So apart from catastrophically bad financial regulation, an unchecked housing boom and bust, and a huge amount of poor value PFI to make UK government debt look better Gordon Brown was a pretty good Chancellor and later PM eh?
You Brown fans are as nuts as the Tories defending Boris yesterday evening.
You think Brown was boomier and buster in housing than Thatcher?
Also Brown didn't introduce additional risk with his financial services regulation. He failed to address the systemic risk he inherited from his predecessors due to inadequate regulation.
Undoubtedly. House prices rose 206% between 1997 and 2007.
They also nearly doubled between 1982 and 1989 and then fell back much harder than 2007
How much quantitative easing was there in the early 1990s?
Propping up house prices has caused a lot of pain in the last 15 years.
That interview with Mr Sunak yesterday was toe-curling. How can anyone think he would get through an intensive General Election campaign? Who is advising him?
The irony of Mr Seely going on TV to defend the line and being caught lieing about what he himself said on the same programme a week before is remarkable.
So who comes out of this looking good? Penny Mordaunt - a woman who was rejected for leader due to 'culture war' issues. My oh my. With friends like the culture warriors what political party needs enemies!
Let's say we thought the UK's future oil needs were for 1000 arbitrary units, but we're taking action, so the UK's future oil needs are actually only for 100 arbitrary units. And let's say that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units. In that context, Bart's fear that we'll have to get oil from OPEC states instead is invalid and it makes sense to block future North Sea exploration.
Except the plan is not to throttle new licences down to 250 units, its to have them at 0.
The units are totals, not rates. We're saying that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units (over many years). There's enough oil there and we won't need any more. If that is true, would you withdraw your objection?
Why deny the country the export opportunity, complete with positive effects both in tax revenues and balance-of-payments?
That's a different point to Bart's.
There are several things we could export with positive effects both in tax revenues and balance-of-payments, but we choose not to. Some weapons, for example.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
On topic, no it was not a mistake. Nor would voting in favour have been a mistake either. It was irrelevant either way. All but six Tory MPs either voted in favour of the report, or abstained to let the report be accepted.
Some people have been acting crazy here acting like anyone who abstained was like Trumpists storming the Capitol on 6 January. In our adversarial Parliamentary system if people from one party abstain while the opposition is voting then that's effectively siding with the opposition by stepping out of their way and letting them win by default.
The number that matters is how many voted against and that was a pathetic, meagre 7.
7 oddballs within a Government is nothing and is perfectly manageable in any party except one as small as the Lib Dems.
I don't think it is on par with that, but I do think it is a sign of weakness. When there was such an overwhelming vote against Johnson in the end, not attending the vote sends a message all of it's own. If they wanted to defend him they should have been there and made that argument, if they wanted to condemn him the same, and if they truly thought abstention was the right position they should have defended that. Just not attending is cowardly. And it is even more so for the PM, who has little political capital as it is. This won't appease the public, they either don't care or have a firm view, this won't appease the house, because he didn't really explain himself, and it almost certainly didn't appease his backbenchers, who are split on the issue and probably could have done with some leadership.
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that Sunak was right. I can see how it looks cowardly, and it was my initial gut reaction, but I think this was actually more of a slight against Johnsonism. Think of it this way: a free vote and holders of the Great Offices don't even bother to turn up and lead the charge, and it's still a crushing defeat for Johnson. It's an attempt to say "he's gone, finished, irrelevant, and we don't even have to wheel in the big guns."
It's not a siege against a holdout fortress, it's just going around the smoky battlefield bayoneting the dying of the defeated army.
Well that's the theory. Whether it works in practice, we'll see. But I think I see where Sunak's coming from.
It's a lovely theory, but doesn't square with the evidence of ministers briefing about 'longstanding prior engagements', and 'I abstained because 30 days seemed an excessive punishment', etc.
An organised no show might have been precisely what you describe. What seems to be the reality is a bunch of disorganised, rather craven individuals carefully avoided making a stand.
I missed the "30 days / excessive" thing. That proves me wrong. Sunak is an idiot.
That interview with Mr Sunak yesterday was toe-curling. How can anyone think he would get through an intensive General Election campaign? Who is advising him?
The irony of Mr Seely going on TV to defend the line and being caught lieing about what he himself said on the same programme a week before is remarkable.
So who comes out of this looking good? Penny Mordaunt - a woman who was rejected for leader due to 'culture war' issues. My oh my. With friends like the culture warriors what political party needs enemies!
Meanwhile, outside the Westminster/PB bubble, an update from my local association:
Disappointment that our MP voted with Labour. Donors and activists angry and deflated. Calls for Sunak to be replaced.
Your continued reminder that whilst Sunak is popular here, and 'supported' by people who wouldn't dream of voting for him, the only time we've had a proper, working majority for the Tory party since PB began is when Boris Johnson went to the country in 2019.
Yougov polling was clear yesterday: 2019 Tory voters prefer Boris.
Let's say we thought the UK's future oil needs were for 1000 arbitrary units, but we're taking action, so the UK's future oil needs are actually only for 100 arbitrary units. And let's say that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units. In that context, Bart's fear that we'll have to get oil from OPEC states instead is invalid and it makes sense to block future North Sea exploration.
Except the plan is not to throttle new licences down to 250 units, its to have them at 0.
The units are totals, not rates. We're saying that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units (over many years). There's enough oil there and we won't need any more. If that is true, would you withdraw your objection?
Why deny the country the export opportunity, complete with positive effects both in tax revenues and balance-of-payments?
The country isn't being denied anything.
If the oil is left in the ground now it'll still be there and available for use by future generations. Extracting it at a slower rate just makes it last longer.
Let's say we thought the UK's future oil needs were for 1000 arbitrary units, but we're taking action, so the UK's future oil needs are actually only for 100 arbitrary units. And let's say that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units. In that context, Bart's fear that we'll have to get oil from OPEC states instead is invalid and it makes sense to block future North Sea exploration.
Except the plan is not to throttle new licences down to 250 units, its to have them at 0.
The units are totals, not rates. We're saying that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units (over many years). There's enough oil there and we won't need any more. If that is true, would you withdraw your objection?
No, because when those units expire then what licences will replace them? No licences last forever and if there is a complete moratorium on new licences then there is no replacement for those 250 as they expire.
We have probably seen the most dysfunctional Government in living memory over the last three years. They have overseen an economic clusterf*** of gargantuan proportions, yet the PB glitterati have reassured themselves by focusing on what they consider to be the negative elements of Brown's tenure as both PM and CoE.
Even BBC WATO have the "mortgage timebomb" as top story. They haven't yet confirmed this is Gordon Brown's doing.
Someone made the point that loss of confidence in economic management by a party is only forgotten when the other party supersedes it.
So Labour was destroyed by the Winter of discontent
The Tories were destroyed by Black Wednesday
Labour by the GFC
Now (arguably perhaps) the Tories CoL crisis
So they will only regain economic confidence when Labour screw up economically, which probably means second term or so.
(I think the cycle goes back further: Tories 3 day week, Wilson devaluation etc)
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
Hedge funds = business? Hmmm. Not really.
Don't be silly. Of course it is business, and a pretty complex one. It is not business that I would want to be part of, but business it is.
We have probably seen the most dysfunctional Government in living memory over the last three years. They have overseen an economic clusterf*** of gargantuan proportions, yet the PB glitterati have reassured themselves by focusing on what they consider to be the negative elements of Brown's tenure as both PM and CoE.
Even BBC WATO have the "mortgage timebomb" as top story. They haven't yet confirmed this is Gordon Brown's doing.
Someone made the point that loss of confidence in economic management by a party is only forgotten when the other party supersedes it.
So Labour was destroyed by the Winter of discontent
The Tories were destroyed by Black Wednesday
Labour by the GFC
Now (arguably perhaps) the Tories CoL crisis
So they will only regain economic confidence when Labour screw up economically, which probably means second term or so.
(I think the cycle goes back further: Tories 3 day week, Wilson devaluation etc)
It's the (lack of) economy stupid - as Bill Clinton / James Carville said..
So apart from catastrophically bad financial regulation, an unchecked housing boom and bust, and a huge amount of poor value PFI to make UK government debt look better Gordon Brown was a pretty good Chancellor and later PM eh?
