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 facbed
You are blunter than I would be, but I don’t disagree…
It has been remarked that I am blunter than most but then I don't believe in calling a spade a manually operated agricultural excavation tool
Yeah, but there are limits
I was at a funeral where the unworldly, dreamy vicar was asked to give a reading and decided he should thank all pallbearers and gravediggers etc etc for helping out. They all happened to be black and African. Some mischievous person told him that the latest nickname for funeral assistants of this practical nature was spades
So he gave a speech where he gestured to the generally African section of the congregation and said "First, I'd like to thank all the spades who helped us throughout"
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
This is populist tripe.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
It is not, but I can't be bothered arguing about this. So keep thinking whatever you like.
Well your counter argument is to moan about Ireland and Biden. You don’t make a serious contribution.
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
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 facbed
You are blunter than I would be, but I don’t disagree…
It has been remarked that I am blunter than most but then I don't believe in calling a spade a manually operated agricultural excavation tool
Yeah, but there are limits
I was at a funeral where the unworldly, dreamy vicar was asked to give a reading and decided he should thank all pallbearers and gravediggers etc etc for helping out. They all happened to be black and African. Some mischievous person told him that the latest nickname for funeral assistants of this practical nature was spades
So he gave a speech where he gestured to the generally African section of the congregation and said "First, I'd like to thank all the spades who helped us throughout"
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
This is populist tripe.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
Up to a point. Distribution also matters.
Of course it does. Britain also performs poorly on those measures, although not as badly as the U.S.
I feel like that is the case for a lot of things so works as a generic line (though they absolutely spank us on other things).
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 facbed
You are blunter than I would be, but I don’t disagree…
It has been remarked that I am blunter than most but then I don't believe in calling a spade a manually operated agricultural excavation tool
Yeah, but there are limits
I was at a funeral where the unworldly, dreamy vicar was asked to give a reading and decided he should thank all pallbearers and gravediggers etc etc for helping out. They all happened to be black and African. Some mischievous person told him that the latest nickname for funeral assistants of this practical nature was spades
So he gave a speech where he gestured to the generally African section of the congregation and said "First, I'd like to thank all the spades who helped us throughout"
Can you give assurances on who was not that mischievous person?
Well your counter argument is to moan about Ireland and Biden. You don’t make a serious contribution.
I'm not moaning, and I agree with Biden. I was illustrating why GDP doesn't tell you a great deal about how "wealthy" a country really is. Making a Musk or Bezos filthy rich should not be the goal for any government, making average people meaningfully better-off should be.
GDP per capita, whatever it’s faults, is the best indicator we have, and it’s clear that the UK is on course for around 20 years of stagnation.
Despite the biggest immigration-driven population increase of any major Western European country. Does that not make you question your priors at all?
At times. However, other high immigration countries (typically Anglo) have not seen the same level of stagnation.
Economic theory, and the data, suggest that immigration improved overall productivity, and indeed the wages of native born workers in large part, even if the returns flowed more heavily to top earners.
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
This is populist tripe.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
Up to a point. Distribution also matters.
Of course it does. Britain also performs poorly on those measures, although not as badly as the U.S.
And THEN SOME
US infant and maternal mortality is in freefall
"In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic led to the largest decline in U.S. life expectancy since the Second World War. Yet, prior to the pandemic, the U.S. was already experiencing a decrease in life expectancy, unlike any of its peer nations with comparable Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. Among many factors contributing to this long-term trend is infant and maternal mortality."
"US Has Highest Infant, Maternal Mortality Rates Despite the Most Health Care Spending"
Something really really weird is happening in America, perhaps never seen before. Apparent national success, in terms of GDP growth, is entirely detaching from the actual experience of ordinary Americans, which arguably is getting absolutely - not relatively - relentlessly worse (dying younger, less happy, more dead kids, fucked cities, gun violence, etc)
It's like the Roman Empire conquering new territories in Parthia and Germania even as the plague ravages the imperial capital. The GDP goes up, the empire expands, but the rot is in the core
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
This is populist tripe.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
Best we have? If you wanted to measure standard of living, why wouldn’t you use something like average earnings?
There are different averages. You probably want a median as it's not affected by the tails.
But any average is only a point estimate. Probably better is a range, like an interquartile range.
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
Well your counter argument is to moan about Ireland and Biden. You don’t make a serious contribution.
