Over the past month 3 local by elections, Swansea, Scarborough and Camden, all showing a very significant fall in the Labour percentage vote, each seat has of course individual issues but the pattern has been the same, drops of 18%, and two each of 20% plus. These accompany the May 4th results when Labour did not do as well as many would have thought. Maybe there is a straw in the wind.
Labour never seems to do as well in local elections, as the Conservatives do, in opposition. The Conservatives almost always outperformed their poll rating, in local elections, between 1997-2010. Labour have always underperformed theirs after 2010.
Two polls were conducted in late April for the English local elections in May 2023, by Survation and Omnisis. When the same sample was asked on their voting intentions in a general election, the Labour lead over the Conservatives increased by around 9% compared to the net Labour lead in responses for the local elections. What is instructive about that polling is that it was the same sample being asked, so you are comparing like-for-like.
Even in 1995, which was Labour's best ever year in local elections, they "only" got 47%, compared to most polls giving them over 50%.
Part of it is down to Lib Dems and Greens outperforming their poll ratings, in local elections, but it's not the whole story. Survation also found Lib Dem local voters splitting 23%/9% in favour of Labour over the Conservatives, at the GE, and Greens splitting 14/11%, so one can't just add them to the Labour total.
I do think there is an element among Labour voters who just are not interested in local elections.
Turnout is around half of that at General Elections. Except in NI, where turnout is always over 50%.
Do we know what turnout was at the English local elections? I don't remember seeing a figure this year. Normally BBC/Sky do give it.
Fair point. A few of the top violent scenes from the book:
- Family murder with Cane and Abel - Killing of the firstborn at Passover - Bakhmut style obliteration at Sodom and Gomorra - Sarajevo style antics in Jericho - Just-Stop-Oil protest against the moneychangers in the temple - Execution of an innocent man on a cross - Terminator-2 / Stranger things vibes in the book of revelation
You've missed a Lot of incest.
God was a bit hard core. But after the mid life crisis - had a kid, died in bad circumstances - he does seem to have mellowed. A lot,
Fair point. A few of the top violent scenes from the book:
- Family murder with Cane and Abel - Killing of the firstborn at Passover - Bakhmut style obliteration at Sodom and Gomorra - Sarajevo style antics in Jericho - Just-Stop-Oil protest against the moneychangers in the temple - Execution of an innocent man on a cross - Terminator-2 / Stranger things vibes in the book of revelation
You've missed a Lot of incest.
And King David sending someone off to die in the front line so he could shag his wife. Oh, and a mass drowning of the entire known world.
This could be really embarrassing. Should be at least 2-0 already. United are being absolutely stuffed by what you have to say is the greatest side ever to have been assembled in this country.
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
This could be really embarrassing. Should be at least 2-0 already. United are being absolutely stuffed by what you have to say is the greatest side ever to have been assembled in this country.
Their performance against Real Madrid in the home game was probably the best club performance I have ever seen. Frightening.
I have written to the Shadow Chancellor, @RachelReevesMP setting out my concerns with Labour's economic plans which would increase taxes and borrowing, and fail to grip the inflation challenge.
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
Isn’t it generally true that we’ve known the outcome of every general election since…well since I’ve been following them.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
I have written to the Shadow Chancellor, @RachelReevesMP setting out my concerns with Labour's economic plans which would increase taxes and borrowing, and fail to grip the inflation challenge.
Liz. Truss.
Isn’t it more normal for people to ask government ministers important questions?
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
Isn’t it generally true that we’ve known the outcome of every general election since…well since I’ve been following them.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
British productivity has flatlined for 15 years. Longer really, since some of the previous growth was undoubtedly a financial bubble.
Currently, the country basically refuses to develop housing or infrastructure, and heavily penalises ambition. Energy prices are a massive tariff on British business, and have tripled since 2004. And so on.
You can see in this article both a thoroughgoing critique of the last x years of management, but also the likely seeds of criticism against the next Labour government.
I have written to the Shadow Chancellor, @RachelReevesMP setting out my concerns with Labour's economic plans which would increase taxes and borrowing, and fail to grip the inflation challenge.
Liz. Truss.
"Grip" seems to be the Treasury's favourite new buzzword. I hate it.
I have written to the Shadow Chancellor, @RachelReevesMP setting out my concerns with Labour's economic plans which would increase taxes and borrowing, and fail to grip the inflation challenge.
Liz. Truss.
"Grip" seems to be the Treasury's favourite new buzzword. I hate it.
Grip, as in lack of grip. Which the Government with an 80 seat majority seems to have forgotten it has.
This really is embarrassing, this is the most powerful Government on paper since 2005 and yet it acts like it is going to fall any day now.
People will ask, what was the point in that majority?
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
Isn’t it generally true that we’ve known the outcome of every general election since…well since I’ve been following them.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
No. I had 1992 lab, 2010 con, 2015 nom, 2017 con.
I’ve picked them all, except 1992 when I was too young.
I’m not claiming perfection, I got Brexit wrong, and have been surprised by the success of the Lib Dems in recent by-elections.
The mood is clearly for change, and “Keir will do”.
I have written to the Shadow Chancellor, @RachelReevesMP setting out my concerns with Labour's economic plans which would increase taxes and borrowing, and fail to grip the inflation challenge.
Liz. Truss.
"Grip" seems to be the Treasury's favourite new buzzword. I hate it.
Grip, as in lack of grip. Which the Government with an 80 seat majority seems to have forgotten it has.
This really is embarrassing, this is the most powerful Government on paper since 2005 and yet it acts like it is going to fall any day now.