You Brown fans are as nuts as the Tories defending Boris yesterday evening.
You think Brown was boomier and buster in housing than Thatcher?
Also Brown didn't introduce additional risk with his financial services regulation. He failed to address the systemic risk he inherited from his predecessors due to inadequate regulation.
Undoubtedly. House prices rose 206% between 1997 and 2007.
They also nearly doubled between 1982 and 1989 and then fell back much harder than 2007
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Whilst Rishi is undoubtedly preferable to his two predecessors, does he actually know much about business in his own right? As opposed to taking punts on other people's businesses?
I would have thought that if you live or die by taking punts on other people’s businesses you would need to understand business to be able to judge if the business you are taking a punt on is well run, in the right business cycle for investment, has unnoticed upside potential, has unseen problems you can avoid.
It’s not just a question of looking at the numbers on a particular business but also working out where that business has upside or downside or where that sector does so knowing about business would be somewhat helpful.
Way back in the mists of time when I was an equity analyst if I had just looked at the numbers I wouldn’t have done very well, I had to understand the business I was telling people to buy or sell and the market they were in.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
I'm not sure of the answer myself, but it is legitimate to challenge your post by asking who you think is serious and who you think is unserious in the Labour ranks or what, amongst the trickle of policy announcements, you regard as serious or unserious? Show your workings.
A good and fair question. My impression is that the curent Labour leadership is only interested in the public sector based on announcements made and questions put by LoTO. I would be delighted to be reassured, because we are almost certain to get a Labour government. Can I perhaps ask you a question or two? a) what policy announcements has Starmer made that demonstrate Labour's commitment to business and wealth creation in the private sector (as was done by Blair) and how many people on the Labour frontbench have had a substantial part of their career in the private, not public sector?
We have probably seen the most dysfunctional Government in living memory over the last three years. They have overseen an economic clusterf*** of gargantuan proportions, yet the PB glitterati have reassured themselves by focusing on what they consider to be the negative elements of Brown's tenure as both PM and CoE.
Even BBC WATO have the "mortgage timebomb" as top story. They haven't yet confirmed this is Gordon Brown's doing.
TBF, that's been the case everywhere, although the corruption and infighting are all on this government. Economically, nobody has any choice but to choose between bad options.
Ultimately, interest rates were always going to return to normal at some point.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Starmer and Reeves have been assiduously courting the 'business community' for at least a year.
But, I guess that now you have decided to insert the word 'podgy' when you mention Starmer you're probably not old enough to follow what's going on.
Let's say we thought the UK's future oil needs were for 1000 arbitrary units, but we're taking action, so the UK's future oil needs are actually only for 100 arbitrary units. And let's say that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units. In that context, Bart's fear that we'll have to get oil from OPEC states instead is invalid and it makes sense to block future North Sea exploration.
Except the plan is not to throttle new licences down to 250 units, its to have them at 0.
The units are totals, not rates. We're saying that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units (over many years). There's enough oil there and we won't need any more. If that is true, would you withdraw your objection?
No, because when those units expire then what licences will replace them? No licences last forever and if there is a complete moratorium on new licences then there is no replacement for those 250 as they expire.
This isn't about licences expiring, it's not about paperwork. A Labour spokesperson said, "Labour would continue to use existing oil and gas wells over the coming decades". It's about opening up new drilling sites, or rather not opening them up.
The plan is presuming that the existing wells will continue to produce enough oil and gas for our future needs, given we will be massively reducing consumption. Or, put the other way around, those wells won't run out because we won't be using enough oil and gas for those wells to run out. Existing wells contain 250 arbitrary units (say), but we'll only need 100 of those.
Osborne wonders if we (and the world generally) would have locked down had China not done so.
V good question.
Of course we bloody would have. It was Italy's experience that triggered everyone taking it so seriously. And our own experiences that cause lockdowns 2 and 3.
Neil Ferguson (The Times):
“... confirms the degree to which he believes that imitating China’s lockdown policies at the start of 2020 changed the parameters of what Western societies consider acceptable.
“I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March,” Professor Ferguson says. When SAGE observed the “innovative intervention” out of China, of locking entire communities down and not permitting them to leave their homes, they initially presumed it would not be an available option in a liberal Western democracy. It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Starmer and Reeves have been assiduously courting the 'business community' for at least a year.
But, I guess that now you have decided to insert the word 'podgy' when you mention Starmer you're probably not old enough to follow what's going on.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Starmer and Reeves have been assiduously courting the 'business community' for at least a year.
But, I guess that now you have decided to insert the word 'podgy' when you mention Starmer you're probably not old enough to follow what's going on.
OK, it is a fair cop. My inner 12 year old has to pop out every now and then.
Not convinced on the substance of what you say though, but I actually hope you are right. They need to ramp it up, because I am not convinced they have the first clue. Willing to give them the benefit of the doubt , as I quite like them both. It's the rest of the Labour Party I worry about though.
Let's say we thought the UK's future oil needs were for 1000 arbitrary units, but we're taking action, so the UK's future oil needs are actually only for 100 arbitrary units. And let's say that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units. In that context, Bart's fear that we'll have to get oil from OPEC states instead is invalid and it makes sense to block future North Sea exploration.
Except the plan is not to throttle new licences down to 250 units, its to have them at 0.
The units are totals, not rates. We're saying that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units (over many years). There's enough oil there and we won't need any more. If that is true, would you withdraw your objection?
No, because when those units expire then what licences will replace them? No licences last forever and if there is a complete moratorium on new licences then there is no replacement for those 250 as they expire.
This isn't about licences expiring, it's not about paperwork. A Labour spokesperson said, "Labour would continue to use existing oil and gas wells over the coming decades". It's about opening up new drilling sites, or rather not opening them up.
The plan is presuming that the existing wells will continue to produce enough oil and gas for our future needs, given we will be massively reducing consumption. Or, put the other way around, those wells won't run out because we won't be using enough oil and gas for those wells to run out. Existing wells contain 250 arbitrary units (say), but we'll only need 100 of those.
What naïve short-termism.
No wells run forever so what happens when the existing wells run out? What's the plan then? Where are the licences to replace them?
That's what the Government needs to be doing, not going for short-term gimmicks but planning sensibly for the long-term. Those wells that exist today may be enough for today [they're not already as it happens which is why we have major imports already], but when those wells stop production we need a licensing regime to replace then.
You seem to have spun on a dime from a notion that total oil extractable will run out anyway, to that our existing wells alone will never, ever run out. No existing wells have enough oil to satisfy demand in perpetuity.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
I suspect the only nerve you’ve touched today is your pudendal nerve. And your assumptions about my political persuasions are as misguided as your assertions about the respective business and economic expertise within the governments of Sunak, Blair and Starmer.
We have probably seen the most dysfunctional Government in living memory over the last three years. They have overseen an economic clusterf*** of gargantuan proportions, yet the PB glitterati have reassured themselves by focusing on what they consider to be the negative elements of Brown's tenure as both PM and CoE.
Even BBC WATO have the "mortgage timebomb" as top story. They haven't yet confirmed this is Gordon Brown's doing.
TBF, that's been the case everywhere, although the corruption and infighting are all on this government. Economically, nobody has any choice but to choose between bad options.
Ultimately, interest rates were always going to return to normal at some point.
I agree that interest rates were always going to return to normal - the era of tiny interest rates couldn't go on forever.
But in the meantime, what's different is the huge size of some people's mortgages, especially in London and the south east, compared to when interest rates were last 'normal'. Which brings us back to the absurd cost of houses in some regions.
On topic, no it was not a mistake. Nor would voting in favour have been a mistake either. It was irrelevant either way. All but six Tory MPs either voted in favour of the report, or abstained to let the report be accepted.
Some people have been acting crazy here acting like anyone who abstained was like Trumpists storming the Capitol on 6 January. In our adversarial Parliamentary system if people from one party abstain while the opposition is voting then that's effectively siding with the opposition by stepping out of their way and letting them win by default.
The number that matters is how many voted against and that was a pathetic, meagre 7.
7 oddballs within a Government is nothing and is perfectly manageable in any party except one as small as the Lib Dems.