I'm not moaning, and I agree with Biden. I was illustrating why GDP doesn't tell you a great deal about how "wealthy" a country really is. Making a Musk or Bezos filthy rich should not be the goal for any government, making average people meaningfully better-off should be.
Sure. I agree. But the original contention was that Britain was doing “OK” because a GDP forecast showed us as a middle performer.
Whereas if you divide by expected per capita growth, you get a different story.
Whether you are looking at GDP or other metrics, it’s a pretty dire outlook.
Here are the IMF predictions in full. Middle of the pack, mediocre.
Those map almost entirely onto dependency ratios, with the US and Canada having the best, and Italy and Japan the worst. (And the order in Europe matches too.)
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
This is populist tripe.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
Up to a point. Distribution also matters.
Of course it does. Britain also performs poorly on those measures, although not as badly as the U.S.
And THEN SOME
US infant and maternal mortality is in freefall
"In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic led to the largest decline in U.S. life expectancy since the Second World War. Yet, prior to the pandemic, the U.S. was already experiencing a decrease in life expectancy, unlike any of its peer nations with comparable Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. Among many factors contributing to this long-term trend is infant and maternal mortality."
"US Has Highest Infant, Maternal Mortality Rates Despite the Most Health Care Spending"
Something really really weird is happening in America, perhaps never seen before. Apparent national success, in terms of GDP growth, is entirely detaching from the actual experience of ordinary Americans, which arguably is getting absolutely - not relatively - relentlessly worse (dying younger, less happy, more dead kids, fucked cities, gun violence, etc)
It's like the Roman Empire conquering new territories in Parthia and Germania even as the plague ravages the imperial capital. The GDP goes up, the empire expands, but the rot is in the core
There are two Americas. But they largely live out of sight of each other.
That collapsed a long time ago, as @dixiedean could I think explain to you even more forcefully than I can.
Part of the problem with the Tavistock - as soon as a child with multiple challenges mentioned that they felt uncomfortable in their bodies they were pawned off by CAMHS to the Tavistock - who couldn't cope with the volume and focussed on getting children onto a medical pathway rather than addressing the psychological issues, which proper treatment might have resolved.
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
This is populist tripe.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
Up to a point. Distribution also matters.
Of course it does. Britain also performs poorly on those measures, although not as badly as the U.S.
And THEN SOME
US infant and maternal mortality is in freefall
"In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic led to the largest decline in U.S. life expectancy since the Second World War. Yet, prior to the pandemic, the U.S. was already experiencing a decrease in life expectancy, unlike any of its peer nations with comparable Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. Among many factors contributing to this long-term trend is infant and maternal mortality."
"US Has Highest Infant, Maternal Mortality Rates Despite the Most Health Care Spending"
Something really really weird is happening in America, perhaps never seen before. Apparent national success, in terms of GDP growth, is entirely detaching from the actual experience of ordinary Americans, which arguably is getting absolutely - not relatively - relentlessly worse (dying younger, less happy, more dead kids, fucked cities, gun violence, etc)
It's like the Roman Empire conquering new territories in Parthia and Germania even as the plague ravages the imperial capital. The GDP goes up, the empire expands, but the rot is in the core
There are two Americas. But they largely live out of sight of each other.
Not in my experience of recent visits to the USA (which have been plentiful)
The two Americas increasingly overlap, in multiple forms
I'd say America is doomed the way Rome was doomed, but for one thing: the amazing advantage the US still has in the very highest tech, from the big tech companies to AI
There may come a time when the Anglosphere has to quasi-formally unite to make this work. Canada and Australia would bring enormous mineral wealth, the UK would bring enormous cultural/human wealth. And ideally the best of each society would dilute the worst in the other (in many different ways)
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
This is populist tripe.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
Up to a point. Distribution also matters.
Of course it does. Britain also performs poorly on those measures, although not as badly as the U.S.
And THEN SOME
US infant and maternal mortality is in freefall
"In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic led to the largest decline in U.S. life expectancy since the Second World War. Yet, prior to the pandemic, the U.S. was already experiencing a decrease in life expectancy, unlike any of its peer nations with comparable Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. Among many factors contributing to this long-term trend is infant and maternal mortality."
