busts were perfectly acceptable compared to Tory ones.
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
They were massive *importers* of energy. And then they discovered shale. And it was cheaper to use that source than export and buy other!hydrocarbons.
But they were already an established economic force before they discovered this new engine (sorry) of growth
I was watching a video in the company of a couple of councillors (different parties), a little while ago. The subject was a lady from the commerce commission from the Port of Brownsville, in Texas. She was describing the process by which SpaceX built their facility in the area.
Both councillors, nominally enemies, were united in condemnation. She had betrayed the local people, in their view, by not blocking such a development. To them, a vital part of local government is stopping inconvenience to even a few percent of the locals.
Catalent, the USA based pharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing business, which bought the UK’s Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre (VMIC) in April, promising to invest up to $160 million (£120 million) to complete the building of the facility and equip it with state-of-the-art capabilities has rowed back on its promises, according to a report in today’s Times.
Calatent has seen it share price plunge recently and has paused work to complete the facility, based at Harwell Campus in Oxfordshire.
https://www.businessinnovationmag.co.uk/progress-at-harwells-vaccine-manufacturing-and-innovation-centre-slows-after-purchaser-profit-warning/
Even when some sort of progress is made in this country, our Government always finds a way to fuck it up. The Government and its supporters have no interest in economic development. Absolutely none. Their sole objective is to enrich themselves by ensuring that whatever pool of wealth remains is redistributed upwards into a smaller number of hands, at a faster rate than that at which it shrinks.
So, for example, loads of people would vote for Farage in order to reform the EU, (and ultimately Brexited when the EU was obviously not willing to get the message); but would never put him in the House of Commons.
A lot of older people vote Tory because they have looked at socialism and decided it doesn't work. many of them are in the process of deciding Toryism doesn't work either.
(Not that Corbyn would have invested any of it sensibly).
I can find you a pair of semis in Maida Vale if needed.
450k sounds about right for a decent but small 2 bed bungalow in Surbiton.
This is the graph of average doctor's pay (so not just junior doctors, but still) covering the same period, from the BMJ
It DOUBLES over that 97-06 period
The laws of supply and demand suggest that what would be ridiculous if if the price is so high there are no buyers, or so low there are 10,000 eager purchasers.
This is the Tory base, and the adherence of 90%+ of them to that party will be rooted in the fact that right-leaning Government pays dividends. They've done fantastically out of the last 13 years, and will keep voting accordingly.
The Government doesn't particularly care about the poorer third of pensioners who aren't well off and will therefore tend towards Labour, although doubtless a combination of the triple lock and socially conservative rhetoric about issues like immigration, prisons and defence will lure some of them onside anyway, votes that ministers will happily accept.
Their 35% demand is ignorant and insolent
Large numbers will say 'definitely not' imho.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/126358715#/?channel=RES_BUY
(and yes, I am jealous and would like to own it, and have enough money for the upkeep, servants, cleaners, gardeners etc)
Not the whole story, obviously. But it rang a bell.
Now, many could argue that they're in the same or similar boat but MPs for example have seen their pay go up by 31% since 2010.
Doctors have a job for as long as they want
3 Beds and a bit more than 450k mind.
What she did have was a determination not to *appear* poor.
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9
Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2
Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9
David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0
David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3
Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2
Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0
Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9
Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8
Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5
Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5
Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0
Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
You cannot both complain about austerity and the level of debt to GDP without being totally two faced
Today I had one of the most harrowing experiences of my life. Regrettably it didn’t seem everyone there found it quite so poignant.
Retention of skilled medical and nursing staff is not entirely a pay related issue, but that is a large part of it.
The Junior doctors dispute is the first real Generation Z strike. A group of people who did everything that they should at school, deferred
gratification etc, but realise that they will never get to what the Boomers, or Gen X have. Their pay cannot get them a decent flat. Doctors are unusually intelligent, good at networking, and a bit entitled, so have a solidarity unknown to other Gen Z, but this strike is a harbinger of the future.
Not sure the Yucca is helping either.
There was and is a HUGE amount of wealth out there in the country, most of it doing nothing more productive than pumping up property prices or investing offshore. The wealth could and should have been tapped to reduce borrowing while maintaining public services.
But of course, that would have hit the super-rich, media owning, Tory donors.
Not many camper vans..
Don't know if they are still in operation, though I hope not.
The system of planning in California is similarly supported by a coalition of interest groups who see the ability to build a factory in 18 months as wrong.
So, in the part of the US that specifically says it will make it really easy to build factories, it’s easy to build factories. And in the part of the US that says that a careful and lengthy process is required, then the process is lengthy.
And dont even shout a wealth tax on property because that would mean either
a) You have to allow the income poor to defer it till they sell up or die in which case you won't get extra tax for a long time
or
b) kick little old ladies out of their home because it was bought 50 years ago and has appreciated in value but they are still subsisting purely on a state pension.
You think option b) is going to get any votes?
That obviously works well