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.
Why would they do that?
Because people are odd. They may say they want more money spent and a labour givernment, but get to the booth and think that they want to pay less tax.
Deserves to be banned from football grounds for life.
Alternatively, deserves to have the shit kicked out of him on the way out. The reason football restricted freedom of expression inside grounds, was because it regularly led to violence.
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute to his fund!
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.
This should be something where we can look at the evidence.
So: did capital investment (or gross capital formation as it's called in the national accounts) drop post 2004?
Is there a correlation between immigration from Eastern Europe and productivity growth?
How much are changes in headline productivity due to changes in the proportion of the country in work?
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.
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.
Can’t have an accident if the train never leaves the depot. Taps head
"The Startup Party: reflections on the last 20 years, what could replace the Tories, and why And building a Q&A on Brexit, what really happened in No10, covid etc DOMINIC CUMMINGS"
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in Feb 1974 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
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.
Can’t have an accident if the train never leaves the depot. Taps head
It's a shame that passenger levels are pretty much back to pre-Covid levels then. All those passengers and the trains that never leave the depots ...
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:
You're a bit late. All the important people were there days ago...
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.
Can’t have an accident if the train never leaves the depot. Taps head
It's a shame that passenger levels are pretty much back to pre-Covid levels then. All those passengers and the trains that never leave the depots ...
The French are delighted we’re helping to them build their new TGV lines.
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.
Doesn't being able to import the ready skilled mean you deprive the unskilled within the UK the chance of being 'skilled'? The locals loose potential jobs in education/training and the actual skilled occupation. A little like the gulf arabs importing all the skilled professions but without their trillion barrels of social security.
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in 1970 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
No, didn’t need to. You’re thinking of Feb 74. My Liberal Association was one of those which sent a message to Thorpe telling him to have nothing to do with it.
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:
You're a bit late. All the important people were there days ago...
But I bet you'll find a reason to whinge about that.
A very broad interpretation of "near"!
We will have White Rose here in West Yorkshire. Sort of new, but actually a replacement for Cottingley. Much to the delight of the commuters who bought the new houses next to Cottingley station.
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.
This should be something where we can look at the evidence.
So: did capital investment (or gross capital formation as it's called in the national accounts) drop post 2004?
Is there a correlation between immigration from Eastern Europe and productivity growth?
How much are changes in headline productivity due to changes in the proportion of the country in work?
Etc
Having spoken with people running companies who now bitterly complain about being forced to “waste” money on investing in labour saving machinery…. I know what I would put my money on.
Simple example - a relative bought an electric mini digger from JCB using the Sunak tax writeoffs for investment.
It does the work of half a dozen people and costs (including capital cost write down) less than 2.
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.
This should be something where we can look at the evidence.
So: did capital investment (or gross capital formation as it's called in the national accounts) drop post 2004?
Is there a correlation between immigration from Eastern Europe and productivity growth?
How much are changes in headline productivity due to changes in the proportion of the country in work?
Etc
Having spoken with people running companies who now bitterly complain about being forced to “waste” money on investing in labour saving machinery…. I know what I would put my money on.
Simple example - a relative bought an electric mini digger from JCB using the Sunak tax writeoffs for investment.
It does the work of half a dozen people and costs (including capital cost write down) less than 2.
It's also worth remembering that our flexible labour market discourages capital investment.
If I buy a machine, I've committed to that cost (depreciation) for a long time. If I hire someone, I can easily let them go.
By contrast, in a country without a flexible labour market investing in automation makes much more sense. If you can't get rid of the person, then it makes machinery that bit more attractive.
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in 1970 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
No, didn’t need to. You’re thinking of Feb 74. My Liberal Association was one of those which sent a message to Thorpe telling him to have nothing to do with it.
Heath did of course win the popular vote in Feb 74 and a majority of seats in England so arguably would have had a mandate. Heath would have needed Ulster Unionist as well as Liberal support to stay UK PM however.
1974 was also pre SDP joining the LDs so the Liberals were more classically liberal than they became, certainly until Clegg and the Coalition
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.
I was, of course, expressing my frustration and despondency with how desperately unreliable the trains are, rather than being entirely literal.
Anybody who has to rely on trains knows the following:
1. Train journeys always go wrong - whether the train is hot and overcrowded, very late, both of those things, or simply cancelled altogether 2. The train companies, whose thinking is still stuck fifty years in the past, keep digging up the tracks at the weekends, so that their pitiful services are often unavailable altogether when you want to use them (and no, substituting the train for a hot nasty bus that takes three, four or five times as long to get where you are going as the actual train would've done doesn't count as availability) 3. The train unions, whose thinking is also stuck fifty years in the past, believe that they can somehow secure their futures by holding customers to ransom and getting them to blame their misery on the Government - when, in fact, trains have now been like this for so long that every time the railway fails its passengers yet again, another chunk of them abandon it permanently for their cars
I'm frankly amazed that trains still have as many users left as they do, although granted a large fraction of the survivors will be the likes of yours truly who's not the most co-ordinated individual ever and is a bit afraid to learn to drive. Nonetheless, you have to wonder how long public support for the massive subsidies needed to keep the railways afloat will continue, given that they're the very definition of a self-centred, rotten monopoly that treats the people who use them like shit.
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.
Doesn't being able to import the ready skilled mean you deprive the unskilled within the UK the chance of being 'skilled'? The locals loose potential jobs in education/training and the actual skilled occupation. A little like the gulf arabs importing all the skilled professions but without their trillion barrels of social security.
No. The studies suggest that, in aggregate, British workers were elevated into more senior roles. Incoming migrants allowed British workers to “step up”.
But I bet you'll find a reason to whinge about that.
A very broad interpretation of "near"!
We will have White Rose here in West Yorkshire. Sort of new, but actually a replacement for Cottingley. Much to the delight of the commuters who bought the new houses next to Cottingley station.