People will ask, what was the point in that majority?
I have written to the Shadow Chancellor, @RachelReevesMP setting out my concerns with Labour's economic plans which would increase taxes and borrowing, and fail to grip the inflation challenge.
Liz. Truss.
"Grip" seems to be the Treasury's favourite new buzzword. I hate it.
Remind us what Truss’s proposal for inflation was? I seem to recall it involved expansionary, unfunded tax cuts.
I have written to the Shadow Chancellor, @RachelReevesMP setting out my concerns with Labour's economic plans which would increase taxes and borrowing, and fail to grip the inflation challenge.
Liz. Truss.
Isn’t it more normal for people to ask government ministers important questions?
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
Isn’t it generally true that we’ve known the outcome of every general election since…well since I’ve been following them.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
1992, 2015, and 2017, were genuine surprises, IMHO. Everything else from 1979 was predictable.
I have written to the Shadow Chancellor, @RachelReevesMP setting out my concerns with Labour's economic plans which would increase taxes and borrowing, and fail to grip the inflation challenge.
Liz. Truss.
"Grip" seems to be the Treasury's favourite new buzzword. I hate it.
Remind us what Truss’s proposal for inflation was? I seem to recall it involved expansionary, unfunded tax cuts.
She’s bonkers.
Truss has nothing to do with it. Horse was just using her name to discredit the Tories.
As it happens, I think she was right in broad terms that higher interest rates combined with looser fiscal policy would have been a good idea.
British productivity has flatlined for 15 years. Longer really, since some of the previous growth was undoubtedly a financial bubble.
Currently, the country basically refuses to develop housing or infrastructure, and heavily penalises ambition. Energy prices are a massive tariff on British business, and have tripled since 2004. And so on.
You can see in this article both a thoroughgoing critique of the last x years of management, but also the likely seeds of criticism against the next Labour government.
Is this not what I have been saying for months, voting for more of the same whether tory, labour or lib dem isnt going to help. I get told I am angry and yes I am because the tribals keep telling me vote for their party when all they offer is the same old shit we had the last 4 decades.
To be fair, British trains have an excellent safety record. Doubtless aided by the fact that, owing to endless rounds of both engineering works and strikes, they are increasingly incapable of carrying any passengers at all.
The handball rule is horribly over literally interpreted in the box when defenders are jumping for the ball
It’s tricky. In an ideal world hand ball would just be if a player deliberately handled the ball. But too often the hand or arm is hit by the ball and it’s deflected, potentially affecting the play. So now we have a ridiculous situation with the arm needing to be in a natural position, whatever that means.
Combine this with tv replays and you get penalties like this that no-one thinks should be a pen.
I was discussing with the husband earlier today how sticky inflation has proven to be - far more so than I anticipated when it was first taking off - and both how much longer it's going to drag on for, and how high the Bank may feel itself forced to raise interest rates to tame it.
I don't suppose that several more years of this, forcing sustained interest rates of 8% or even 10% and a resultant huge collapse of house prices, is at all possible? That would suit us down to the ground.
I was discussing with the husband earlier today how sticky inflation has proven to be - far more so than I anticipated when it was first taking off - and both how much longer it's going to drag on for, and how high the Bank may feel itself forced to raise interest rates to tame it.
I don't suppose that several more years of this, forcing sustained interest rates of 8% or even 10% and a resultant huge collapse of house prices, is at all possible? That would suit us down to the ground.
10% interest rate should result in a big collapse of something, for sure.
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
Isn’t it generally true that we’ve known the outcome of every general election since…well since I’ve been following them.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
1992, 2015, and 2017, were genuine surprises, IMHO. Everything else from 1979 was predictable.
The winner in 2015 and 2017 wasn't, just a majority was not expected in the former and was in the latter and it ended up the reverse.
Only in 1992 did the man who was expected to become PM, Kinnock, fail to win and Major was the shock re elected winner
The handball rule is horribly over literally interpreted in the box when defenders are jumping for the ball
It’s tricky. In an ideal world hand ball would just be if a player deliberately handled the ball. But too often the hand or arm is hit by the ball and it’s deflected, potentially affecting the play. So now we have a ridiculous situation with the arm needing to be in a natural position, whatever that means.
Combine this with tv replays and you get penalties like this that no-one thinks should be a pen.
Couldn't a non-intentional handball be just a free kick instead of a penalty?
To be fair, British trains have an excellent safety record. Doubtless aided by the fact that, owing to endless rounds of both engineering works and strikes, they are increasingly incapable of carrying any passengers at all.
Britain's newest train station, opened last Saturday. Pics by yours truly last Tuesday:
The handball rule is horribly over literally interpreted in the box when defenders are jumping for the ball
It’s tricky. In an ideal world hand ball would just be if a player deliberately handled the ball. But too often the hand or arm is hit by the ball and it’s deflected, potentially affecting the play. So now we have a ridiculous situation with the arm needing to be in a natural position, whatever that means.
Combine this with tv replays and you get penalties like this that no-one thinks should be a pen.
Couldn't a non-intentional handball be just a free kick instead of a penalty?
It's not complicated. You use your common sense, and appoint referees who have some.
To be fair, British trains have an excellent safety record. Doubtless aided by the fact that, owing to endless rounds of both engineering works and strikes, they are increasingly incapable of carrying any passengers at all.
Britain's newest train station, opened last Saturday. Pics by yours truly last Tuesday:
To be fair, British trains have an excellent safety record. Doubtless aided by the fact that, owing to endless rounds of both engineering works and strikes, they are increasingly incapable of carrying any passengers at all.