I don't think it is on par with that, but I do think it is a sign of weakness. When there was such an overwhelming vote against Johnson in the end, not attending the vote sends a message all of it's own. If they wanted to defend him they should have been there and made that argument, if they wanted to condemn him the same, and if they truly thought abstention was the right position they should have defended that. Just not attending is cowardly. And it is even more so for the PM, who has little political capital as it is. This won't appease the public, they either don't care or have a firm view, this won't appease the house, because he didn't really explain himself, and it almost certainly didn't appease his backbenchers, who are split on the issue and probably could have done with some leadership.
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that Sunak was right. I can see how it looks cowardly, and it was my initial gut reaction, but I think this was actually more of a slight against Johnsonism. Think of it this way: a free vote and holders of the Great Offices don't even bother to turn up and lead the charge, and it's still a crushing defeat for Johnson. It's an attempt to say "he's gone, finished, irrelevant, and we don't even have to wheel in the big guns."
It's not a siege against a holdout fortress, it's just going around the smoky battlefield bayoneting the dying of the defeated army.
Well that's the theory. Whether it works in practice, we'll see. But I think I see where Sunak's coming from.
It's a lovely theory, but doesn't square with the evidence of ministers briefing about 'longstanding prior engagements', and 'I abstained because 30 days seemed an excessive punishment', etc.
An organised no show might have been precisely what you describe. What seems to be the reality is a bunch of disorganised, rather craven individuals carefully avoided making a stand.
I missed the "30 days / excessive" thing. That proves me wrong. Sunak is an idiot.
I don't think that was Sunak - who has avoiding anything so simple as a public explanation - but several from his cabinet.
Osborne wonders if we (and the world generally) would have locked down had China not done so.
V good question.
Of course we bloody would have. It was Italy's experience that triggered everyone taking it so seriously. And our own experiences that cause lockdowns 2 and 3.
Neil Ferguson (The Times):
“... confirms the degree to which he believes that imitating China’s lockdown policies at the start of 2020 changed the parameters of what Western societies consider acceptable.
“I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March,” Professor Ferguson says. When SAGE observed the “innovative intervention” out of China, of locking entire communities down and not permitting them to leave their homes, they initially presumed it would not be an available option in a liberal Western democracy. It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
"...and then Italy did it." So it was Italy's experience.
Italy didn't do it because they were sitting around going, "Oh, what will we do today? I'm a bit bored, say, let's do a China-style lockdown."
They did it because things were going so badly that they were reaching for anything possible. If anything, that quote suggests that we were being pushed away from lockdowns because we associated them with a communist one-party state and couldn't do them here.
I suppose the very fact that China pulled it off with a really harsh lockdown, way beyond anything tried here, was a learning point, but it also glosses over the fact that lockdowns here, lockdowns in France, lockdowns in Italy, lockdowns in China were all different things with different levels of harshness and restrictions, all given the same term of "lockdown."
But anyone thinking we'd have done things that much differently, or just let things get on with it and ignored the overflowing hospitals and morgues in Italy if we'd never have got a picture of what they were doing in China is not really being serious. Are they?
Osborne wonders if we (and the world generally) would have locked down had China not done so.
V good question.
Of course we bloody would have. It was Italy's experience that triggered everyone taking it so seriously. And our own experiences that cause lockdowns 2 and 3.
Neil Ferguson (The Times):
“... confirms the degree to which he believes that imitating China’s lockdown policies at the start of 2020 changed the parameters of what Western societies consider acceptable.
“I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March,” Professor Ferguson says. When SAGE observed the “innovative intervention” out of China, of locking entire communities down and not permitting them to leave their homes, they initially presumed it would not be an available option in a liberal Western democracy. It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
"...and then Italy did it." So it was Italy's experience.
Italy didn't do it because they were sitting around going, "Oh, what will we do today? I'm a bit bored, say, let's do a China-style lockdown."
They did it because things were going so badly that they were reaching for anything possible. If anything, that quote suggests that we were being pushed away from lockdowns because we associated them with a communist one-party state and couldn't do them here.
I suppose the very fact that China pulled it off with a really harsh lockdown, way beyond anything tried here, was a learning point, but it also glosses over the fact that lockdowns here, lockdowns in France, lockdowns in Italy, lockdowns in China were all different things with different levels of harshness and restrictions, all given the same term of "lockdown."
But anyone thinking we'd have done things that much differently, or just let things get on with it and ignored the overflowing hospitals and morgues in Italy if we'd never have got a picture of what they were doing in China is not really being serious. Are they?
The speculation that Osborne is making (and which I did on here near the start of the pandemic) is that if the virus originated in the States and came to us eastwards, instead of originating in China, then reaching liberal democracies (via Italy) westward, then would liberal democracies have been able to do what they did?
We should do Net Zero when we can afford it says the Sun. They don't say when that will be.
And so the world will continue to burn.
We will never be able to afford Net Zero, until that is everyone wakes up to the costs of not doing it.
We might do better saving for those costs than burning the economy...because like it or not, change is coming.
Some mitigations are cheap and/or better. We should definitely do those.
In climate science they talk about mitigation, "reducing the amount of global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions," and adaptation, "adapting to the global warming not avoided."
Where are you guys picking up on this different use of mitigation?
Most of the evidence is that mitigation is much, much cheaper than adaptation. And especially now when renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels anyway, so all you're doing by increasing mitigation efforts is pulling forward investment that would be made eventually anyway. Hardly burning the economy.
The problem is that some people have a rather extreme colonialist attitude that the UK and the West in general can impose its will on the whole world to engage in mitigation, when some like Russia or OPEC nations are not remotely interested and are not free democracies with free speech to engage with either.
The UK can seek to cut oil consumption, that is something in our hands. And if we do, then global consumption of oil will fall (as nobody is going to increase their consumption to counter our reduction) and our investment in alternative technologies can encourage others to do the same.
What the UK can not and should not seek is to unilaterally cut oil extraction, as that is not in our hands. If we cut our production of oil, eg in the North Sea, and switch to importing even more oil instead all that does is make it even more profitable for OPEC and even less likely they'll want to ever act on this matter.
We're doing both: cutting consumption and extraction. The theory is that we'll cut our consumption so much that we won't need to "switch to importing ever more oil instead".
The UK needs oil, and will continue to for the future.
If you end oil exploration in the North Sea then that leaves importing ever more oil as the only alternative.
Which makes oil even more profitable for OPEC and leaves them even less likely to want to tackle climate change. And helps the climate not at all.
What we need to do, is not to focus on oil production, but to do things like change over to zero carbon Perspex (quite possible) and the zero carbon technologies for concrete (some are quite promising).
Absolutely. We should be challenging this on the demand-side, rather than the supply-side.
Eliminate the need for oil, and people will stop extracting it. But for as long as it is needed, it needs to be supplied, and getting that supply from the North Sea is better than getting it from OPEC.
North Sea oil production isn’t being shut down, nor is that Labour’s policy. Plenty more oil will still come out of the North Sea.
Licences don't last forever. New licences are needed to replace old licences as they expire.
A moratorium on new licences is ultimately a moratorium on production.
Not only that we will see investment in the North Sea dwindle as why would any business invest in an area that is declining, as well as the punitive windfall tax regime.
Richard Tyndall has made a few comments about it on PB. Well worth reading.
Let's say we thought the UK's future oil needs were for 1000 arbitrary units, but we're taking action, so the UK's future oil needs are actually only for 100 arbitrary units. And let's say that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units. In that context, Bart's fear that we'll have to get oil from OPEC states instead is invalid and it makes sense to block future North Sea exploration.
Except the plan is not to throttle new licences down to 250 units, its to have them at 0.
The units are totals, not rates. We're saying that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units (over many years). There's enough oil there and we won't need any more. If that is true, would you withdraw your objection?
No, because when those units expire then what licences will replace them? No licences last forever and if there is a complete moratorium on new licences then there is no replacement for those 250 as they expire.
This isn't about licences expiring, it's not about paperwork. A Labour spokesperson said, "Labour would continue to use existing oil and gas wells over the coming decades". It's about opening up new drilling sites, or rather not opening them up.
The plan is presuming that the existing wells will continue to produce enough oil and gas for our future needs, given we will be massively reducing consumption. Or, put the other way around, those wells won't run out because we won't be using enough oil and gas for those wells to run out. Existing wells contain 250 arbitrary units (say), but we'll only need 100 of those.