Apologies - I thought you were further northeast than that. My point still stands though: there is lots if investment going into rail outside the southeast (for another biggie, look at the reopening of the Okehampton line).
Incidentally, it looks as though the new EWR line from Bedford to Cambridge hasn't stalled, and the latest route alterations have just been announced.
In typical joined-up thinking (not), this will be right beside the A428 dual carriageway they're just about to start building - though they are not doing any enabling works as part of the road...
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.
This should be something where we can look at the evidence.
So: did capital investment (or gross capital formation as it's called in the national accounts) drop post 2004?
Is there a correlation between immigration from Eastern Europe and productivity growth?
How much are changes in headline productivity due to changes in the proportion of the country in work?
Etc
Having spoken with people running companies who now bitterly complain about being forced to “waste” money on investing in labour saving machinery…. I know what I would put my money on.
Simple example - a relative bought an electric mini digger from JCB using the Sunak tax writeoffs for investment.
It does the work of half a dozen people and costs (including capital cost write down) less than 2.
It's also worth remembering that our flexible labour market discourages capital investment.
If I buy a machine, I've committed to that cost (depreciation) for a long time. If I hire someone, I can easily let them go.
By contrast, in a country without a flexible labour market investing in automation makes much more sense. If you can't get rid of the person, then it makes machinery that bit more attractive.
Two things when you're talking about national productivity: 1) the numerator should be output (GDP) when resources are fully employed else you are confounding with cyclical effects; 2) it should be total factor productivity else you are falsely ascribing increased output arising from changes in capital intensity to labour productivity. All of this means your analysis is to do with the long run and the relevant concept is the Solow residual which is assumed to measure technological change.
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in 1970 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
No, didn’t need to. You’re thinking of Feb 74. My Liberal Association was one of those which sent a message to Thorpe telling him to have nothing to do with it.
Heath did of course win the popular vote in Feb 74 and a majority of seats in England so arguably would have had a mandate.
1974 was also pre SDP joining the LDs so the Liberals were more classically liberal than they became, certainly until Clegg and the Coalition
I don't think that this characterisation is correct. That ship sailed with Asquith.
By the 70s, to the extent they had an economic policy, it was between Labour and Tory but not as pro-union as Labour. With the caveat that, being notionally committed to increased redistribution of wealth through land and property taxes and anti-landlord policies, it would look quite left-wing today.
Re Germany vs the UK: one would have expected Germany to have higher levels of capex, simply because it is a much more industrial country. Nevertheless, it is striking how much capex has grown there in the last five years, even as it has become the preferred location for Eastern European migration.
European and other migrant labour into hospitality presumably didn’t do much for productivity.
But it sure as hell improved the food offer in Britain, to the extent that London became one of the best cities on Earth to dine. And while that might have remained an “elite” experience, it trickled down across the country.
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.
This should be something where we can look at the evidence.
So: did capital investment (or gross capital formation as it's called in the national accounts) drop post 2004?
Is there a correlation between immigration from Eastern Europe and productivity growth?
How much are changes in headline productivity due to changes in the proportion of the country in work?
Etc
Having spoken with people running companies who now bitterly complain about being forced to “waste” money on investing in labour saving machinery…. I know what I would put my money on.
Simple example - a relative bought an electric mini digger from JCB using the Sunak tax writeoffs for investment.
It does the work of half a dozen people and costs (including capital cost write down) less than 2.
It's also worth remembering that our flexible labour market discourages capital investment.
If I buy a machine, I've committed to that cost (depreciation) for a long time. If I hire someone, I can easily let them go.
By contrast, in a country without a flexible labour market investing in automation makes much more sense. If you can't get rid of the person, then it makes machinery that bit more attractive.
Machinery hire is a well established business…
Sure: but that's a well established business for construction, not so much manufacturing.
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.
Can’t have an accident if the train never leaves the depot. Taps head
It's a shame that passenger levels are pretty much back to pre-Covid levels then. All those passengers and the trains that never leave the depots ...
The French are delighted we’re helping to them build their new TGV lines.
The UK treasury are delighted at all the moolah French and Dutch companies have given them on loss-making franchises...
(The franchisees have to pay the treasury a certain amount of money in order to run the services. This is a lump sum, not a percentage. If the franchisee does not get enough income, they still have to pay all the money.)
Re Germany vs the UK: one would have expected Germany to have higher levels of capex, simply because it is a much more industrial country. Nevertheless, it is striking how much capex has grown there in the last five years, even as it has become the preferred location for Eastern European migration.
A difference in attitude compared to UK companies. German industry is traditionally more capital-intensive, and British industry much more labour-intensive.
But I bet you'll find a reason to whinge about that.
A very broad interpretation of "near"!
We will have White Rose here in West Yorkshire. Sort of new, but actually a replacement for Cottingley. Much to the delight of the commuters who bought the new houses next to Cottingley station.
Apologies - I thought you were further northeast than that. My point still stands though: there is lots if investment going into rail outside the southeast (for another biggie, look at the reopening of the Okehampton line).
Incidentally, it looks as though the new EWR line from Bedford to Cambridge hasn't stalled, and the latest route alterations have just been announced.
In typical joined-up thinking (not), this will be right beside the A428 dual carriageway they're just about to start building - though they are not doing any enabling works as part of the road...
Would anyone like to bet - given the appalling record of this country in actioning infrastructure projects, and the undoubted hypersonic wave of screaming to come from legions of Nimbies all along the route - whether this will (a) ever get built at all, and (b) if it does, whether it'll be operational this side of 2050?
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.
This should be something where we can look at the evidence.
So: did capital investment (or gross capital formation as it's called in the national accounts) drop post 2004?
Is there a correlation between immigration from Eastern Europe and productivity growth?
How much are changes in headline productivity due to changes in the proportion of the country in work?
Etc
Having spoken with people running companies who now bitterly complain about being forced to “waste” money on investing in labour saving machinery…. I know what I would put my money on.
Simple example - a relative bought an electric mini digger from JCB using the Sunak tax writeoffs for investment.