Britain's newest train station, opened last Saturday. Pics by yours truly last Tuesday:
To be fair, British trains have an excellent safety record. Doubtless aided by the fact that, owing to endless rounds of both engineering works and strikes, they are increasingly incapable of carrying any passengers at all.
Britain's newest train station, opened last Saturday. Pics by yours truly last Tuesday: ...
From Google maps it looks like the station is almost surrounded by water...
British productivity has flatlined for 15 years. Longer really, since some of the previous growth was undoubtedly a financial bubble.
Currently, the country basically refuses to develop housing or infrastructure, and heavily penalises ambition. Energy prices are a massive tariff on British business, and have tripled since 2004. And so on.
You can see in this article both a thoroughgoing critique of the last x years of management, but also the likely seeds of criticism against the next Labour government.
Is this not what I have been saying for months, voting for more of the same whether tory, labour or lib dem isnt going to help. I get told I am angry and yes I am because the tribals keep telling me vote for their party when all they offer is the same old shit we had the last 4 decades.
The Bowman article is well worth reading and makes some valuable points but it misses what are very often the root causes of local objections to proposed developments.
There's a perception "NIMBYs" are opposed to any development anywhere and especially on anything green - that's not usually the case. What local people object to are developments which will create an unsupportable burden on pre-existing local infrastructures and networks without the developer making any compensatory effort to strengthen those networks in response.
This is about "soft" infrastructure rather than whether the sewage, water, electricity, wifi and other utility distribution infrastructures can cope or be enhanced to cope with the additional load. This is about provision of GPs, schools, shops, transport, places to go, eat, sit etc.
If you bring an extra 1,000 or more people into an area where will they go to see a GP? Answer - unless a new health centre is built, they'll run to the existing GP surgeries and overwhelm them. What about schools for the children and places for the elderly? As I see the new blocks going up near Plaistow, West Ham and Bow Road stations, my first thought is how many of these new people will want to use the tube and how overcrowded will the network become?
Planning and development needs to be not just about building houses but also about building new communities and strengthening existing communities, ensuring the standard of life and living for all is improved by and through development and it's not a licence for developers to print money.
British productivity has flatlined for 15 years. Longer really, since some of the previous growth was undoubtedly a financial bubble.
Currently, the country basically refuses to develop housing or infrastructure, and heavily penalises ambition. Energy prices are a massive tariff on British business, and have tripled since 2004. And so on.
You can see in this article both a thoroughgoing critique of the last x years of management, but also the likely seeds of criticism against the next Labour government.
Is this not what I have been saying for months, voting for more of the same whether tory, labour or lib dem isnt going to help. I get told I am angry and yes I am because the tribals keep telling me vote for their party when all they offer is the same old shit we had the last 4 decades.
The Bowman article is well worth reading and makes some valuable points but it misses what are very often the root causes of local objections to proposed developments.
There's a perception "NIMBYs" are opposed to any development anywhere and especially on anything green - that's not usually the case. What local people object to are developments which will create an unsupportable burden on pre-existing local infrastructures and networks without the developer making any compensatory effort to strengthen those networks in response.
This is about "soft" infrastructure rather than whether the sewage, water, electricity, wifi and other utility distribution infrastructures can cope or be enhanced to cope with the additional load. This is about provision of GPs, schools, shops, transport, places to go, eat, sit etc.
If you bring an extra 1,000 or more people into an area where will they go to see a GP? Answer - unless a new health centre is built, they'll run to the existing GP surgeries and overwhelm them. What about schools for the children and places for the elderly? As I see the new blocks going up near Plaistow, West Ham and Bow Road stations, my first thought is how many of these new people will want to use the tube and how overcrowded will the network become?
Planning and development needs to be not just about building houses but also about building new communities and strengthening existing communities, ensuring the standard of life and living for all is improved by and through development and it's not a licence for developers to print money.
I agree with this. But I also agree with his general critique of “vetocracy” Britain.
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
Isn’t it generally true that we’ve known the outcome of every general election since…well since I’ve been following them.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
1992, 2015, and 2017, were genuine surprises, IMHO. Everything else from 1979 was predictable.
The winner in 2015 and 2017 wasn't, just a majority was not expected in the former and was in the latter and it ended up the reverse.
Only in 1992 did the man who was expected to become PM, Kinnock, fail to win and Major was the shock re elected winner
Going further back, I think 1970 was a surprise given the size of the Labour majority as was February 1974 as it was generally thought anti-union sentiment would return Heath and the Conservatives with a small majority.
I was discussing with the husband earlier today how sticky inflation has proven to be - far more so than I anticipated when it was first taking off - and both how much longer it's going to drag on for, and how high the Bank may feel itself forced to raise interest rates to tame it.
I don't suppose that several more years of this, forcing sustained interest rates of 8% or even 10% and a resultant huge collapse of house prices, is at all possible? That would suit us down to the ground.
10% interest rate should result in a big collapse of something, for sure.
Well, we're desperate. OK, perhaps not exactly desperate, but frustrated. Trapped in an expensive part of the world because we're chained to our jobs, and stuck in a one bedroom flat which is essentially too bloody small because we're getting older and don't want to roll the dice on an astronomical new mortgage. We also have quite a lot of cash - though still not enough given the exorbitant sums being demanded by sellers - and would like to trade up to something bigger. We don't expect a Georgian mansion. A two bedroom house would be altogether enough.
We, along with a substantial fraction of the general population including most people under 40, are longing for the housing market to crash. Consequently, it almost certainly won't happen. But we live in hope.