"US Has Highest Infant, Maternal Mortality Rates Despite the Most Health Care Spending"
Something really really weird is happening in America, perhaps never seen before. Apparent national success, in terms of GDP growth, is entirely detaching from the actual experience of ordinary Americans, which arguably is getting absolutely - not relatively - relentlessly worse (dying younger, less happy, more dead kids, fucked cities, gun violence, etc)
It's like the Roman Empire conquering new territories in Parthia and Germania even as the plague ravages the imperial capital. The GDP goes up, the empire expands, but the rot is in the core
There are two Americas. But they largely live out of sight of each other.
Not in my experience of recent visits to the USA (which have been plentiful)
The two Americas increasingly overlap, in multiple forms
I'd say America is doomed the way Rome was doomed, but for one thing: the amazing advantage the US still has in the very highest tech, from the big tech companies to AI
There may come a time when the Anglosphere has to quasi-formally unite to make this work. Canada and Australia would bring enormous mineral wealth, the UK would bring enormous cultural/human wealth. And ideally the best of each society would dilute the worst in the other (in many different ways)
It's difficult to see how AI is going to improve life for ordinary Americans.
Sunak has been chuntering on about maths again apparently.
Maths is great. And he himself made it to the top…via maths.
But the idea that we should insist on it until 18 is batshit.
Can't see why it upsets people so much. Governments piss about with curriculums sometimes, maths until 18 gets a bit fat meh from me.
Why don't they simply teach 'Maths for real life' as compulsory for years 12 and 13.
Budgeting, understanding credit and mortgages, banking, investment, pensions etc. Not everyone needs to know quadratic equations etc.
That would be extremely helpful. Even as a longstanding adult those things can be confusing and aggravating. I recall we got a 1 hour talk from someone before going off to university about budgeting (I remember it because of being flabbergasted at an example estimate of monthly spend on clothes).
I guess we've always just assumed parents will have 'the financial talk' with their kids.
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
You’ll upset the Berkshire irredentists who are currently planning terror bombings until Oxfordshire surrenders the Vale of White Horse.
That outrage was perpetrated by the Conservatives, of course. They compounded it by moving Slough into Berkshire. Berkshire then fell into the hands of the Liberals, and very soon afterwards, the Conservatives abolished it.
Conservative just have no idea what they are doing. They just mess about with everything. Do they do it for fun?
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
This is populist tripe.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
Up to a point. Distribution also matters.
Of course it does. Britain also performs poorly on those measures, although not as badly as the U.S.
And THEN SOME
US infant and maternal mortality is in freefall
"In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic led to the largest decline in U.S. life expectancy since the Second World War. Yet, prior to the pandemic, the U.S. was already experiencing a decrease in life expectancy, unlike any of its peer nations with comparable Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. Among many factors contributing to this long-term trend is infant and maternal mortality."
"US Has Highest Infant, Maternal Mortality Rates Despite the Most Health Care Spending"
Something really really weird is happening in America, perhaps never seen before. Apparent national success, in terms of GDP growth, is entirely detaching from the actual experience of ordinary Americans, which arguably is getting absolutely - not relatively - relentlessly worse (dying younger, less happy, more dead kids, fucked cities, gun violence, etc)
It's like the Roman Empire conquering new territories in Parthia and Germania even as the plague ravages the imperial capital. The GDP goes up, the empire expands, but the rot is in the core
There are two Americas. But they largely live out of sight of each other.
Not in my experience of recent visits to the USA (which have been plentiful)
The two Americas increasingly overlap, in multiple forms
I'd say America is doomed the way Rome was doomed, but for one thing: the amazing advantage the US still has in the very highest tech, from the big tech companies to AI
There may come a time when the Anglosphere has to quasi-formally unite to make this work. Canada and Australia would bring enormous mineral wealth, the UK would bring enormous cultural/human wealth. And ideally the best of each society would dilute the worst in the other (in many different ways)
It's difficult to see how AI is going to improve life for ordinary Americans.
Part of administrative Greater London since 1965 Part of the London Brough of Bromley since 1965 Part of the Ceremonial County of Greater London, ie. London has a Lord Lieutenant and a High Sheriff Sends members to the London Assembly since 2000. Served by the London Fire Brigade Served by the London Ambulance Service Served by London Buses
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
You’ll upset the Berkshire irredentists who are currently planning terror bombings until Oxfordshire surrenders the Vale of White Horse.
That outrage was perpetrated by the Conservatives, of course. They compounded it by moving Slough into Berkshire. Berkshire then fell into the hands of the Liberals, and very soon afterwards, the Conservatives abolished it.