It does the work of half a dozen people and costs (including capital cost write down) less than 2.
You have to ask yourself why.
In your anecdote, your relative is overwhelmingly better off buying the digger, regardless of labour availability or flexibility.
So what’s the actual incentive - or even psychology - here?
Re Germany vs the UK: one would have expected Germany to have higher levels of capex, simply because it is a much more industrial country. Nevertheless, it is striking how much capex has grown there in the last five years, even as it has become the preferred location for Eastern European migration.
A difference in attitude compared to UK companies. German industry is traditionally more capital-intensive, and British industry much more labour-intensive.
But this is a “Just So” story, and moreover fails to explain the steep drop off in the mid-80s.
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in 1970 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
No, didn’t need to. You’re thinking of Feb 74. My Liberal Association was one of those which sent a message to Thorpe telling him to have nothing to do with it.
Expecting acknowledgement re: your correction? Do NOT hold your breath!
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in 1970 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
No, didn’t need to. You’re thinking of Feb 74. My Liberal Association was one of those which sent a message to Thorpe telling him to have nothing to do with it.
Heath did of course win the popular vote in Feb 74 and a majority of seats in England so arguably would have had a mandate.
1974 was also pre SDP joining the LDs so the Liberals were more classically liberal than they became, certainly until Clegg and the Coalition
I don't think that this characterisation is correct. That ship sailed with Asquith.
By the 70s, to the extent they had an economic policy, it was between Labour and Tory but not as pro-union as Labour. With the caveat that, being notionally committed to increased redistribution of wealth through land and property taxes and anti-landlord policies, it would look quite left-wing today.
That’s about right. From one who was actively involved, and is feeling somewhat ‘homeless’ at the moment.
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.
Doesn't being able to import the ready skilled mean you deprive the unskilled within the UK the chance of being 'skilled'? The locals loose potential jobs in education/training and the actual skilled occupation. A little like the gulf arabs importing all the skilled professions but without their trillion barrels of social security.
No. The studies suggest that, in aggregate, British workers were elevated into more senior roles. Incoming migrants allowed British workers to “step up”.
Did the studies look at the long term impact such as the next generation of potential employees? I can imagine a front loading benefit to those already in roles but not for those yet to have them.
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in 1970 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
No, didn’t need to. You’re thinking of Feb 74. My Liberal Association was one of those which sent a message to Thorpe telling him to have nothing to do with it.
Heath did of course win the popular vote in Feb 74 and a majority of seats in England so arguably would have had a mandate.
1974 was also pre SDP joining the LDs so the Liberals were more classically liberal than they became, certainly until Clegg and the Coalition
I don't think that this characterisation is correct. That ship sailed with Asquith.
By the 70s, to the extent they had an economic policy, it was between Labour and Tory but not as pro-union as Labour. With the caveat that, being notionally committed to increased redistribution of wealth through land and property taxes and anti-landlord policies, it would look quite left-wing today.
Thorpe was economicaly certainly closer to Heath's Tories than Wilson's Labour, especially in relation to the unions which was a key issue in 1974. Heath was also more pro EEC than Wilson's Labour was in those days so closer to the Liberals on that too
Re Germany vs the UK: one would have expected Germany to have higher levels of capex, simply because it is a much more industrial country. Nevertheless, it is striking how much capex has grown there in the last five years, even as it has become the preferred location for Eastern European migration.
A difference in attitude compared to UK companies. German industry is traditionally more capital-intensive, and British industry much more labour-intensive.
I think a lot of this is related to the structure of our economics: Germany is a manufacturing economy, and we're a services one.
But it also shows how difficult teasing out underlying causes is.
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in 1970 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
No, didn’t need to. You’re thinking of Feb 74. My Liberal Association was one of those which sent a message to Thorpe telling him to have nothing to do with it.
Heath did of course win the popular vote in Feb 74 and a majority of seats in England so arguably would have had a mandate.
1974 was also pre SDP joining the LDs so the Liberals were more classically liberal than they became, certainly until Clegg and the Coalition
I don't think that this characterisation is correct. That ship sailed with Asquith.
By the 70s, to the extent they had an economic policy, it was between Labour and Tory but not as pro-union as Labour. With the caveat that, being notionally committed to increased redistribution of wealth through land and property taxes and anti-landlord policies, it would look quite left-wing today.
Thorpe was economicaly certainly closer to Heath's Tories than Wilson's Labour, especially in relation to the unions which was a key issue in 1974. Heath was also more pro EEC than Wilson's Labour was in those days so closer to the Liberals on that too
Economically closer with a rent freeze and a land value tax?
But I bet you'll find a reason to whinge about that.
A very broad interpretation of "near"!
We will have White Rose here in West Yorkshire. Sort of new, but actually a replacement for Cottingley. Much to the delight of the commuters who bought the new houses next to Cottingley station.
Apologies - I thought you were further northeast than that. My point still stands though: there is lots if investment going into rail outside the southeast (for another biggie, look at the reopening of the Okehampton line).
Incidentally, it looks as though the new EWR line from Bedford to Cambridge hasn't stalled, and the latest route alterations have just been announced.
In typical joined-up thinking (not), this will be right beside the A428 dual carriageway they're just about to start building - though they are not doing any enabling works as part of the road...
Would anyone like to bet - given the appalling record of this country in actioning infrastructure projects, and the undoubted hypersonic wave of screaming to come from legions of Nimbies all along the route - whether this will (a) ever get built at all, and (b) if it does, whether it'll be operational this side of 2050?
I wouldn't bet on it, but it may (and I hope it does).
But it's odd: it's not always the case. The Okehampton line took just a few years to reopen to passengers, and that was in a poor state. The Northumberland Line is also quick; it will hopefully be about five years from being seriously considered to opening (though both projects had been looked into before at various levels).
True, these are both reopenings of mothballed lines; but it does show that it can be done in a timely manner.