British productivity has flatlined for 15 years. Longer really, since some of the previous growth was undoubtedly a financial bubble.
Currently, the country basically refuses to develop housing or infrastructure, and heavily penalises ambition. Energy prices are a massive tariff on British business, and have tripled since 2004. And so on.
You can see in this article both a thoroughgoing critique of the last x years of management, but also the likely seeds of criticism against the next Labour government.
Is this not what I have been saying for months, voting for more of the same whether tory, labour or lib dem isnt going to help. I get told I am angry and yes I am because the tribals keep telling me vote for their party when all they offer is the same old shit we had the last 4 decades.
The Bowman article is well worth reading and makes some valuable points but it misses what are very often the root causes of local objections to proposed developments.
There's a perception "NIMBYs" are opposed to any development anywhere and especially on anything green - that's not usually the case. What local people object to are developments which will create an unsupportable burden on pre-existing local infrastructures and networks without the developer making any compensatory effort to strengthen those networks in response.
This is about "soft" infrastructure rather than whether the sewage, water, electricity, wifi and other utility distribution infrastructures can cope or be enhanced to cope with the additional load. This is about provision of GPs, schools, shops, transport, places to go, eat, sit etc.
If you bring an extra 1,000 or more people into an area where will they go to see a GP? Answer - unless a new health centre is built, they'll run to the existing GP surgeries and overwhelm them. What about schools for the children and places for the elderly? As I see the new blocks going up near Plaistow, West Ham and Bow Road stations, my first thought is how many of these new people will want to use the tube and how overcrowded will the network become?
Planning and development needs to be not just about building houses but also about building new communities and strengthening existing communities, ensuring the standard of life and living for all is improved by and through development and it's not a licence for developers to print money.
I agree with this. But I also agree with his general critique of “vetocracy” Britain.
The question of productivity is one we've discussed on here many times before and it's not an easy subject on which to have a public discussion as it means saying some things which will be contentious.
The availability of cheap labour from 2004-05 onwards has been a huge factor in reducing productivity. When it is so much easier to bring in another pair of hands (and they don't cost much), why would you invest in automaton, why would you review business processes, why would you consider methods?
Why would you invest in a machine which washes cars when you can recruit half a dozen blokes to clean cars the old fashioned way? The machine can break down - if one of the blokes doesn't turn up, you can soon find someone else to do the work. The number of men waiting outside the local Wickes of a morning looking for cash-in-hand casual labour doesn't suggest we're going to get a handle on this any time soon.
The other fallacy is investing in computer systems would reduce staff counts and make those who remain more productive - no - most computer systems are badly implemented and become constipated with information most of which is never used, accessed, analysed or available.
British productivity has flatlined for 15 years. Longer really, since some of the previous growth was undoubtedly a financial bubble.
Currently, the country basically refuses to develop housing or infrastructure, and heavily penalises ambition. Energy prices are a massive tariff on British business, and have tripled since 2004. And so on.
You can see in this article both a thoroughgoing critique of the last x years of management, but also the likely seeds of criticism against the next Labour government.
Is this not what I have been saying for months, voting for more of the same whether tory, labour or lib dem isnt going to help. I get told I am angry and yes I am because the tribals keep telling me vote for their party when all they offer is the same old shit we had the last 4 decades.
The Bowman article is well worth reading and makes some valuable points but it misses what are very often the root causes of local objections to proposed developments.
There's a perception "NIMBYs" are opposed to any development anywhere and especially on anything green - that's not usually the case. What local people object to are developments which will create an unsupportable burden on pre-existing local infrastructures and networks without the developer making any compensatory effort to strengthen those networks in response.
This is about "soft" infrastructure rather than whether the sewage, water, electricity, wifi and other utility distribution infrastructures can cope or be enhanced to cope with the additional load. This is about provision of GPs, schools, shops, transport, places to go, eat, sit etc.
If you bring an extra 1,000 or more people into an area where will they go to see a GP? Answer - unless a new health centre is built, they'll run to the existing GP surgeries and overwhelm them. What about schools for the children and places for the elderly? As I see the new blocks going up near Plaistow, West Ham and Bow Road stations, my first thought is how many of these new people will want to use the tube and how overcrowded will the network become?
Planning and development needs to be not just about building houses but also about building new communities and strengthening existing communities, ensuring the standard of life and living for all is improved by and through development and it's not a licence for developers to print money.
I agree with this. But I also agree with his general critique of “vetocracy” Britain.
The question of productivity is one we've discussed on here many times before and it's not an easy subject on which to have a public discussion as it means saying some things which will be contentious.
The availability of cheap labour from 2004-05 onwards has been a huge factor in reducing productivity. When it is so much easier to bring in another pair of hands (and they don't cost much), why would you invest in automaton, why would you review business processes, why would you consider methods?
Why would you invest in a machine which washes cars when you can recruit half a dozen blokes to clean cars the old fashioned way? The machine can break down - if one of the blokes doesn't turn up, you can soon find someone else to do the work. The number of men waiting outside the local Wickes of a morning looking for cash-in-hand casual labour doesn't suggest we're going to get a handle on this any time soon.
The other fallacy is investing in computer systems would reduce staff counts and make those who remain more productive - no - most computer systems are badly implemented and become constipated with information most of which is never used, accessed, analysed or available.
Immigration has improved productivity, as most studies confirm. It allowed firms to access skills more readily and allow greater specialisation. I certainly saw this in my own industry. There are other disincentives to capital investment, some noted in the article.