What naïve short-termism.
No wells run forever so what happens when the existing wells run out? What's the plan then? Where are the licences to replace them?
That's what the Government needs to be doing, not going for short-term gimmicks but planning sensibly for the long-term. Those wells that exist today may be enough for today [they're not already as it happens which is why we have major imports already], but when those wells stop production we need a licensing regime to replace then.
You seem to have spun on a dime from a notion that total oil extractable will run out anyway, to that our existing wells alone will never, ever run out. No existing wells have enough oil to satisfy demand in perpetuity.
I think the point you are struggling with is that, like most people, you haven't, deep down, grasped how much the consumption of oil and gas will (or, at least, needs to... or maybe is envisaged to within the broader logic of Labour's plans...) fall.
If we look at existing North Sea reserves, what should come up through existing wells, we are f***ed if we burn all of those. (Gas is simpler as that's almost the only thing we do with it, burn it. Oil is more complicated because we also use it to make other substances, which doesn't add to CO2 in the atmosphere, but which is problematic for other reasons.)
Osborne wonders if we (and the world generally) would have locked down had China not done so.
V good question.
Of course we bloody would have. It was Italy's experience that triggered everyone taking it so seriously. And our own experiences that cause lockdowns 2 and 3.
Neil Ferguson (The Times):
“... confirms the degree to which he believes that imitating China’s lockdown policies at the start of 2020 changed the parameters of what Western societies consider acceptable.
“I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March,” Professor Ferguson says. When SAGE observed the “innovative intervention” out of China, of locking entire communities down and not permitting them to leave their homes, they initially presumed it would not be an available option in a liberal Western democracy. It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
"...and then Italy did it." So it was Italy's experience.
Italy didn't do it because they were sitting around going, "Oh, what will we do today? I'm a bit bored, say, let's do a China-style lockdown."
They did it because things were going so badly that they were reaching for anything possible. If anything, that quote suggests that we were being pushed away from lockdowns because we associated them with a communist one-party state and couldn't do them here.
I suppose the very fact that China pulled it off with a really harsh lockdown, way beyond anything tried here, was a learning point, but it also glosses over the fact that lockdowns here, lockdowns in France, lockdowns in Italy, lockdowns in China were all different things with different levels of harshness and restrictions, all given the same term of "lockdown."
But anyone thinking we'd have done things that much differently, or just let things get on with it and ignored the overflowing hospitals and morgues in Italy if we'd never have got a picture of what they were doing in China is not really being serious. Are they?
Suppose China hadn't locked down. I'm sure their refusal to take public health action to stem the pandemic would have been explained as the sort of inaction only a totalitarian dictatorship, that cared nothing for the ending loss of life, could countenance, while a democracy would be forced into action to protect its citizen-voters.
Prince Michael of Kent’s private office lobbied a senior Foreign Office official to help obtain a fast-track UK visa for a Russian financier closely linked to a sanctioned oligarch, The Times can reveal.
The equerry of the prince, the late Queen’s cousin, emailed a diplomat in Moscow asking him if he could “expedite” an application by Maxim Viktorov, a 50-year-old businessman. Viktorov was able to get on a flight to London arriving six days later.
At the time of the intervention in 2018, the prince was the global ambassador and part owner of a UK finance firm that was in the process of securing £100,000 of investment from an organisation run by Viktorov.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
I'm not sure of the answer myself, but it is legitimate to challenge your post by asking who you think is serious and who you think is unserious in the Labour ranks or what, amongst the trickle of policy announcements, you regard as serious or unserious? Show your workings.
A good and fair question. My impression is that the curent Labour leadership is only interested in the public sector based on announcements made and questions put by LoTO. I would be delighted to be reassured, because we are almost certain to get a Labour government. Can I perhaps ask you a question or two? a) what policy announcements has Starmer made that demonstrate Labour's commitment to business and wealth creation in the private sector (as was done by Blair) and how many people on the Labour frontbench have had a substantial part of their career in the private, not public sector?
Tories have plenty of ministers with private sector experience. Hasn't led to much national wealth creation over the past decade that I can see.
Agree though that very few lab mps have business backgrounds, especially if you rule out the lawyers. Tbh many MPs have very little experience in anything other than politics.
Osborne wonders if we (and the world generally) would have locked down had China not done so.
V good question.
Of course we bloody would have. It was Italy's experience that triggered everyone taking it so seriously. And our own experiences that cause lockdowns 2 and 3.
Neil Ferguson (The Times):
“... confirms the degree to which he believes that imitating China’s lockdown policies at the start of 2020 changed the parameters of what Western societies consider acceptable.
“I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March,” Professor Ferguson says. When SAGE observed the “innovative intervention” out of China, of locking entire communities down and not permitting them to leave their homes, they initially presumed it would not be an available option in a liberal Western democracy. It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
"...and then Italy did it." So it was Italy's experience.
Italy didn't do it because they were sitting around going, "Oh, what will we do today? I'm a bit bored, say, let's do a China-style lockdown."
They did it because things were going so badly that they were reaching for anything possible. If anything, that quote suggests that we were being pushed away from lockdowns because we associated them with a communist one-party state and couldn't do them here.
I suppose the very fact that China pulled it off with a really harsh lockdown, way beyond anything tried here, was a learning point, but it also glosses over the fact that lockdowns here, lockdowns in France, lockdowns in Italy, lockdowns in China were all different things with different levels of harshness and restrictions, all given the same term of "lockdown."
But anyone thinking we'd have done things that much differently, or just let things get on with it and ignored the overflowing hospitals and morgues in Italy if we'd never have got a picture of what they were doing in China is not really being serious. Are they?
Agreed.
I think some psychologists/behavioural scientists/public health experts early on underestimated the willingness of (most of) the public to put up with dramatic restrictions, and this made them and the governments they advised slow to adopt lockdowns. But that's just an example of the difficulty we all have imagining extreme and novel situations, as COVID-19 was.
Osborne wonders if we (and the world generally) would have locked down had China not done so.
V good question.
Of course we bloody would have. It was Italy's experience that triggered everyone taking it so seriously. And our own experiences that cause lockdowns 2 and 3.
Neil Ferguson (The Times):
“... confirms the degree to which he believes that imitating China’s lockdown policies at the start of 2020 changed the parameters of what Western societies consider acceptable.
“I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March,” Professor Ferguson says. When SAGE observed the “innovative intervention” out of China, of locking entire communities down and not permitting them to leave their homes, they initially presumed it would not be an available option in a liberal Western democracy. It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
"...and then Italy did it." So it was Italy's experience.
Italy didn't do it because they were sitting around going, "Oh, what will we do today? I'm a bit bored, say, let's do a China-style lockdown."
They did it because things were going so badly that they were reaching for anything possible. If anything, that quote suggests that we were being pushed away from lockdowns because we associated them with a communist one-party state and couldn't do them here.
I suppose the very fact that China pulled it off with a really harsh lockdown, way beyond anything tried here, was a learning point, but it also glosses over the fact that lockdowns here, lockdowns in France, lockdowns in Italy, lockdowns in China were all different things with different levels of harshness and restrictions, all given the same term of "lockdown."
But anyone thinking we'd have done things that much differently, or just let things get on with it and ignored the overflowing hospitals and morgues in Italy if we'd never have got a picture of what they were doing in China is not really being serious. Are they?
Suppose China hadn't locked down. I'm sure their refusal to take public health action to stem the pandemic would have been explained as the sort of inaction only a totalitarian dictatorship, that cared nothing for the ending loss of life, could countenance, while a democracy would be forced into action to protect its citizen-voters.
It was Italy that gave the political cover needed. The article below from Sumption nailed it:
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Sunak's "business" career involved working as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, and later for an array of hedge funds. Now colour me skeptical but none of those enterprises involved chasing accounts receivable, juggling cashflow and harassing customers to make that order. That's my experience of a background in "business". Sunak's most informative business education was minding the chemist's shop for his mum.
If Starmer is not already engaging with business interest groups he has no desire to become PM.
Osborne wonders if we (and the world generally) would have locked down had China not done so.
V good question.
Of course we bloody would have. It was Italy's experience that triggered everyone taking it so seriously. And our own experiences that cause lockdowns 2 and 3.