Conservative just have no idea what they are doing. They just mess about with everything. Do they do it for fun?
My most reactionary view is for the sensible re-establishment of the historic county borders.
Speaking of America, as someone who likes playing about with maps I did like this 32 minute video on issues with US borders, and various potential options, from consolidation into fewer states or splitting into more states or basing on natural barriers. Would never happen, sure, but they are at their longest period without adding anyone new so they'd be due for a shake up! I like the natural boundary option myself (it admits to needing to get 'creative' as much as you try even going for natural boundaries alone won't always work). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnaRppzurpw
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
You’ll upset the Berkshire irredentists who are currently planning terror bombings until Oxfordshire surrenders the Vale of White Horse.
That outrage was perpetrated by the Conservatives, of course. They compounded it by moving Slough into Berkshire. Berkshire then fell into the hands of the Liberals, and very soon afterwards, the Conservatives abolished it.
Conservative just have no idea what they are doing. They just mess about with everything. Do they do it for fun?
My most reactionary view is for the sensible re-establishment of the historic county borders.
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
You’ll upset the Berkshire irredentists who are currently planning terror bombings until Oxfordshire surrenders the Vale of White Horse.
That outrage was perpetrated by the Conservatives, of course. They compounded it by moving Slough into Berkshire. Berkshire then fell into the hands of the Liberals, and very soon afterwards, the Conservatives abolished it.
Conservative just have no idea what they are doing. They just mess about with everything. Do they do it for fun?
My most reactionary view is for the sensible re-establishment of the historic county borders.
Including all the exclaves?
Pre 65 borders, in general. So, post Victorian clean ups.
I’d keep the metros, so for example Greater London (indeed I’d likely expand I) but I’d ensure that borough boundaries cleave to historic county lines.
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
You’ll upset the Berkshire irredentists who are currently planning terror bombings until Oxfordshire surrenders the Vale of White Horse.
That outrage was perpetrated by the Conservatives, of course. They compounded it by moving Slough into Berkshire. Berkshire then fell into the hands of the Liberals, and very soon afterwards, the Conservatives abolished it.
Conservative just have no idea what they are doing. They just mess about with everything. Do they do it for fun?
My most reactionary view is for the sensible re-establishment of the historic county borders.
Including all the exclaves?
Pre 65 borders, in general. So, post Victorian clean ups.
Ah see, but now we're already getting into exceptions and clarifications, and that will just open up another can of worms.
I can think of quite a few areas ripe for a Principal Area Boundary Review to sort out some awkward cross boundary stuff, though I don't think they are very common.
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
You’ll upset the Berkshire irredentists who are currently planning terror bombings until Oxfordshire surrenders the Vale of White Horse.
That outrage was perpetrated by the Conservatives, of course. They compounded it by moving Slough into Berkshire. Berkshire then fell into the hands of the Liberals, and very soon afterwards, the Conservatives abolished it.
Conservative just have no idea what they are doing. They just mess about with everything. Do they do it for fun?
My most reactionary view is for the sensible re-establishment of the historic county borders.
Including all the exclaves?
Pre 65 borders, in general. So, post Victorian clean ups.
Ah see, but now we're already getting into exceptions and clarifications, and that will just open up another can of worms.
I can think of quite a few areas ripe for a Principal Area Boundary Review to sort out some awkward cross boundary stuff, though I don't think they are very common.
For example I find it bizarre that Cumbria, in its recent re-org, didn’t at least take the opportunity to revert down the Westmorland / Cumberland / Barrow line.
Sunak has been chuntering on about maths again apparently.
Maths is great. And he himself made it to the top…via maths.
But the idea that we should insist on it until 18 is batshit.
Can't see why it upsets people so much. Governments piss about with curriculums sometimes, maths until 18 gets a bit fat meh from me.
Why don't they simply teach 'Maths for real life' as compulsory for years 12 and 13.
Budgeting, understanding credit and mortgages, banking, investment, pensions etc. Not everyone needs to know quadratic equations etc.
Excellent post.
You don’t really understand any of those concepts properly unless you can interpret graphs. And you can’t properly interpret graphs unless you understand quadratic equations (and ideally can stretch to basic calculus).
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
You’ll upset the Berkshire irredentists who are currently planning terror bombings until Oxfordshire surrenders the Vale of White Horse.