The car wash story much beloved on here is seen around the world, not just a British story born of immigration-driven stagnation. It seems like it has more to do with the desire for a bespoke service from consumers on one hand, and a easy-access service industry for immigrants (see also hospitality) on the other, than any productivity metaphor.
I don’t think the computing challenge holds much water, either, at least not as expressed. The counter factual is, what?, de-computerisation? Good luck with that.
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
Isn’t it generally true that we’ve known the outcome of every general election since…well since I’ve been following them.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
1992, 2015, and 2017, were genuine surprises, IMHO. Everything else from 1979 was predictable.
The winner in 2015 and 2017 wasn't, just a majority was not expected in the former and was in the latter and it ended up the reverse.
Only in 1992 did the man who was expected to become PM, Kinnock, fail to win and Major was the shock re elected winner
And '92 was about the polls being systematically wrong (shy Tory syndrome) in a way we now understand.
Who are the new AfD voters? Pro Russian greens flocking to the pro Russian AfD? Ex SDP pro Russians? It doesn't seem likely many of the new AfD voters are ideologically far-right like the pre-existing ones.
British productivity has flatlined for 15 years. Longer really, since some of the previous growth was undoubtedly a financial bubble.
Currently, the country basically refuses to develop housing or infrastructure, and heavily penalises ambition. Energy prices are a massive tariff on British business, and have tripled since 2004. And so on.
You can see in this article both a thoroughgoing critique of the last x years of management, but also the likely seeds of criticism against the next Labour government.
Is this not what I have been saying for months, voting for more of the same whether tory, labour or lib dem isnt going to help. I get told I am angry and yes I am because the tribals keep telling me vote for their party when all they offer is the same old shit we had the last 4 decades.
The Bowman article is well worth reading and makes some valuable points but it misses what are very often the root causes of local objections to proposed developments.
There's a perception "NIMBYs" are opposed to any development anywhere and especially on anything green - that's not usually the case. What local people object to are developments which will create an unsupportable burden on pre-existing local infrastructures and networks without the developer making any compensatory effort to strengthen those networks in response.
This is about "soft" infrastructure rather than whether the sewage, water, electricity, wifi and other utility distribution infrastructures can cope or be enhanced to cope with the additional load. This is about provision of GPs, schools, shops, transport, places to go, eat, sit etc.
If you bring an extra 1,000 or more people into an area where will they go to see a GP? Answer - unless a new health centre is built, they'll run to the existing GP surgeries and overwhelm them. What about schools for the children and places for the elderly? As I see the new blocks going up near Plaistow, West Ham and Bow Road stations, my first thought is how many of these new people will want to use the tube and how overcrowded will the network become?
Planning and development needs to be not just about building houses but also about building new communities and strengthening existing communities, ensuring the standard of life and living for all is improved by and through development and it's not a licence for developers to print money.
I agree with this. But I also agree with his general critique of “vetocracy” Britain.
The question of productivity is one we've discussed on here many times before and it's not an easy subject on which to have a public discussion as it means saying some things which will be contentious.
The availability of cheap labour from 2004-05 onwards has been a huge factor in reducing productivity. When it is so much easier to bring in another pair of hands (and they don't cost much), why would you invest in automaton, why would you review business processes, why would you consider methods?
Why would you invest in a machine which washes cars when you can recruit half a dozen blokes to clean cars the old fashioned way? The machine can break down - if one of the blokes doesn't turn up, you can soon find someone else to do the work. The number of men waiting outside the local Wickes of a morning looking for cash-in-hand casual labour doesn't suggest we're going to get a handle on this any time soon.
The other fallacy is investing in computer systems would reduce staff counts and make those who remain more productive - no - most computer systems are badly implemented and become constipated with information most of which is never used, accessed, analysed or available.
Immigration has improved productivity, as most studies confirm. It allowed firms to access skills more readily and allow greater specialisation.
The car wash story much beloved on here is seen around the world, but just a British story born of immigration-driven stagnation. It seems like it has more to do with the desire for a bespoke service from consumers on one hand, and a easy-access service industry for immigrants (see also hospitality) on the other, than any productivity metaphor.
I don’t think the computing challenge holds much water, either, at least not as expressed. The counter factual is, what?, de-computerisation? Good luck with that.
Correlation isn't causation, but the collapse in British productivity growth is correlated with the advent of mass immigration.
British productivity has flatlined for 15 years. Longer really, since some of the previous growth was undoubtedly a financial bubble.
Currently, the country basically refuses to develop housing or infrastructure, and heavily penalises ambition. Energy prices are a massive tariff on British business, and have tripled since 2004. And so on.
You can see in this article both a thoroughgoing critique of the last x years of management, but also the likely seeds of criticism against the next Labour government.
Is this not what I have been saying for months, voting for more of the same whether tory, labour or lib dem isnt going to help. I get told I am angry and yes I am because the tribals keep telling me vote for their party when all they offer is the same old shit we had the last 4 decades.
The Bowman article is well worth reading and makes some valuable points but it misses what are very often the root causes of local objections to proposed developments.
There's a perception "NIMBYs" are opposed to any development anywhere and especially on anything green - that's not usually the case. What local people object to are developments which will create an unsupportable burden on pre-existing local infrastructures and networks without the developer making any compensatory effort to strengthen those networks in response.
This is about "soft" infrastructure rather than whether the sewage, water, electricity, wifi and other utility distribution infrastructures can cope or be enhanced to cope with the additional load. This is about provision of GPs, schools, shops, transport, places to go, eat, sit etc.