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in 1970 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
No, didn’t need to. You’re thinking of Feb 74. My Liberal Association was one of those which sent a message to Thorpe telling him to have nothing to do with it.
Heath did of course win the popular vote in Feb 74 and a majority of seats in England so arguably would have had a mandate.
1974 was also pre SDP joining the LDs so the Liberals were more classically liberal than they became, certainly until Clegg and the Coalition
I don't think that this characterisation is correct. That ship sailed with Asquith.
By the 70s, to the extent they had an economic policy, it was between Labour and Tory but not as pro-union as Labour. With the caveat that, being notionally committed to increased redistribution of wealth through land and property taxes and anti-landlord policies, it would look quite left-wing today.
Thorpe was economicaly certainly closer to Heath's Tories than Wilson's Labour, especially in relation to the unions which was a key issue in 1974. Heath was also more pro EEC than Wilson's Labour was in those days so closer to the Liberals on that too
The key issue, as defined by the Conservatives was ‘Who Rules Britain?’ Heath had picked a fight and was losing it.
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in 1970 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
No, didn’t need to. You’re thinking of Feb 74. My Liberal Association was one of those which sent a message to Thorpe telling him to have nothing to do with it.
Heath did of course win the popular vote in Feb 74 and a majority of seats in England so arguably would have had a mandate.
1974 was also pre SDP joining the LDs so the Liberals were more classically liberal than they became, certainly until Clegg and the Coalition
I don't think that this characterisation is correct. That ship sailed with Asquith.
By the 70s, to the extent they had an economic policy, it was between Labour and Tory but not as pro-union as Labour. With the caveat that, being notionally committed to increased redistribution of wealth through land and property taxes and anti-landlord policies, it would look quite left-wing today.
Thorpe was economicaly certainly closer to Heath's Tories than Wilson's Labour, especially in relation to the unions which was a key issue in 1974. Heath was also more pro EEC than Wilson's Labour was in those days so closer to the Liberals on that too
Economically closer with a rent freeze and a land value tax?
The Feb 1974 Liberal manifesto included limits on rises in average earnings to control inflation, they also opposed the extent of Labour tax increases and Heath was more of an EEC enthusiast as mentioned like the Liberals than Wilson was
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in 1970 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
No, didn’t need to. You’re thinking of Feb 74. My Liberal Association was one of those which sent a message to Thorpe telling him to have nothing to do with it.
Heath did of course win the popular vote in Feb 74 and a majority of seats in England so arguably would have had a mandate.
1974 was also pre SDP joining the LDs so the Liberals were more classically liberal than they became, certainly until Clegg and the Coalition
I don't think that this characterisation is correct. That ship sailed with Asquith.
By the 70s, to the extent they had an economic policy, it was between Labour and Tory but not as pro-union as Labour. With the caveat that, being notionally committed to increased redistribution of wealth through land and property taxes and anti-landlord policies, it would look quite left-wing today.
Thorpe was economicaly certainly closer to Heath's Tories than Wilson's Labour, especially in relation to the unions which was a key issue in 1974. Heath was also more pro EEC than Wilson's Labour was in those days so closer to the Liberals on that too
The key issue, as defined by the Conservatives was ‘Who Rules Britain?’ Heath had picked a fight and was losing it.
Though had it been 'Who Governs England?' Heath would have won as he won a majority of seats in England. In terms of the popular vote Heath also won more votes in Britain than Wilson, even if not more seats
European and other migrant labour into hospitality presumably didn’t do much for productivity.
But it sure as hell improved the food offer in Britain, to the extent that London became one of the best cities on Earth to dine. And while that might have remained an “elite” experience, it trickled down across the country.
Something similar happened in the Arts.
The words 'restaurant', 'cafe' and 'bistro' had to be imported ...
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in 1970 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
No, didn’t need to. You’re thinking of Feb 74. My Liberal Association was one of those which sent a message to Thorpe telling him to have nothing to do with it.
Heath did of course win the popular vote in Feb 74 and a majority of seats in England so arguably would have had a mandate.
1974 was also pre SDP joining the LDs so the Liberals were more classically liberal than they became, certainly until Clegg and the Coalition
I don't think that this characterisation is correct. That ship sailed with Asquith.
By the 70s, to the extent they had an economic policy, it was between Labour and Tory but not as pro-union as Labour. With the caveat that, being notionally committed to increased redistribution of wealth through land and property taxes and anti-landlord policies, it would look quite left-wing today.
Thorpe was economicaly certainly closer to Heath's Tories than Wilson's Labour, especially in relation to the unions which was a key issue in 1974. Heath was also more pro EEC than Wilson's Labour was in those days so closer to the Liberals on that too
The key issue, as defined by the Conservatives was ‘Who Rules Britain?’ Heath had picked a fight and was losing it.
Though had it been 'Who Governs England?' Heath would have won as he won a majority of seats in England. In terms of the popular vote Heath also won more votes in Britain than Wilson, even if not more seats
Oh come on; both Scots and Welsh nationalism were nowhere near as significant as they are today. As I said, Heath had picked a fight and was losing it. The election was the last throw of an increasingly desperate man. And there were significant pro-European voices in Labour.
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in 1970 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
No, didn’t need to. You’re thinking of Feb 74. My Liberal Association was one of those which sent a message to Thorpe telling him to have nothing to do with it.
Heath did of course win the popular vote in Feb 74 and a majority of seats in England so arguably would have had a mandate.
1974 was also pre SDP joining the LDs so the Liberals were more classically liberal than they became, certainly until Clegg and the Coalition
I don't think that this characterisation is correct. That ship sailed with Asquith.
By the 70s, to the extent they had an economic policy, it was between Labour and Tory but not as pro-union as Labour. With the caveat that, being notionally committed to increased redistribution of wealth through land and property taxes and anti-landlord policies, it would look quite left-wing today.