That outrage was perpetrated by the Conservatives, of course. They compounded it by moving Slough into Berkshire. Berkshire then fell into the hands of the Liberals, and very soon afterwards, the Conservatives abolished it.
Conservative just have no idea what they are doing. They just mess about with everything. Do they do it for fun?
My most reactionary view is for the sensible re-establishment of the historic county borders.
Including all the exclaves?
Pre 65 borders, in general. So, post Victorian clean ups.
Ah see, but now we're already getting into exceptions and clarifications, and that will just open up another can of worms.
I can think of quite a few areas ripe for a Principal Area Boundary Review to sort out some awkward cross boundary stuff, though I don't think they are very common.
Once common sense breaks out and we implement my plan to abolish all local Government, we’ll be able to use just the ceremonial counties.
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
You’ll upset the Berkshire irredentists who are currently planning terror bombings until Oxfordshire surrenders the Vale of White Horse.
That outrage was perpetrated by the Conservatives, of course. They compounded it by moving Slough into Berkshire. Berkshire then fell into the hands of the Liberals, and very soon afterwards, the Conservatives abolished it.
Conservative just have no idea what they are doing. They just mess about with everything. Do they do it for fun?
My most reactionary view is for the sensible re-establishment of the historic county borders.
Including all the exclaves?
Pre 65 borders, in general. So, post Victorian clean ups.
Ah see, but now we're already getting into exceptions and clarifications, and that will just open up another can of worms.
I can think of quite a few areas ripe for a Principal Area Boundary Review to sort out some awkward cross boundary stuff, though I don't think they are very common.
Once common sense breaks out and we implement my plan to abolish all local Government, we’ll be able to use just the ceremonial counties.
It effectively has been abolished, which is one modest contribution to Britain’s stagnation “conundrum”.
It turns out that, like democracy, strong and well-funded local government is the crappest system, except for all the others.
For example, it’s taken 13 years and counting for Manchester to get the right to set its own bus fares. It’s like something from a Dickens novel.
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
You’ll upset the Berkshire irredentists who are currently planning terror bombings until Oxfordshire surrenders the Vale of White Horse.
That outrage was perpetrated by the Conservatives, of course. They compounded it by moving Slough into Berkshire. Berkshire then fell into the hands of the Liberals, and very soon afterwards, the Conservatives abolished it.
Conservative just have no idea what they are doing. They just mess about with everything. Do they do it for fun?
My most reactionary view is for the sensible re-establishment of the historic county borders.
Including all the exclaves?
Pre 65 borders, in general. So, post Victorian clean ups.
Ah see, but now we're already getting into exceptions and clarifications, and that will just open up another can of worms.
I can think of quite a few areas ripe for a Principal Area Boundary Review to sort out some awkward cross boundary stuff, though I don't think they are very common.
Once common sense breaks out and we implement my plan to abolish all local Government, we’ll be able to use just the ceremonial counties.
It effectively has been abolished, which is one modest contribution to Britain’s stagnation “conundrum”.
It turns out that, like democracy, strong and well-funded local government is the crappest system, except for all the others.
For example, it’s taken 13 years and counting for Manchester to get the right to set its own bus fares. It’s like something from a Dickens novel.
Nonsense. Bus fairs should be the same everywhere. Utterly illogical for Manchester to do something different. Abolish it all and run it from the centre. Local Government exists purely to feed the egos of local politicians and fund the millions of non-jobs in local administration. Run it from the centre and give everyone the same (and the NHS too while we’re at it). Westminster/Whitehall gets the blame anyway.
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
You’ll upset the Berkshire irredentists who are currently planning terror bombings until Oxfordshire surrenders the Vale of White Horse.
That outrage was perpetrated by the Conservatives, of course. They compounded it by moving Slough into Berkshire. Berkshire then fell into the hands of the Liberals, and very soon afterwards, the Conservatives abolished it.
Conservative just have no idea what they are doing. They just mess about with everything. Do they do it for fun?
My most reactionary view is for the sensible re-establishment of the historic county borders.
Including all the exclaves?
Pre 65 borders, in general. So, post Victorian clean ups.
Ah see, but now we're already getting into exceptions and clarifications, and that will just open up another can of worms.
I can think of quite a few areas ripe for a Principal Area Boundary Review to sort out some awkward cross boundary stuff, though I don't think they are very common.
Once common sense breaks out and we implement my plan to abolish all local Government, we’ll be able to use just the ceremonial counties.