If you bring an extra 1,000 or more people into an area where will they go to see a GP? Answer - unless a new health centre is built, they'll run to the existing GP surgeries and overwhelm them. What about schools for the children and places for the elderly? As I see the new blocks going up near Plaistow, West Ham and Bow Road stations, my first thought is how many of these new people will want to use the tube and how overcrowded will the network become?
Planning and development needs to be not just about building houses but also about building new communities and strengthening existing communities, ensuring the standard of life and living for all is improved by and through development and it's not a licence for developers to print money.
I agree with this. But I also agree with his general critique of “vetocracy” Britain.
The question of productivity is one we've discussed on here many times before and it's not an easy subject on which to have a public discussion as it means saying some things which will be contentious.
The availability of cheap labour from 2004-05 onwards has been a huge factor in reducing productivity. When it is so much easier to bring in another pair of hands (and they don't cost much), why would you invest in automaton, why would you review business processes, why would you consider methods?
Why would you invest in a machine which washes cars when you can recruit half a dozen blokes to clean cars the old fashioned way? The machine can break down - if one of the blokes doesn't turn up, you can soon find someone else to do the work. The number of men waiting outside the local Wickes of a morning looking for cash-in-hand casual labour doesn't suggest we're going to get a handle on this any time soon.
The other fallacy is investing in computer systems would reduce staff counts and make those who remain more productive - no - most computer systems are badly implemented and become constipated with information most of which is never used, accessed, analysed or available.
Immigration has improved productivity, as most studies confirm. It allowed firms to access skills more readily and allow greater specialisation.
The car wash story much beloved on here is seen around the world, but just a British story born of immigration-driven stagnation. It seems like it has more to do with the desire for a bespoke service from consumers on one hand, and a easy-access service industry for immigrants (see also hospitality) on the other, than any productivity metaphor.
I don’t think the computing challenge holds much water, either, at least not as expressed. The counter factual is, what?, de-computerisation? Good luck with that.
Correlation isn't causation, but the collapse in British productivity growth is correlated with the advent of mass immigration.
And yet the correlation (if it exists) is not seen in more successful economies.
Who are the new AfD voters? Pro Russian greens flocking to the pro Russian AfD? Ex SDP pro Russians? It doesn't seem likely many of the new AfD voters are ideologically far-right like the existing ones.
Based on the swing since 2021 mainly working class SPD voters and a handful of working class Union voters made up for on the Union side at least by middle class liberal FDP voters switching to the Union
British productivity has flatlined for 15 years. Longer really, since some of the previous growth was undoubtedly a financial bubble.
Currently, the country basically refuses to develop housing or infrastructure, and heavily penalises ambition. Energy prices are a massive tariff on British business, and have tripled since 2004. And so on.
You can see in this article both a thoroughgoing critique of the last x years of management, but also the likely seeds of criticism against the next Labour government.
Is this not what I have been saying for months, voting for more of the same whether tory, labour or lib dem isnt going to help. I get told I am angry and yes I am because the tribals keep telling me vote for their party when all they offer is the same old shit we had the last 4 decades.
The Bowman article is well worth reading and makes some valuable points but it misses what are very often the root causes of local objections to proposed developments.
There's a perception "NIMBYs" are opposed to any development anywhere and especially on anything green - that's not usually the case. What local people object to are developments which will create an unsupportable burden on pre-existing local infrastructures and networks without the developer making any compensatory effort to strengthen those networks in response.
This is about "soft" infrastructure rather than whether the sewage, water, electricity, wifi and other utility distribution infrastructures can cope or be enhanced to cope with the additional load. This is about provision of GPs, schools, shops, transport, places to go, eat, sit etc.
If you bring an extra 1,000 or more people into an area where will they go to see a GP? Answer - unless a new health centre is built, they'll run to the existing GP surgeries and overwhelm them. What about schools for the children and places for the elderly? As I see the new blocks going up near Plaistow, West Ham and Bow Road stations, my first thought is how many of these new people will want to use the tube and how overcrowded will the network become?
Planning and development needs to be not just about building houses but also about building new communities and strengthening existing communities, ensuring the standard of life and living for all is improved by and through development and it's not a licence for developers to print money.
I agree with this. But I also agree with his general critique of “vetocracy” Britain.
The question of productivity is one we've discussed on here many times before and it's not an easy subject on which to have a public discussion as it means saying some things which will be contentious.
The availability of cheap labour from 2004-05 onwards has been a huge factor in reducing productivity. When it is so much easier to bring in another pair of hands (and they don't cost much), why would you invest in automaton, why would you review business processes, why would you consider methods?
Why would you invest in a machine which washes cars when you can recruit half a dozen blokes to clean cars the old fashioned way? The machine can break down - if one of the blokes doesn't turn up, you can soon find someone else to do the work. The number of men waiting outside the local Wickes of a morning looking for cash-in-hand casual labour doesn't suggest we're going to get a handle on this any time soon.
The other fallacy is investing in computer systems would reduce staff counts and make those who remain more productive - no - most computer systems are badly implemented and become constipated with information most of which is never used, accessed, analysed or available.
Immigration has improved productivity, as most studies confirm. It allowed firms to access skills more readily and allow greater specialisation.
The car wash story much beloved on here is seen around the world, but just a British story born of immigration-driven stagnation. It seems like it has more to do with the desire for a bespoke service from consumers on one hand, and a easy-access service industry for immigrants (see also hospitality) on the other, than any productivity metaphor.
I don’t think the computing challenge holds much water, either, at least not as expressed. The counter factual is, what?, de-computerisation? Good luck with that.
Correlation isn't causation, but the collapse in British productivity growth is correlated with the advent of mass immigration.
And yet the correlation (if it exists) is not seen in more successful economies.