Thorpe was economicaly certainly closer to Heath's Tories than Wilson's Labour, especially in relation to the unions which was a key issue in 1974. Heath was also more pro EEC than Wilson's Labour was in those days so closer to the Liberals on that too
The key issue, as defined by the Conservatives was ‘Who Rules Britain?’ Heath had picked a fight and was losing it.
Though had it been 'Who Governs England?' Heath would have won as he won a majority of seats in England. In terms of the popular vote Heath also won more votes in Britain than Wilson, even if not more seats
Oh come on; both Scots and Welsh nationalism were nowhere near as significant as they are today. As I said, Heath had picked a fight and was losing it. The election was the last throw of an increasingly desperate man. And there were significant pro-European voices in Labour.
[Edit] Also to the point, the strikes were GB-wide. Lots of miners in Scotland and Wales. (Not sure what was happening in NI, other than the Troubles.)
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
I was a Liberal counting agent in 1970, sitting next to a friend who was doing the same job for Labour. He had an early tiny radio and kept giving us increasingly despondent news, only cheering up when a Labour gain from our side was announced! It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute
Of course in 1970 Heath started talks with Thorpe's Liberals to try and stay in power. Heath and Cameron were the most recent Tory leaders closest to the average Liberal I think
No, didn’t need to. You’re thinking of Feb 74. My Liberal Association was one of those which sent a message to Thorpe telling him to have nothing to do with it.
Heath did of course win the popular vote in Feb 74 and a majority of seats in England so arguably would have had a mandate.
1974 was also pre SDP joining the LDs so the Liberals were more classically liberal than they became, certainly until Clegg and the Coalition
I don't think that this characterisation is correct. That ship sailed with Asquith.
By the 70s, to the extent they had an economic policy, it was between Labour and Tory but not as pro-union as Labour. With the caveat that, being notionally committed to increased redistribution of wealth through land and property taxes and anti-landlord policies, it would look quite left-wing today.
Thorpe was economicaly certainly closer to Heath's Tories than Wilson's Labour, especially in relation to the unions which was a key issue in 1974. Heath was also more pro EEC than Wilson's Labour was in those days so closer to the Liberals on that too
The key issue, as defined by the Conservatives was ‘Who Rules Britain?’ Heath had picked a fight and was losing it.
Though had it been 'Who Governs England?' Heath would have won as he won a majority of seats in England. In terms of the popular vote Heath also won more votes in Britain than Wilson, even if not more seats
Oh come on; both Scots and Welsh nationalism were nowhere near as significant as they are today. As I said, Heath had picked a fight and was losing it. The election was the last throw of an increasingly desperate man. And there were significant pro-European voices in Labour.
Heath did nonetheless win the popular vote, the only party leader to win the UK popular vote but still lose the general election since 1945 other than Attlee in 1951
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.
This should be something where we can look at the evidence.
So: did capital investment (or gross capital formation as it's called in the national accounts) drop post 2004?
Is there a correlation between immigration from Eastern Europe and productivity growth?
How much are changes in headline productivity due to changes in the proportion of the country in work?
Etc
Having spoken with people running companies who now bitterly complain about being forced to “waste” money on investing in labour saving machinery…. I know what I would put my money on.
Simple example - a relative bought an electric mini digger from JCB using the Sunak tax writeoffs for investment.
It does the work of half a dozen people and costs (including capital cost write down) less than 2.
You have to ask yourself why.
In your anecdote, your relative is overwhelmingly better off buying the digger, regardless of labour availability or flexibility.
So what’s the actual incentive - or even psychology - here?
The psychology of many other people in the building business is that they have a right to nearly unlimited amounts of cheap, low skilled labour for simple tasks. Dig holes. Lift stuff etc.
They see the idea of investing in equipment as weird and "not how we do things".
My relative, who has a background outside construction, has pointed out that owning the conveyors for basement digs out (for example) rapidly breaks even, if you are even doing a few jobs a year. But large numbers of builders prefer to pay double to rent, or try and do without!
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.
Let's not even get started on the heaving bossoms in Song of Solomon.
European and other migrant labour into hospitality presumably didn’t do much for productivity.
But it sure as hell improved the food offer in Britain, to the extent that London became one of the best cities on Earth to dine. And while that might have remained an “elite” experience, it trickled down across the country.
Something similar happened in the Arts.
The words 'restaurant', 'cafe' and 'bistro' had to be imported ...
One entertaining thing was immigrants of various backgrounds taking over greasy spoons. People didn't tell them they were supposed to use crap ingredients. And thus the high quality version of the English Breakfast was born. Using sausages that aren't Offal Fat Tubes....
But it's odd: it's not always the case. The Okehampton line took just a few years to reopen to passengers, and that was in a poor state. The Northumberland Line is also quick; it will hopefully be about five years from being seriously considered to opening (though both projects had been looked into before at various levels).
True, these are both reopenings of mothballed lines; but it does show that it can be done in a timely manner.
I think it's a lot easier to get a reopening or a run-passenger-traffic-on-freight-only change through -- there's a whole category of "yes, but it should go on a different route that coincidentally doesn't go past my back garden" objections they avoid. It's noticeable that the parts of East-West Rail that have happened already are the "upgrade existing line" parts, the ones currently in progress are "relay track on existing alignment" and the parts still bogged down in consultation hell are the ones where new routeing is proposed.
Presumably he’ll say it’s about Liverpool getting 97 points and not winning the league (and before the 97th Hillsborough death), but it’s this season’s kit, so that doesn’t really wash.
The Cabinet Office has warned Boris Johnson it will pull public funding for his legal advice for the Covid inquiry if he “undermines the government’s position” or releases evidence without permission.
Government lawyers wrote to Johnson last week saying money would “cease to be available” if he broke any of their conditions.
These include the requirement to co-operate with any “reasonable” demand and to send them his witness statements and any requested documents for pre-approval and redaction before they are submitted to the inquiry.
The advice puts the former prime minister on a collision course with officials, with experts suggesting that he may have already breached some of its provisions.
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.