Neil Ferguson (The Times):
“... confirms the degree to which he believes that imitating China’s lockdown policies at the start of 2020 changed the parameters of what Western societies consider acceptable.
“I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March,” Professor Ferguson says. When SAGE observed the “innovative intervention” out of China, of locking entire communities down and not permitting them to leave their homes, they initially presumed it would not be an available option in a liberal Western democracy. It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
"...and then Italy did it." So it was Italy's experience.
Italy didn't do it because they were sitting around going, "Oh, what will we do today? I'm a bit bored, say, let's do a China-style lockdown."
They did it because things were going so badly that they were reaching for anything possible. If anything, that quote suggests that we were being pushed away from lockdowns because we associated them with a communist one-party state and couldn't do them here.
I suppose the very fact that China pulled it off with a really harsh lockdown, way beyond anything tried here, was a learning point, but it also glosses over the fact that lockdowns here, lockdowns in France, lockdowns in Italy, lockdowns in China were all different things with different levels of harshness and restrictions, all given the same term of "lockdown."
But anyone thinking we'd have done things that much differently, or just let things get on with it and ignored the overflowing hospitals and morgues in Italy if we'd never have got a picture of what they were doing in China is not really being serious. Are they?
Suppose China hadn't locked down. I'm sure their refusal to take public health action to stem the pandemic would have been explained as the sort of inaction only a totalitarian dictatorship, that cared nothing for the ending loss of life, could countenance, while a democracy would be forced into action to protect its citizen-voters.
It was Italy that gave the political cover needed. The article below from Sumption nailed it:
Let's say we thought the UK's future oil needs were for 1000 arbitrary units, but we're taking action, so the UK's future oil needs are actually only for 100 arbitrary units. And let's say that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units. In that context, Bart's fear that we'll have to get oil from OPEC states instead is invalid and it makes sense to block future North Sea exploration.
Except the plan is not to throttle new licences down to 250 units, its to have them at 0.
The units are totals, not rates. We're saying that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units (over many years). There's enough oil there and we won't need any more. If that is true, would you withdraw your objection?
No, because when those units expire then what licences will replace them? No licences last forever and if there is a complete moratorium on new licences then there is no replacement for those 250 as they expire.
This isn't about licences expiring, it's not about paperwork. A Labour spokesperson said, "Labour would continue to use existing oil and gas wells over the coming decades". It's about opening up new drilling sites, or rather not opening them up.
The plan is presuming that the existing wells will continue to produce enough oil and gas for our future needs, given we will be massively reducing consumption. Or, put the other way around, those wells won't run out because we won't be using enough oil and gas for those wells to run out. Existing wells contain 250 arbitrary units (say), but we'll only need 100 of those.
What naïve short-termism.
No wells run forever so what happens when the existing wells run out? What's the plan then? Where are the licences to replace them?
That's what the Government needs to be doing, not going for short-term gimmicks but planning sensibly for the long-term. Those wells that exist today may be enough for today [they're not already as it happens which is why we have major imports already], but when those wells stop production we need a licensing regime to replace then.
You seem to have spun on a dime from a notion that total oil extractable will run out anyway, to that our existing wells alone will never, ever run out. No existing wells have enough oil to satisfy demand in perpetuity.
I think the point you are struggling with is that, like most people, you haven't, deep down, grasped how much the consumption of oil and gas will (or, at least, needs to... or maybe is envisaged to within the broader logic of Labour's plans...) fall.
.
Anas Sarwar on Sunday on The Laura Kuenssberg show was saying we will need oil for the foreseeable future.
I have listened to Ed Conway, who has written a book about the critical materials for Net Zero, he has said we will need oil for the next 40 or so years at least, and not just for fuel. I would recommend people listen to it. It is really interesting.
The expectation the demand will fall for these products just does not seem to be backed up by the reality so far. We are extracting more not less and until we have replacements for the other products derived from oil, fertilisers, plastics and so on, we will still need it.
Even if it does fall no one know by how much and when. Bart is right, far better to rely on our own production than that of others
Osborne wonders if we (and the world generally) would have locked down had China not done so.
V good question.
Of course we bloody would have. It was Italy's experience that triggered everyone taking it so seriously. And our own experiences that cause lockdowns 2 and 3.
Neil Ferguson (The Times):
“... confirms the degree to which he believes that imitating China’s lockdown policies at the start of 2020 changed the parameters of what Western societies consider acceptable.
“I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March,” Professor Ferguson says. When SAGE observed the “innovative intervention” out of China, of locking entire communities down and not permitting them to leave their homes, they initially presumed it would not be an available option in a liberal Western democracy. It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
"...and then Italy did it." So it was Italy's experience.
Italy didn't do it because they were sitting around going, "Oh, what will we do today? I'm a bit bored, say, let's do a China-style lockdown."
They did it because things were going so badly that they were reaching for anything possible. If anything, that quote suggests that we were being pushed away from lockdowns because we associated them with a communist one-party state and couldn't do them here.
I suppose the very fact that China pulled it off with a really harsh lockdown, way beyond anything tried here, was a learning point, but it also glosses over the fact that lockdowns here, lockdowns in France, lockdowns in Italy, lockdowns in China were all different things with different levels of harshness and restrictions, all given the same term of "lockdown."
But anyone thinking we'd have done things that much differently, or just let things get on with it and ignored the overflowing hospitals and morgues in Italy if we'd never have got a picture of what they were doing in China is not really being serious. Are they?
The speculation that Osborne is making (and which I did on here near the start of the pandemic) is that if the virus originated in the States and came to us eastwards, instead of originating in China, then reaching liberal democracies (via Italy) westward, then would liberal democracies have been able to do what they did?
It must be remembered that China's actions at the start of the Covid crisis were very opaque and disingenuous. They seemed to be doing some things that made it look as though there was a massive crisis, whilst saying to the world that everything was fine with only local issues. This discontinuity was a good reason to believe that the situation in China was far worse than we were seeing (as it was).
Whatever we say about the US under Trump, there would not have been the same discontinuity; the western world would have had data on the spread of the virus far earlier. Perhaps that would not have altered the decision to lock down; but we would have made the decisions on much better early data.
Osborne wonders if we (and the world generally) would have locked down had China not done so.
V good question.
Of course we bloody would have. It was Italy's experience that triggered everyone taking it so seriously. And our own experiences that cause lockdowns 2 and 3.
Neil Ferguson (The Times):
“... confirms the degree to which he believes that imitating China’s lockdown policies at the start of 2020 changed the parameters of what Western societies consider acceptable.
“I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March,” Professor Ferguson says. When SAGE observed the “innovative intervention” out of China, of locking entire communities down and not permitting them to leave their homes, they initially presumed it would not be an available option in a liberal Western democracy. It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
"...and then Italy did it." So it was Italy's experience.
Italy didn't do it because they were sitting around going, "Oh, what will we do today? I'm a bit bored, say, let's do a China-style lockdown."
They did it because things were going so badly that they were reaching for anything possible. If anything, that quote suggests that we were being pushed away from lockdowns because we associated them with a communist one-party state and couldn't do them here.
I suppose the very fact that China pulled it off with a really harsh lockdown, way beyond anything tried here, was a learning point, but it also glosses over the fact that lockdowns here, lockdowns in France, lockdowns in Italy, lockdowns in China were all different things with different levels of harshness and restrictions, all given the same term of "lockdown."
But anyone thinking we'd have done things that much differently, or just let things get on with it and ignored the overflowing hospitals and morgues in Italy if we'd never have got a picture of what they were doing in China is not really being serious. Are they?
Suppose China hadn't locked down. I'm sure their refusal to take public health action to stem the pandemic would have been explained as the sort of inaction only a totalitarian dictatorship, that cared nothing for the ending loss of life, could countenance, while a democracy would be forced into action to protect its citizen-voters.
It was Italy that gave the political cover needed. The article below from Sumption nailed it:
Sumption undermines his argument with this paragraph.
"I do not doubt that there are extreme situations in which oppressive controls over our daily lives may be necessary and justified: an imminent threat of invasion, for example, or a violent general insurrection. Some health crises may qualify, such as a major epidemic of smallpox (case mortality about 30 per cent) or Ebola (about 50 per cent)."