You have to show there is as much unskilled migration to those countries first. We got a lot of skilled migrants for example from eastern europe that came and didn't do skilled jobs they worked for example as barista's and hospitality. It is not enough to look at the skills of migrants you also need to look at the jobs they did.
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
Isn’t it generally true that we’ve known the outcome of every general election since…well since I’ve been following them.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
1992, 2015, and 2017, were genuine surprises, IMHO. Everything else from 1979 was predictable.
The winner in 2015 and 2017 wasn't, just a majority was not expected in the former and was in the latter and it ended up the reverse.
Only in 1992 did the man who was expected to become PM, Kinnock, fail to win and Major was the shock re elected winner
And '92 was about the polls being systematically wrong (shy Tory syndrome) in a way we now understand.
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
Isn’t it generally true that we’ve known the outcome of every general election since…well since I’ve been following them.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
1992, 2015, and 2017, were genuine surprises, IMHO. Everything else from 1979 was predictable.
The winner in 2015 and 2017 wasn't, just a majority was not expected in the former and was in the latter and it ended up the reverse.
Only in 1992 did the man who was expected to become PM, Kinnock, fail to win and Major was the shock re elected winner
Going further back, I think 1970 was a surprise given the size of the Labour majority as was February 1974 as it was generally thought anti-union sentiment would return Heath and the Conservatives with a small majority.
1970 was the bigger surprise, Heath won outright with a clear majority when Labour led most election polls. Feb 1974 less so as it was a hung parliament and the Tories won the popular vote
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
Isn’t it generally true that we’ve known the outcome of every general election since…well since I’ve been following them.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
1992, 2015, and 2017, were genuine surprises, IMHO. Everything else from 1979 was predictable.
The winner in 2015 and 2017 wasn't, just a majority was not expected in the former and was in the latter and it ended up the reverse.
Only in 1992 did the man who was expected to become PM, Kinnock, fail to win and Major was the shock re elected winner
And '92 was about the polls being systematically wrong (shy Tory syndrome) in a way we now understand.
Closing the gap from here will be spectacular.
Major also led Kinnock as preferred PM
Major also led Kinnock in the satisfaction/approval ratings, something Sunak doesn’t lead Starmer on.
We all know which is the better predictor of election outcomes.
Who are the new AfD voters? Pro Russian greens flocking to the pro Russian AfD? Ex SDP pro Russians? It doesn't seem likely many of the new AfD voters are ideologically far-right like the pre-existing ones.
AfD are much stronger with younger voters than older ones. So they may be benefiting from natural demographic change.
To be fair, British trains have an excellent safety record. Doubtless aided by the fact that, owing to endless rounds of both engineering works and strikes, they are increasingly incapable of carrying any passengers at all.
Britain's newest train station, opened last Saturday. Pics by yours truly last Tuesday:
Is that the line south to Bramley/Mortimer?
Yes it is, the station's just south of the junction of the main line towards Newbury and the West.
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
Isn’t it generally true that we’ve known the outcome of every general election since…well since I’ve been following them.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
1992, 2015, and 2017, were genuine surprises, IMHO. Everything else from 1979 was predictable.
The winner in 2015 and 2017 wasn't, just a majority was not expected in the former and was in the latter and it ended up the reverse.
Only in 1992 did the man who was expected to become PM, Kinnock, fail to win and Major was the shock re elected winner
And '92 was about the polls being systematically wrong (shy Tory syndrome) in a way we now understand.
Closing the gap from here will be spectacular.
While this is true, don’t rule out a new shy Tory effect. The government is not doing well, and there are loons out there like Heathener who berate bus passengers about it. Would not be surprised to see some people do things different in the privacy of the booth to what they said before.
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
Isn’t it generally true that we’ve known the outcome of every general election since…well since I’ve been following them.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
1992, 2015, and 2017, were genuine surprises, IMHO. Everything else from 1979 was predictable.
The winner in 2015 and 2017 wasn't, just a majority was not expected in the former and was in the latter and it ended up the reverse.
Only in 1992 did the man who was expected to become PM, Kinnock, fail to win and Major was the shock re elected winner
And '92 was about the polls being systematically wrong (shy Tory syndrome) in a way we now understand.
Closing the gap from here will be spectacular.
While this is true, don’t rule out a new shy Tory effect. The government is not doing well, and there are loons out there like Heathener who berate bus passengers about it. Would not be surprised to see some people do things different in the privacy of the booth to what they said before.
Giles Martin has remixed “Pet Sounds”, using the same techniques from his recent Beatles remixes.
Not on Spotify, annoyingly. But worth the free-and-cancellable-after-one-month Apple Music sub.
Revel in the new texture and detail.
Thanks for that, I look forward to listening to it. He’s done remarkable work with Abbey Road, Sgt Pepper and Revolver. I hope he does all the Beatles’ albums.
We assume the shy Tory exists - but could there be a new "shy Labour" voter with Keir Starmer?
That's possible. I know of two Tory voters (who both also voted for Brexit) who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time at the next election.
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Totally agree. It's a Hung Parliament (still more likely IMHO), or a big "unexpected" win.
One caveat.
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
Isn’t it generally true that we’ve known the outcome of every general election since…well since I’ve been following them.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
1992, 2015, and 2017, were genuine surprises, IMHO. Everything else from 1979 was predictable.
Quite.
1992 - Neil Kinnock PM. I had Pink Champagne on ice. 2015 - Coalition Govt so Cameron made a referendum promise he didn't expect to have to keep. 2017 - Strong & Stable - until Magic (sic) Grandpa struck.