Can’t have an accident if the train never leaves the depot. Taps head
It's a shame that passenger levels are pretty much back to pre-Covid levels then. All those passengers and the trains that never leave the depots ...
The French are delighted we’re helping to them build their new TGV lines.
The UK treasury are delighted at all the moolah French and Dutch companies have given them on loss-making franchises...
(The franchisees have to pay the treasury a certain amount of money in order to run the services. This is a lump sum, not a percentage. If the franchisee does not get enough income, they still have to pay all the money.)
The guy is an idiot, but arresting people for poor taste is rather too harsh for my liking. A copper should tell him to put a jacket on and stop being a dickhead, and no more.
Presumably he’ll say it’s about Liverpool getting 97 points and not winning the league (and before the 97th Hillsborough death), but it’s this season’s kit, so that doesn’t really wash.
He could be a Labour supporter who thinks the 1997 landslide was not enough.
European and other migrant labour into hospitality presumably didn’t do much for productivity.
But it sure as hell improved the food offer in Britain, to the extent that London became one of the best cities on Earth to dine. And while that might have remained an “elite” experience, it trickled down across the country.
Something similar happened in the Arts.
The words 'restaurant', 'cafe' and 'bistro' had to be imported ...
One entertaining thing was immigrants of various backgrounds taking over greasy spoons. People didn't tell them they were supposed to use crap ingredients. And thus the high quality version of the English Breakfast was born. Using sausages that aren't Offal Fat Tubes....
Bloody immigrants coming over here and improving our diet...
We need to get rid of these stupid laws frankly, yes it is offensive but giving offence should not be a crime. Else we are up shit creek
Interesting how cancel culture here is fine.
Who am I cancelling, the trouble with laws like this is who judges whether someone gives offence. Was the shirt offensive certainly.....the trouble with things like offence is it only tends to ratchet towards more authoritarian judgements.....how long before it is an offence to have bare arms because some are offended or tattoos or piercings....I can guarantee almost anything people say or wear there will be someone offended.
You could construe the message as being "Liverpool supporters ought to be killed". Public intimidation, in a place where the target group is congregated, very much falls under public order offences.
You could construe the message as being "Liverpool supporters ought to be killed". Public intimidation, in a place where the target group is congregated, very much falls under public order offences.
But it shouldnt. Want to arrest david attenborough because he is a director of the optimum population trust and thinks that there are too many humans? That also implies he thinks there needs to be a culling.
We need to get rid of these stupid laws frankly, yes it is offensive but giving offence should not be a crime. Else we are up shit creek
Interesting how cancel culture here is fine.
Who am I cancelling, the trouble with laws like this is who judges whether someone gives offence. Was the shirt offensive certainly.....the trouble with things like offence is it only tends to ratchet towards more authoritarian judgements.....how long before it is an offence to have bare arms because some are offended or tattoos or piercings....I can guarantee almost anything people say or wear there will be someone offended.
FFS I was agreeing with you, you are so blinkered.
We need to get rid of these stupid laws frankly, yes it is offensive but giving offence should not be a crime. Else we are up shit creek
Interesting how cancel culture here is fine.
Who am I cancelling, the trouble with laws like this is who judges whether someone gives offence. Was the shirt offensive certainly.....the trouble with things like offence is it only tends to ratchet towards more authoritarian judgements.....how long before it is an offence to have bare arms because some are offended or tattoos or piercings....I can guarantee almost anything people say or wear there will be someone offended.
FFS I was agreeing with you, you are so blinkered.
Apologies then I didnt pick up on the fact you agreed, it sounded more like you were accusing me of cancelling.
We need to get rid of these stupid laws frankly, yes it is offensive but giving offence should not be a crime. Else we are up shit creek
Interesting how cancel culture here is fine.
Who am I cancelling, the trouble with laws like this is who judges whether someone gives offence. Was the shirt offensive certainly.....the trouble with things like offence is it only tends to ratchet towards more authoritarian judgements.....how long before it is an offence to have bare arms because some are offended or tattoos or piercings....I can guarantee almost anything people say or wear there will be someone offended.
FFS I was agreeing with you, you are so blinkered.
Apologies then I didnt pick up on the fact you agreed, it sounded more like you were accusing me of cancelling.
No you thought I was disagreeing with you because you oppose me politically.
The guy is an idiot, but arresting people for poor taste is rather too harsh for my liking. A copper should tell him to put a jacket on and stop being a dickhead, and no more.
Pretty brave, mind. It's mere cowardice, not good taste, that would rule out me wearing that.
We need to get rid of these stupid laws frankly, yes it is offensive but giving offence should not be a crime. Else we are up shit creek
Interesting how cancel culture here is fine.
Fine with who? Scousers?
A bit like that Grenfell bonfire thing, I don’t think the police should get involved.
It's not fine. It's a public order offence. It's clearly a provocation of violence. Even before "cancel culture" entered the vocabulary you couldn't go round saying or displaying things that could provoke violence. This, for example, from the Public Order Act 1986 -
4 Fear or provocation of violence.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked. (emphasis mine)
We need to get rid of these stupid laws frankly, yes it is offensive but giving offence should not be a crime. Else we are up shit creek
Interesting how cancel culture here is fine.
Fine with who? Scousers?
A bit like that Grenfell bonfire thing, I don’t think the police should get involved.
It's not fine. It's a public order offence. It's clearly a provocation of violence. Even before "cancel culture" entered the vocabulary you couldn't go round saying or displaying things that could provoke violence. This, for example, from the Public Order Act 1986 -
4 Fear or provocation of violence.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked. (emphasis mine)
Some things you can't say.
That law is crap and patently so....I am a person I find people wearing clothes to be intimidating and abusive because god made us in her own image (as an example). Should therefore all clothes wearers be arrested. It is like too many of our laws, where the "victim" gets to define it as a crime and the police act on it. This is just supression of free speech by fuckwits
European and other migrant labour into hospitality presumably didn’t do much for productivity.