It effectively has been abolished, which is one modest contribution to Britain’s stagnation “conundrum”.
It turns out that, like democracy, strong and well-funded local government is the crappest system, except for all the others.
For example, it’s taken 13 years and counting for Manchester to get the right to set its own bus fares. It’s like something from a Dickens novel.
Nonsense. Bus fairs should be the same everywhere. Utterly illogical for Manchester to do something different. Abolish it all and run it from the centre. Local Government exists purely to feed the egos of local politicians and fund the millions of non-jobs in local administration. Run it from the centre and give everyone the same (and the NHS too while we’re at it). Westminster/Whitehall gets the blame anyway.
“Bus fares should be the same everywhere”. No doubt Chairman Mao thought the same thing.
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
You’ll upset the Berkshire irredentists who are currently planning terror bombings until Oxfordshire surrenders the Vale of White Horse.
That outrage was perpetrated by the Conservatives, of course. They compounded it by moving Slough into Berkshire. Berkshire then fell into the hands of the Liberals, and very soon afterwards, the Conservatives abolished it.
Conservative just have no idea what they are doing. They just mess about with everything. Do they do it for fun?
My most reactionary view is for the sensible re-establishment of the historic county borders.
Including all the exclaves?
Pre 65 borders, in general. So, post Victorian clean ups.
Ah see, but now we're already getting into exceptions and clarifications, and that will just open up another can of worms.
I can think of quite a few areas ripe for a Principal Area Boundary Review to sort out some awkward cross boundary stuff, though I don't think they are very common.
Once common sense breaks out and we implement my plan to abolish all local Government, we’ll be able to use just the ceremonial counties.
It effectively has been abolished, which is one modest contribution to Britain’s stagnation “conundrum”.
It turns out that, like democracy, strong and well-funded local government is the crappest system, except for all the others.
For example, it’s taken 13 years and counting for Manchester to get the right to set its own bus fares. It’s like something from a Dickens novel.
Nonsense. Bus fairs should be the same everywhere. Utterly illogical for Manchester to do something different. Abolish it all and run it from the centre. Local Government exists purely to feed the egos of local politicians and fund the millions of non-jobs in local administration. Run it from the centre and give everyone the same (and the NHS too while we’re at it). Westminster/Whitehall gets the blame anyway.
“Bus fares should be the same everywhere”. No doubt Chairman Mao thought the same thing.
What a silly example. Observing that a natural state monopoly (which is, in fact, regulated by the state) ought not to be priced based on where you happen to live is not exactly communism.
Of course, you didn’t just call me a communist, you suggested Mao style Marxism, which is just silly.
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
You’ll upset the Berkshire irredentists who are currently planning terror bombings until Oxfordshire surrenders the Vale of White Horse.
That outrage was perpetrated by the Conservatives, of course. They compounded it by moving Slough into Berkshire. Berkshire then fell into the hands of the Liberals, and very soon afterwards, the Conservatives abolished it.
Conservative just have no idea what they are doing. They just mess about with everything. Do they do it for fun?
My most reactionary view is for the sensible re-establishment of the historic county borders.
Including all the exclaves?
Pre 65 borders, in general. So, post Victorian clean ups.
Ah see, but now we're already getting into exceptions and clarifications, and that will just open up another can of worms.
I can think of quite a few areas ripe for a Principal Area Boundary Review to sort out some awkward cross boundary stuff, though I don't think they are very common.
Once common sense breaks out and we implement my plan to abolish all local Government, we’ll be able to use just the ceremonial counties.
It effectively has been abolished, which is one modest contribution to Britain’s stagnation “conundrum”.
It turns out that, like democracy, strong and well-funded local government is the crappest system, except for all the others.
For example, it’s taken 13 years and counting for Manchester to get the right to set its own bus fares. It’s like something from a Dickens novel.
Nonsense. Bus fairs should be the same everywhere. Utterly illogical for Manchester to do something different. Abolish it all and run it from the centre. Local Government exists purely to feed the egos of local politicians and fund the millions of non-jobs in local administration. Run it from the centre and give everyone the same (and the NHS too while we’re at it). Westminster/Whitehall gets the blame anyway.
“Bus fares should be the same everywhere”. No doubt Chairman Mao thought the same thing.
What a silly example. Observing that a natural state monopoly (which is, in fact, regulated by the state) ought not to be priced based on where you happen to live is not exactly communism.