The rest of the article presents the issue as one of principle, but in this paragraph he conceded that it's simply about where one draws the threshold for taking unusual coercive action.
This makes me more of a freedom fighter in this regard than Sumption, because I argue that the government should have implemented "lockdown" via public health advice and recommendation, rather than the force of law, because it was fundamentally wrong for the government to regulate who could enter private households (but the pandemic needed fighting so it should have advised that people self-regulated, and trusted informed citizens of a democracy to mostly do so).
I don't suppose anyone is geeky enough to be watching the HS2 select committee on Parliament TV? Lucy Powell is speaking currently. She's very good - actually makes me quite excited about politics. Actually, the whole committee process is very good, and admirably non-party-political. If people saw this, rather than PMQs, people would have a much better impression of their elected representatives.
That interview with Mr Sunak yesterday was toe-curling. How can anyone think he would get through an intensive General Election campaign? Who is advising him?
The irony of Mr Seely going on TV to defend the line and being caught lieing about what he himself said on the same programme a week before is remarkable.
So who comes out of this looking good? Penny Mordaunt - a woman who was rejected for leader due to 'culture war' issues. My oh my. With friends like the culture warriors what political party needs enemies!
Meanwhile, outside the Westminster/PB bubble, an update from my local association:
Disappointment that our MP voted with Labour. Donors and activists angry and deflated. Calls for Sunak to be replaced.
Your continued reminder that whilst Sunak is popular here, and 'supported' by people who wouldn't dream of voting for him, the only time we've had a proper, working majority for the Tory party since PB began is when Boris Johnson went to the country in 2019.
Yougov polling was clear yesterday: 2019 Tory voters prefer Boris.
That is how unpopular Sunak is....
The Tory party have a problem with their members, just as the Labour party had under Corbyn. They are cuckoos in the nest.
Starmer was able to kick them out or at least neutralise them. Which leader of the Conservatives can do the same? Sunak seems too weak to do it. My money is on Mordaunt. But will the current Tory members allow her to be leader to cleanse them?
So apart from catastrophically bad financial regulation, an unchecked housing boom and bust, and a huge amount of poor value PFI to make UK government debt look better Gordon Brown was a pretty good Chancellor and later PM eh?
You Brown fans are as nuts as the Tories defending Boris yesterday evening.
You think Brown was boomier and buster in housing than Thatcher?
Also Brown didn't introduce additional risk with his financial services regulation. He failed to address the systemic risk he inherited from his predecessors due to inadequate regulation.
Undoubtedly. House prices rose 206% between 1997 and 2007.
They also nearly doubled between 1982 and 1989 and then fell back much harder than 2007
I'm talking about tripling, not doubling.
Ah OK. Difference between nominal and real house prices.
Point I'm making is not that Brown got this stuff right. It's that he did the same as everyone else, but for some reason people pick him out as uniquely catastrophic.
BREAKING: Hunter Biden is being charged w/ a gun felony and two tax misdemeanors.
He is pleading guilty to the tax offenses and entering into a pre-trial diversion agreement on illegally possessing a gun while addicted to a controlled substance.
Let's say we thought the UK's future oil needs were for 1000 arbitrary units, but we're taking action, so the UK's future oil needs are actually only for 100 arbitrary units. And let's say that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units. In that context, Bart's fear that we'll have to get oil from OPEC states instead is invalid and it makes sense to block future North Sea exploration.
Except the plan is not to throttle new licences down to 250 units, its to have them at 0.
The units are totals, not rates. We're saying that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units (over many years). There's enough oil there and we won't need any more. If that is true, would you withdraw your objection?
No, because when those units expire then what licences will replace them? No licences last forever and if there is a complete moratorium on new licences then there is no replacement for those 250 as they expire.
This isn't about licences expiring, it's not about paperwork. A Labour spokesperson said, "Labour would continue to use existing oil and gas wells over the coming decades". It's about opening up new drilling sites, or rather not opening them up.
The plan is presuming that the existing wells will continue to produce enough oil and gas for our future needs, given we will be massively reducing consumption. Or, put the other way around, those wells won't run out because we won't be using enough oil and gas for those wells to run out. Existing wells contain 250 arbitrary units (say), but we'll only need 100 of those.
What naïve short-termism.
No wells run forever so what happens when the existing wells run out? What's the plan then? Where are the licences to replace them?
That's what the Government needs to be doing, not going for short-term gimmicks but planning sensibly for the long-term. Those wells that exist today may be enough for today [they're not already as it happens which is why we have major imports already], but when those wells stop production we need a licensing regime to replace then.
You seem to have spun on a dime from a notion that total oil extractable will run out anyway, to that our existing wells alone will never, ever run out. No existing wells have enough oil to satisfy demand in perpetuity.
I think the point you are struggling with is that, like most people, you haven't, deep down, grasped how much the consumption of oil and gas will (or, at least, needs to... or maybe is envisaged to within the broader logic of Labour's plans...) fall.
.
Anas Sarwar on Sunday on The Laura Kuenssberg show was saying we will need oil for the foreseeable future.
I have listened to Ed Conway, who has written a book about the critical materials for Net Zero, he has said we will need oil for the next 40 or so years at least, and not just for fuel. I would recommend people listen to it. It is really interesting.
The expectation the demand will fall for these products just does not seem to be backed up by the reality so far. We are extracting more not less and until we have replacements for the other products derived from oil, fertilisers, plastics and so on, we will still need it.
Even if it does fall no one know by how much and when. Bart is right, far better to rely on our own production than that of others
I accept that the question of how much oil/gas usage will fall is up for debate. We need to stop burning it, but, yes, there are things we make from oil (although many of those, we want to switch out for other reasons).
AIUI, we burn ~100% of the gas and ~84% of the oil. So, at worst, we need 0% of the gas and 16% of the oil in future, and the figure for oil will go down.
That interview with Mr Sunak yesterday was toe-curling. How can anyone think he would get through an intensive General Election campaign? Who is advising him?
The irony of Mr Seely going on TV to defend the line and being caught lieing about what he himself said on the same programme a week before is remarkable.
So who comes out of this looking good? Penny Mordaunt - a woman who was rejected for leader due to 'culture war' issues. My oh my. With friends like the culture warriors what political party needs enemies!
Meanwhile, outside the Westminster/PB bubble, an update from my local association:
Disappointment that our MP voted with Labour. Donors and activists angry and deflated. Calls for Sunak to be replaced.
Your continued reminder that whilst Sunak is popular here, and 'supported' by people who wouldn't dream of voting for him, the only time we've had a proper, working majority for the Tory party since PB began is when Boris Johnson went to the country in 2019.
Yougov polling was clear yesterday: 2019 Tory voters prefer Boris.
That is how unpopular Sunak is....
The Tory party have a problem with their members, just as the Labour party had under Corbyn. They are cuckoos in the nest.
Starmer was able to kick them out or at least neutralise them. Which leader of the Conservatives can do the same? Sunak seems too weak to do it. My money is on Mordaunt. But will the current Tory members allow her to be leader to cleanse them?
Nope - which is why the Tory party are going to spend a very long time in opposition watching themselves disappear up their own echo chamber until their members die off...
That interview with Mr Sunak yesterday was toe-curling. How can anyone think he would get through an intensive General Election campaign? Who is advising him?
The irony of Mr Seely going on TV to defend the line and being caught lieing about what he himself said on the same programme a week before is remarkable.
So who comes out of this looking good? Penny Mordaunt - a woman who was rejected for leader due to 'culture war' issues. My oh my. With friends like the culture warriors what political party needs enemies!
Meanwhile, outside the Westminster/PB bubble, an update from my local association:
Disappointment that our MP voted with Labour. Donors and activists angry and deflated. Calls for Sunak to be replaced.
Your continued reminder that whilst Sunak is popular here, and 'supported' by people who wouldn't dream of voting for him, the only time we've had a proper, working majority for the Tory party since PB began is when Boris Johnson went to the country in 2019.
Yougov polling was clear yesterday: 2019 Tory voters prefer Boris.
That is how unpopular Sunak is....
The Tory party have a problem with their members, just as the Labour party had under Corbyn. They are cuckoos in the nest.