But it sure as hell improved the food offer in Britain, to the extent that London became one of the best cities on Earth to dine. And while that might have remained an “elite” experience, it trickled down across the country.
Something similar happened in the Arts.
The words 'restaurant', 'cafe' and 'bistro' had to be imported ...
One entertaining thing was immigrants of various backgrounds taking over greasy spoons. People didn't tell them they were supposed to use crap ingredients. And thus the high quality version of the English Breakfast was born. Using sausages that aren't Offal Fat Tubes....
Bloody immigrants coming over here and improving our diet...
I’ve become increasingly radicalised on immigration (and emigration). It’s now one of if not the most important issues for us and a host of other countries over the coming decades.
Countries with high levels of immigration have historically been more economically dynamic, more artistically creative, better at sport, better at cuisine, more attractive as tourist destinations. I struggle to think of an exception. Perhaps Brazil and Argentina, which have squandered their melting pot demographics to become rather stagnant? But otherwise: the USA, Germany, UK, France, Netherlands, Singapore, Australia, Canada, Mauritius, Dubai. All punch way above their weight economically, culturally and sportingly. And Hong Kong - the perfect example of what happens when inward migration and its associated dynamism die.
Populations are going to start shrinking and ageing at an eye watering pace. Ethno states like China, Japan and Korea and most of Eastern Europe will just wither on the vine for lack of immigrants. They are selling out their futures for ethnic purity.
If we can encourage emigration of our elderly to sunnier climes at the same time, all the better.
It’s this season’s kit, so he’s had it done post the 97 death. Had he got it done in 2019, it would have been moderately amusing as I don’t think anyone could complain.
We need to get rid of these stupid laws frankly, yes it is offensive but giving offence should not be a crime. Else we are up shit creek
Interesting how cancel culture here is fine.
Fine with who? Scousers?
A bit like that Grenfell bonfire thing, I don’t think the police should get involved.
It's not fine. It's a public order offence. It's clearly a provocation of violence. Even before "cancel culture" entered the vocabulary you couldn't go round saying or displaying things that could provoke violence. This, for example, from the Public Order Act 1986 -
4 Fear or provocation of violence.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked. (emphasis mine)
Some things you can't say.
Interesting one for the lawyers as he will argue it’s about the points not the deaths. I think that’s rubbish, but could be tricky to get a conviction.
We need to get rid of these stupid laws frankly, yes it is offensive but giving offence should not be a crime. Else we are up shit creek
Interesting how cancel culture here is fine.
Fine with who? Scousers?
A bit like that Grenfell bonfire thing, I don’t think the police should get involved.
It's not fine. It's a public order offence. It's clearly a provocation of violence. Even before "cancel culture" entered the vocabulary you couldn't go round saying or displaying things that could provoke violence. This, for example, from the Public Order Act 1986 -
4 Fear or provocation of violence.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked. (emphasis mine)
Some things you can't say.
I can see that the first bolded part would apply, but not the second.
Passing comment that not enough fans died at Hillsborough is hardly calling for more to be killed now, much less "immediately".
It’s this season’s kit, so he’s had it done post the 97 death. Had he got it done in 2019, it would have been moderately amusing as I don’t think anyone could complain.
For all we know he had a shirt then and just keeps updating for the current kit....who knows and this is why laws like this are stupid.
They are also stupid for the fact that they are defined because others may use unlawful violence or behaviour.....strangely that is sort of like saying the rape victim deserved it because they went out in sexy clothing in my view which is also patently wrong.
The Cabinet Office has warned Boris Johnson it will pull public funding for his legal advice for the Covid inquiry if he “undermines the government’s position” or releases evidence without permission.
Government lawyers wrote to Johnson last week saying money would “cease to be available” if he broke any of their conditions.
These include the requirement to co-operate with any “reasonable” demand and to send them his witness statements and any requested documents for pre-approval and redaction before they are submitted to the inquiry.
The advice puts the former prime minister on a collision course with officials, with experts suggesting that he may have already breached some of its provisions.
That is utterly utterly extraordinary. It's like the eu rule saying you forfeit your pension if you criticise The Project. The worst bit of political controlling behaviour since Blair's heyday.
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.
Can’t have an accident if the train never leaves the depot. Taps head
It's a shame that passenger levels are pretty much back to pre-Covid levels then. All those passengers and the trains that never leave the depots ...
The French are delighted we’re helping to them build their new TGV lines.
The UK treasury are delighted at all the moolah French and Dutch companies have given them on loss-making franchises...
(The franchisees have to pay the treasury a certain amount of money in order to run the services. This is a lump sum, not a percentage. If the franchisee does not get enough income, they still have to pay all the money.)
Comments
Deserves to be banned from football grounds for life.
Alternatively, deserves to have the shit kicked out of him on the way out. The reason football restricted freedom of expression inside grounds, was because it regularly led to violence.
edit: ah, is it a reference to Hillsborough?
It was the Liberal candidate’s birthday the day the results were announced; he lost his deposit and wondered aloud, after the victorious Conservative had said nice things about him, that for a moment he thought he was going to contribute to his fund!
So: did capital investment (or gross capital formation as it's called in the national accounts) drop post 2004?
Is there a correlation between immigration from Eastern Europe and productivity growth?
How much are changes in headline productivity due to changes in the proportion of the country in work?
Etc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1995_to_date#/media/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png
League and Cup Double!
We will have White Rose here in West Yorkshire. Sort of new, but actually a replacement for Cottingley. Much to the delight of the commuters who bought the new houses next to Cottingley station.
Simple example - a relative bought an electric mini digger from JCB using the Sunak tax writeoffs for investment.
It does the work of half a dozen people and costs (including capital cost write down) less than 2.
If I buy a machine, I've committed to that cost (depreciation) for a long time. If I hire someone, I can easily let them go.
By contrast, in a country without a flexible labour market investing in automation makes much more sense. If you can't get rid of the person, then it makes machinery that bit more attractive.