Comments
Oh, and a mass drowning of the entire known world.
Meanwhile, in Cheshire.
"Idiots don't oppose planning", PB told me
Stupid "national" "anthem"
They are umming and erring about it, and I am applying pressure, but I think SKS either wins very big, or he doesn't.
Indian Railways need a massive upgrade. And there's lots of British expertise that could help.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-65798640
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vande_Bharat_Express
Whatever happens will seem obvious with hindsight. Either "the Conservatives were struggling to break 30 percent with a year to go- there was no way they were going to get close" or "Sunak was bound to calm things down and the mountain for Labour was just too high" or "Johnson was so determined to return that it was inevitable that he would work his old magic again".
The only question is- which of these is true, and can we work it out in advance?
I have written to the Shadow Chancellor, @RachelReevesMP setting out my concerns with Labour's economic plans which would increase taxes and borrowing, and fail to grip the inflation challenge.
Liz. Truss.
Keir will be next PM, we just don’t quite know whether or not he’ll get a majority.
https://www.sambowman.co/p/democracy-is-the-solution-to-vetocracy
British productivity has flatlined for 15 years.
Longer really, since some of the previous growth was undoubtedly a financial bubble.
Currently, the country basically refuses to develop housing or infrastructure, and heavily penalises ambition. Energy prices are a massive tariff on British business, and have tripled since 2004. And so on.
You can see in this article both a thoroughgoing critique of the last x years of management, but also the likely seeds of criticism against the next Labour government.
But where the eff is he supposed to put his hands when he jumps?
This really is embarrassing, this is the most powerful Government on paper since 2005 and yet it acts like it is going to fall any day now.
People will ask, what was the point in that majority?
I’m not claiming perfection, I got Brexit wrong, and have been surprised by the success of the Lib Dems in recent by-elections.
The mood is clearly for change, and “Keir will do”.
She’s bonkers.
It should be there to correct obvious errors. Few refs would have given that, because it was anything but obvious.
The FA needs to study how it is used in Rugby and Cricket. They won't though.
As it happens, I think she was right in broad terms that higher interest rates combined with looser fiscal policy would have been a good idea.
Combine this with tv replays and you get penalties like this that no-one thinks should be a pen.
I don't suppose that several more years of this, forcing sustained interest rates of 8% or even 10% and a resultant huge collapse of house prices, is at all possible? That would suit us down to the ground.
Only in 1992 did the man who was expected to become PM, Kinnock, fail to win and Major was the shock re elected winner
There's a perception "NIMBYs" are opposed to any development anywhere and especially on anything green - that's not usually the case. What local people object to are developments which will create an unsupportable burden on pre-existing local infrastructures and networks without the developer making any compensatory effort to strengthen those networks in response.
This is about "soft" infrastructure rather than whether the sewage, water, electricity, wifi and other utility distribution infrastructures can cope or be enhanced to cope with the additional load. This is about provision of GPs, schools, shops, transport, places to go, eat, sit etc.
If you bring an extra 1,000 or more people into an area where will they go to see a GP? Answer - unless a new health centre is built, they'll run to the existing GP surgeries and overwhelm them. What about schools for the children and places for the elderly? As I see the new blocks going up near Plaistow, West Ham and Bow Road stations, my first thought is how many of these new people will want to use the tube and how overcrowded will the network become?
Planning and development needs to be not just about building houses but also about building new communities and strengthening existing communities, ensuring the standard of life and living for all is improved by and through development and it's not a licence for developers to print money.
But I also agree with his general critique of “vetocracy” Britain.
We, along with a substantial fraction of the general population including most people under 40, are longing for the housing market to crash. Consequently, it almost certainly won't happen. But we live in hope.
Not on Spotify, annoyingly.
But worth the free-and-cancellable-after-one-month Apple Music sub.
Revel in the new texture and detail.
Less of a mismatch than I thought yesterday - same true of the Cup Final.
The availability of cheap labour from 2004-05 onwards has been a huge factor in reducing productivity. When it is so much easier to bring in another pair of hands (and they don't cost much), why would you invest in automaton, why would you review business processes, why would you consider methods?
Why would you invest in a machine which washes cars when you can recruit half a dozen blokes to clean cars the old fashioned way? The machine can break down - if one of the blokes doesn't turn up, you can soon find someone else to do the work. The number of men waiting outside the local Wickes of a morning looking for cash-in-hand casual labour doesn't suggest we're going to get a handle on this any time soon.
The other fallacy is investing in computer systems would reduce staff counts and make those who remain more productive - no - most computer systems are badly implemented and become constipated with information most of which is never used, accessed, analysed or available.
The car wash story much beloved on here is seen around the world, not just a British story born of immigration-driven stagnation. It seems like it has more to do with the desire for a bespoke service from consumers on one hand, and a easy-access service industry for immigrants (see also hospitality) on the other, than any productivity metaphor.
I don’t think the computing challenge holds much water, either, at least not as expressed. The counter factual is, what?, de-computerisation? Good luck with that.
Closing the gap from here will be spectacular.
Imaging winding up a young football fan.
Liam must have a tiny penis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_German_federal_election
Oh dear.
We all know which is the better predictor of election outcomes.
Hopefully Manchester United give him a life ban.
1992 - Neil Kinnock PM. I had Pink Champagne on ice.
2015 - Coalition Govt so Cameron made a referendum promise he didn't expect to have to keep.
2017 - Strong & Stable - until Magic (sic) Grandpa struck.
https://www.northumberlandline.uk/
But I bet you'll find a reason to whinge about that.