Starmer was able to kick them out or at least neutralise them. Which leader of the Conservatives can do the same? Sunak seems too weak to do it. My money is on Mordaunt. But will the current Tory members allow her to be leader to cleanse them?
I hope you're right.
I fear it will end up being one of the gruesome twosome, Braverman or Badenoch.
BREAKING: Hunter Biden is being charged w/ a gun felony and two tax misdemeanors.
He is pleading guilty to the tax offenses and entering into a pre-trial diversion agreement on illegally possessing a gun while addicted to a controlled substance.
That interview with Mr Sunak yesterday was toe-curling. How can anyone think he would get through an intensive General Election campaign? Who is advising him?
The irony of Mr Seely going on TV to defend the line and being caught lieing about what he himself said on the same programme a week before is remarkable.
So who comes out of this looking good? Penny Mordaunt - a woman who was rejected for leader due to 'culture war' issues. My oh my. With friends like the culture warriors what political party needs enemies!
Meanwhile, outside the Westminster/PB bubble, an update from my local association:
Disappointment that our MP voted with Labour. Donors and activists angry and deflated. Calls for Sunak to be replaced.
Your continued reminder that whilst Sunak is popular here, and 'supported' by people who wouldn't dream of voting for him, the only time we've had a proper, working majority for the Tory party since PB began is when Boris Johnson went to the country in 2019.
Yougov polling was clear yesterday: 2019 Tory voters prefer Boris.
That is how unpopular Sunak is....
The Tory party have a problem with their members, just as the Labour party had under Corbyn. They are cuckoos in the nest.
Starmer was able to kick them out or at least neutralise them. Which leader of the Conservatives can do the same? Sunak seems too weak to do it. My money is on Mordaunt. But will the current Tory members allow her to be leader to cleanse them?
I hope you're right.
I fear it will end up being one of the gruesome twosome, Braverman or Badenoch.
That interview with Mr Sunak yesterday was toe-curling. How can anyone think he would get through an intensive General Election campaign? Who is advising him?
The irony of Mr Seely going on TV to defend the line and being caught lieing about what he himself said on the same programme a week before is remarkable.
So who comes out of this looking good? Penny Mordaunt - a woman who was rejected for leader due to 'culture war' issues. My oh my. With friends like the culture warriors what political party needs enemies!
Meanwhile, outside the Westminster/PB bubble, an update from my local association:
Disappointment that our MP voted with Labour. Donors and activists angry and deflated. Calls for Sunak to be replaced.
Your continued reminder that whilst Sunak is popular here, and 'supported' by people who wouldn't dream of voting for him, the only time we've had a proper, working majority for the Tory party since PB began is when Boris Johnson went to the country in 2019.
Yougov polling was clear yesterday: 2019 Tory voters prefer Boris.
That is how unpopular Sunak is....
The Tory party have a problem with their members, just as the Labour party had under Corbyn. They are cuckoos in the nest.
Starmer was able to kick them out or at least neutralise them. Which leader of the Conservatives can do the same? Sunak seems too weak to do it. My money is on Mordaunt. But will the current Tory members allow her to be leader to cleanse them?
I hope you're right.
I fear it will end up being one of the gruesome twosome, Braverman or Badenoch.
Then they are stuffed for a long time.
I know, it's the only reason I'm staying a member, to try and bring some sanity to the party.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
I suspect the only nerve you’ve touched today is your pudendal nerve. And your assumptions about my political persuasions are as misguided as your assertions about the respective business and economic expertise within the governments of Sunak, Blair and Starmer.
You seem very angry. We do have a few angry people on here as it is an inclusive site. Try chilling out a bit though and it will make your posts seem more interesting and prevent people from thinking you are just a swiveleyed twat.
That interview with Mr Sunak yesterday was toe-curling. How can anyone think he would get through an intensive General Election campaign? Who is advising him?
The irony of Mr Seely going on TV to defend the line and being caught lieing about what he himself said on the same programme a week before is remarkable.
So who comes out of this looking good? Penny Mordaunt - a woman who was rejected for leader due to 'culture war' issues. My oh my. With friends like the culture warriors what political party needs enemies!
Meanwhile, outside the Westminster/PB bubble, an update from my local association:
Disappointment that our MP voted with Labour. Donors and activists angry and deflated. Calls for Sunak to be replaced.
Your continued reminder that whilst Sunak is popular here, and 'supported' by people who wouldn't dream of voting for him, the only time we've had a proper, working majority for the Tory party since PB began is when Boris Johnson went to the country in 2019.
Yougov polling was clear yesterday: 2019 Tory voters prefer Boris.
That is how unpopular Sunak is....
Hmm sorry but that reminds me of how the pro -european bunch were prior to 2016.
So apart from catastrophically bad financial regulation, an unchecked housing boom and bust, and a huge amount of poor value PFI to make UK government debt look better Gordon Brown was a pretty good Chancellor and later PM eh?
You Brown fans are as nuts as the Tories defending Boris yesterday evening.
You think Brown was boomier and buster in housing than Thatcher?
Also Brown didn't introduce additional risk with his financial services regulation. He failed to address the systemic risk he inherited from his predecessors due to inadequate regulation.
Undoubtedly. House prices rose 206% between 1997 and 2007.
They also nearly doubled between 1982 and 1989 and then fell back much harder than 2007
Depends where you live. Northern Ireland post 2007 housing crash was far worse than the early 90s for the UK generally.
Let's say we thought the UK's future oil needs were for 1000 arbitrary units, but we're taking action, so the UK's future oil needs are actually only for 100 arbitrary units. And let's say that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units. In that context, Bart's fear that we'll have to get oil from OPEC states instead is invalid and it makes sense to block future North Sea exploration.
Except the plan is not to throttle new licences down to 250 units, its to have them at 0.
The units are totals, not rates. We're saying that existing North Sea developments will deliver 250 arbitrary units (over many years). There's enough oil there and we won't need any more. If that is true, would you withdraw your objection?
No, because when those units expire then what licences will replace them? No licences last forever and if there is a complete moratorium on new licences then there is no replacement for those 250 as they expire.
This isn't about licences expiring, it's not about paperwork. A Labour spokesperson said, "Labour would continue to use existing oil and gas wells over the coming decades". It's about opening up new drilling sites, or rather not opening them up.
The plan is presuming that the existing wells will continue to produce enough oil and gas for our future needs, given we will be massively reducing consumption. Or, put the other way around, those wells won't run out because we won't be using enough oil and gas for those wells to run out. Existing wells contain 250 arbitrary units (say), but we'll only need 100 of those.
What naïve short-termism.
No wells run forever so what happens when the existing wells run out? What's the plan then? Where are the licences to replace them?
That's what the Government needs to be doing, not going for short-term gimmicks but planning sensibly for the long-term. Those wells that exist today may be enough for today [they're not already as it happens which is why we have major imports already], but when those wells stop production we need a licensing regime to replace then.
You seem to have spun on a dime from a notion that total oil extractable will run out anyway, to that our existing wells alone will never, ever run out. No existing wells have enough oil to satisfy demand in perpetuity.
I think the point you are struggling with is that, like most people, you haven't, deep down, grasped how much the consumption of oil and gas will (or, at least, needs to... or maybe is envisaged to within the broader logic of Labour's plans...) fall.
.
Anas Sarwar on Sunday on The Laura Kuenssberg show was saying we will need oil for the foreseeable future.
I have listened to Ed Conway, who has written a book about the critical materials for Net Zero, he has said we will need oil for the next 40 or so years at least, and not just for fuel. I would recommend people listen to it. It is really interesting.
The expectation the demand will fall for these products just does not seem to be backed up by the reality so far. We are extracting more not less and until we have replacements for the other products derived from oil, fertilisers, plastics and so on, we will still need it.
Even if it does fall no one know by how much and when. Bart is right, far better to rely on our own production than that of others
I accept that the question of how much oil/gas usage will fall is up for debate. We need to stop burning it, but, yes, there are things we make from oil (although many of those, we want to switch out for other reasons).
AIUI, we burn ~100% of the gas and ~84% of the oil. So, at worst, we need 0% of the gas and 16% of the oil in future, and the figure for oil will go down.
Yes, the fact that we will need oil for manufacturing purposes for a long time to come highlights the insanity of extracting our own resources as quickly as possible and burning most of them. It's crazy. Even if it weren't for the environmental aspect, it would still make more long-term sense to keep most of our own untapped resources under the ground until they are really needed. But we don't do long-term, do we?