1974 was also pre SDP joining the LDs so the Liberals were more classically liberal than they became, certainly until Clegg and the Coalition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reston_railway_station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_Street_railway_station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverness_Airport_railway_station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kintore_railway_station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafford_Park_Line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgbaston_Village_tram_stop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_555
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_777
Anybody who has to rely on trains knows the following:
1. Train journeys always go wrong - whether the train is hot and overcrowded, very late, both of those things, or simply cancelled altogether
2. The train companies, whose thinking is still stuck fifty years in the past, keep digging up the tracks at the weekends, so that their pitiful services are often unavailable altogether when you want to use them (and no, substituting the train for a hot nasty bus that takes three, four or five times as long to get where you are going as the actual train would've done doesn't count as availability)
3. The train unions, whose thinking is also stuck fifty years in the past, believe that they can somehow secure their futures by holding customers to ransom and getting them to blame their misery on the Government - when, in fact, trains have now been like this for so long that every time the railway fails its passengers yet again, another chunk of them abandon it permanently for their cars
I'm frankly amazed that trains still have as many users left as they do, although granted a large fraction of the survivors will be the likes of yours truly who's not the most co-ordinated individual ever and is a bit afraid to learn to drive. Nonetheless, you have to wonder how long public support for the massive subsidies needed to keep the railways afloat will continue, given that they're the very definition of a self-centred, rotten monopoly that treats the people who use them like shit.
(The dip in the late 2000s is the GFC, so I wouldn't read too much into that.)
Incidentally, it looks as though the new EWR line from Bedford to Cambridge hasn't stalled, and the latest route alterations have just been announced.
https://eastwestrail.co.uk/the-project/bedford-to-cambridge
In typical joined-up thinking (not), this will be right beside the A428 dual carriageway they're just about to start building - though they are not doing any enabling works as part of the road...
By the 70s, to the extent they had an economic policy, it was between Labour and Tory but not as pro-union as Labour. With the caveat that, being notionally committed to increased redistribution of wealth through land and property taxes and anti-landlord policies, it would look quite left-wing today.
But it sure as hell improved the food offer in Britain, to the extent that London became one of the best cities on Earth to dine. And while that might have remained an “elite” experience, it trickled down across the country.
Something similar happened in the Arts.
(The franchisees have to pay the treasury a certain amount of money in order to run the services. This is a lump sum, not a percentage. If the franchisee does not get enough income, they still have to pay all the money.)
In your anecdote, your relative is overwhelmingly better off buying the digger, regardless of labour availability or flexibility.
So what’s the actual incentive - or even psychology - here?
From one who was actively involved, and is feeling somewhat ‘homeless’ at the moment.
But it also shows how difficult teasing out underlying causes is.
But it's odd: it's not always the case. The Okehampton line took just a few years to reopen to passengers, and that was in a poor state. The Northumberland Line is also quick; it will hopefully be about five years from being seriously considered to opening (though both projects had been looked into before at various levels).
True, these are both reopenings of mothballed lines; but it does show that it can be done in a timely manner.
So if the Government does have to supply WhatsApp messages etc, when would they actually be made public?
If it's when the Inquiry reports it's so long into the future that it basically doesn't matter.
Or would they be published as evidence which Ministers would then be questioned on when they give their evidence?
https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/news/inquiry-update-new-investigations-announced/
As I said, Heath had picked a fight and was losing it. The election was the last throw of an increasingly desperate man.
And there were significant pro-European voices in Labour.
They see the idea of investing in equipment as weird and "not how we do things".
My relative, who has a background outside construction, has pointed out that owning the conveyors for basement digs out (for example) rapidly breaks even, if you are even doing a few jobs a year. But large numbers of builders prefer to pay double to rent, or try and do without!
https://twitter.com/MetPoliceEvents/status/1665029777676173320
The Cabinet Office has warned Boris Johnson it will pull public funding for his legal advice for the Covid inquiry if he “undermines the government’s position” or releases evidence without permission.
Government lawyers wrote to Johnson last week saying money would “cease to be available” if he broke any of their conditions.
These include the requirement to co-operate with any “reasonable” demand and to send them his witness statements and any requested documents for pre-approval and redaction before they are submitted to the inquiry.
The advice puts the former prime minister on a collision course with officials, with experts suggesting that he may have already breached some of its provisions.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-covid-inquiry-funding-cut-k03r96mws
A bit like that Grenfell bonfire thing, I don’t think the police should get involved.
Cancel culture doesn't actually exist, is the summary.
https://twitter.com/AVFC_Mogs/status/1665034953791361027
4 Fear or provocation of violence.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked. (emphasis mine)
Some things you can't say.
It’s just that “offensive to the point of cancelling” is an Irregular Verb. I am Speaking Truth, you should be quiet and he/she needs to be cancelled…
Countries with high levels of immigration have historically been more economically dynamic, more artistically creative, better at sport, better at cuisine, more attractive as tourist destinations. I struggle to think of an exception. Perhaps Brazil and Argentina, which have squandered their melting pot demographics to become rather stagnant? But otherwise: the USA, Germany, UK, France, Netherlands, Singapore, Australia, Canada, Mauritius, Dubai. All punch way above their weight economically, culturally and sportingly. And Hong Kong - the perfect example of what happens when inward migration and its associated dynamism die.
Populations are going to start shrinking and ageing at an eye watering pace. Ethno states like China, Japan and Korea and most of Eastern Europe will just wither on the vine for lack of immigrants. They are selling out their futures for ethnic purity.
If we can encourage emigration of our elderly to sunnier climes at the same time, all the better.
Passing comment that not enough fans died at Hillsborough is hardly calling for more to be killed now, much less "immediately".
They are also stupid for the fact that they are defined because others may use unlawful violence or behaviour.....strangely that is sort of like saying the rape victim deserved it because they went out in sexy clothing in my view which is also patently wrong.
NEW THREAD