Of course, you didn’t just call me a communist, you suggested Mao style Marxism, which is just silly.
The silly thing is your idea of how to run a country. Since when is a bus fare a “natural state monopoly”?
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 are blunter than I would be, but I don’t disagree…
It has been remarked that I am blunter than most but then I don't believe in calling a spade a manually operated agricultural excavation tool
I unfortunately have no choice but to be diplomatic. It becomes habit forming after a while.
Regarding SNP finances, they are going to have to find £600k from somewhere to replace the ring fenced donations that they have managed to spend on goodness knows what. This is in addition to funding their ongoing expenditure.
Challenging.
Yeah but it is just misallocated funds, is it really objectively that much of a scandal ?
It is quite bizarre that they can tear themselves apart and do so much damage to their cause over this.
It is stolen money so same as a bank robbery and this is only the tip of tehhe iceberg.
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.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Comments
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/86d24d4c-dc6e-11ed-a0a8-657f9e54fc6a?shareToken=ad1b2ce2b7b287d634d1e88eaea9b97c
But my SNP schadenfreude level just ticked up a couple of points.
A growing economy where the growth is disproportionately ending up in the pockets of the already well-off is a recipe for unhapiness at best.
Economic theory, and the data, suggest that immigration improved overall productivity, and indeed the wages of native born workers in large part, even if the returns flowed more heavily to top earners.
US infant and maternal mortality is in freefall
"In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic led to the largest decline in U.S. life expectancy since the Second World War. Yet, prior to the pandemic, the U.S. was already experiencing a decrease in life expectancy, unlike any of its peer nations with comparable Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. Among many factors contributing to this long-term trend is infant and maternal mortality."
"US Has Highest Infant, Maternal Mortality Rates Despite the Most Health Care Spending"
https://www.ajmc.com/view/us-has-highest-infant-maternal-mortality-rates-despite-the-most-health-care-spending
Something really really weird is happening in America, perhaps never seen before. Apparent national success, in terms of GDP growth, is entirely detaching from the actual experience of ordinary Americans, which arguably is getting absolutely - not relatively - relentlessly worse (dying younger, less happy, more dead kids, fucked cities, gun violence, etc)
It's like the Roman Empire conquering new territories in Parthia and Germania even as the plague ravages the imperial capital. The GDP goes up, the empire expands, but the rot is in the core
But any average is only a point estimate. Probably better is a range, like an interquartile range.
Whereas if you divide by expected per capita growth, you get a different story.
Whether you are looking at GDP or other metrics, it’s a pretty dire outlook.
And he himself made it to the top…via maths.
But the idea that we should insist on it until 18 is batshit.
But they largely live out of sight of each other.
The two Americas increasingly overlap, in multiple forms
I'd say America is doomed the way Rome was doomed, but for one thing: the amazing advantage the US still has in the very highest tech, from the big tech companies to AI
There may come a time when the Anglosphere has to quasi-formally unite to make this work. Canada and Australia would bring enormous mineral wealth, the UK would bring enormous cultural/human wealth. And ideally the best of each society would dilute the worst in the other (in many different ways)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BR_postcode_area
Budgeting, understanding credit and mortgages, banking, investment, pensions etc. Not everyone needs to know quadratic equations etc.
I guess we've always just assumed parents will have 'the financial talk' with their kids.
Conservative just have no idea what they are doing. They just mess about with everything. Do they do it for fun?
Part of administrative Greater London since 1965
Part of the London Brough of Bromley since 1965
Part of the Ceremonial County of Greater London, ie. London has a Lord Lieutenant and a High Sheriff
Sends members to the London Assembly since 2000.
Served by the London Fire Brigade
Served by the London Ambulance Service
Served by London Buses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnaRppzurpw
So, post Victorian clean ups.
I’d keep the metros, so for example Greater London (indeed I’d likely expand I) but I’d ensure that borough boundaries cleave to historic county lines.
I can think of quite a few areas ripe for a Principal Area Boundary Review to sort out some awkward cross boundary stuff, though I don't think they are very common.
It turns out that, like democracy, strong and well-funded local government is the crappest system, except for all the others.
For example, it’s taken 13 years and counting for Manchester to get the right to set its own bus fares. It’s like something from a Dickens novel.
No doubt Chairman Mao thought the same thing.
Of course, you didn’t just call me a communist, you suggested Mao style Marxism, which is just silly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0cImLnhBPo