P.S. BTW, isn't natural gas also used to make fertilisers?
BREAKING: Hunter Biden is being charged w/ a gun felony and two tax misdemeanors.
He is pleading guilty to the tax offenses and entering into a pre-trial diversion agreement on illegally possessing a gun while addicted to a controlled substance.
Osborne wonders if we (and the world generally) would have locked down had China not done so.
V good question.
Of course we bloody would have. It was Italy's experience that triggered everyone taking it so seriously. And our own experiences that cause lockdowns 2 and 3.
Neil Ferguson (The Times):
“... confirms the degree to which he believes that imitating China’s lockdown policies at the start of 2020 changed the parameters of what Western societies consider acceptable.
“I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March,” Professor Ferguson says. When SAGE observed the “innovative intervention” out of China, of locking entire communities down and not permitting them to leave their homes, they initially presumed it would not be an available option in a liberal Western democracy. It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
"...and then Italy did it." So it was Italy's experience.
Italy didn't do it because they were sitting around going, "Oh, what will we do today? I'm a bit bored, say, let's do a China-style lockdown."
They did it because things were going so badly that they were reaching for anything possible. If anything, that quote suggests that we were being pushed away from lockdowns because we associated them with a communist one-party state and couldn't do them here.
I suppose the very fact that China pulled it off with a really harsh lockdown, way beyond anything tried here, was a learning point, but it also glosses over the fact that lockdowns here, lockdowns in France, lockdowns in Italy, lockdowns in China were all different things with different levels of harshness and restrictions, all given the same term of "lockdown."
But anyone thinking we'd have done things that much differently, or just let things get on with it and ignored the overflowing hospitals and morgues in Italy if we'd never have got a picture of what they were doing in China is not really being serious. Are they?
Agreed.
I think some psychologists/behavioural scientists/public health experts early on underestimated the willingness of (most of) the public to put up with dramatic restrictions, and this made them and the governments they advised slow to adopt lockdowns. But that's just an example of the difficulty we all have imagining extreme and novel situations, as COVID-19 was.
When we have a public conditioned by the dominant right-wing press to think that 1p on fuel duty or 1% on council tax means the end of civilisation, what did they expect when a real crisis arose?
That interview with Mr Sunak yesterday was toe-curling. How can anyone think he would get through an intensive General Election campaign? Who is advising him?
The irony of Mr Seely going on TV to defend the line and being caught lieing about what he himself said on the same programme a week before is remarkable.
So who comes out of this looking good? Penny Mordaunt - a woman who was rejected for leader due to 'culture war' issues. My oh my. With friends like the culture warriors what political party needs enemies!
Meanwhile, outside the Westminster/PB bubble, an update from my local association:
Disappointment that our MP voted with Labour. Donors and activists angry and deflated. Calls for Sunak to be replaced.
Your continued reminder that whilst Sunak is popular here, and 'supported' by people who wouldn't dream of voting for him, the only time we've had a proper, working majority for the Tory party since PB began is when Boris Johnson went to the country in 2019.
Yougov polling was clear yesterday: 2019 Tory voters prefer Boris.
That is how unpopular Sunak is....
The Tory party have a problem with their members, just as the Labour party had under Corbyn. They are cuckoos in the nest.
Starmer was able to kick them out or at least neutralise them. Which leader of the Conservatives can do the same? Sunak seems too weak to do it. My money is on Mordaunt. But will the current Tory members allow her to be leader to cleanse them?
I think we've reached the point where only a massive rejection at the polls will recreate a more realistic membership. Not likely to be a quick process.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Sunak's "business" career involved working as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, and later for an array of hedge funds. Now colour me skeptical but none of those enterprises involved chasing accounts receivable, juggling cashflow and harassing customers to make that order. That's my experience of a background in "business". Sunak's most informative business education was minding the chemist's shop for his mum.
If Starmer is not already engaging with business interest groups he has no desire to become PM.
Your criticism is valid, but it is still significantly greater than Sir Kier "when I was Director of Public Prosecutions" Starmer though n'est pas? And significantly greater than anyone on the Labour front bench unless I have missed something. Our economy requires people who don't just understand business, but understand what makes it tick. It is one of the worst aspects of our polarised system. We are about to replace one bunch who have no idea hwe a whole demographic works with another lot who are just as bad in a different direction. Maybe the LibDems are the compromise solution? (kidding)
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Sunak's "business" career involved working as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, and later for an array of hedge funds. Now colour me skeptical but none of those enterprises involved chasing accounts receivable, juggling cashflow and harassing customers to make that order. That's my experience of a background in "business". Sunak's most informative business education was minding the chemist's shop for his mum.
If Starmer is not already engaging with business interest groups he has no desire to become PM.
Your criticism is valid, but it is still significantly greater than Sir Kier "when I was Director of Public Prosecutions" Starmer though n'est pas? And significantly greater than anyone on the Labour front bench unless I have missed something. Our economy requires people who don't just understand business, but understand what makes it tick. It is one of the worst aspects of our polarised system. We are about to replace one bunch who have no idea hwe a whole demographic works with another lot who are just as bad in a different direction. Maybe the LibDems are the compromise solution? (kidding)
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Sunak's "business" career involved working as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, and later for an array of hedge funds. Now colour me skeptical but none of those enterprises involved chasing accounts receivable, juggling cashflow and harassing customers to make that order. That's my experience of a background in "business". Sunak's most informative business education was minding the chemist's shop for his mum.
If Starmer is not already engaging with business interest groups he has no desire to become PM.
Your criticism is valid, but it is still significantly greater than Sir Kier "when I was Director of Public Prosecutions" Starmer though n'est pas? And significantly greater than anyone on the Labour front bench unless I have missed something. Our economy requires people who don't just understand business, but understand what makes it tick. It is one of the worst aspects of our polarised system. We are about to replace one bunch who have no idea hwe a whole demographic works with another lot who are just as bad in a different direction. Maybe the LibDems are the compromise solution? (kidding)
It's "n'est-ce pas", by the way. Everyone forgets the "-ce"...
Anyway, good government needs people in Parliament who understand all parts of life. For example, what about nurses? I think Parliament would be better with more MPs who had been nurses beforehand. I can imagine an MP with a nursing background being really good for the Commons!!!
Khawaja is the key here. Not for fast scoring but because as long as he's there Head and Green will feel they have a licence to thrill (a la Botham and Tavaré).
BREAKING: Hunter Biden is being charged w/ a gun felony and two tax misdemeanors.
He is pleading guilty to the tax offenses and entering into a pre-trial diversion agreement on illegally possessing a gun while addicted to a controlled substance.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Sunak's "business" career involved working as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, and later for an array of hedge funds. Now colour me skeptical but none of those enterprises involved chasing accounts receivable, juggling cashflow and harassing customers to make that order. That's my experience of a background in "business". Sunak's most informative business education was minding the chemist's shop for his mum.
If Starmer is not already engaging with business interest groups he has no desire to become PM.
Your criticism is valid, but it is still significantly greater than Sir Kier "when I was Director of Public Prosecutions" Starmer though n'est pas? And significantly greater than anyone on the Labour front bench unless I have missed something. Our economy requires people who don't just understand business, but understand what makes it tick. It is one of the worst aspects of our polarised system. We are about to replace one bunch who have no idea hwe a whole demographic works with another lot who are just as bad in a different direction. Maybe the LibDems are the compromise solution? (kidding)
It's "n'est-ce pas", by the way. Everyone forgets the "-ce"...
Anyway, good government needs people in Parliament who understand all parts of life. For example, what about nurses? I think Parliament would be better with more MPs who had been nurses beforehand. I can imagine an MP with a nursing background being really good for the Commons!!!
There are a lot of people with NHS backgrounds in the commons. Plenty of doctors -the second job argument appears not to apply to this elite group! The only person I can think of from a nursing background is Mad Nad!! I am sure tehre are better examples though
John Major on The Rest is Politics suggests reasons for increased tribalism:- 1) most people have better things to do 2) the end of late-night sittings means no cross-party friendships formed in the tea rooms in the wee small hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbYASSrGTKQ
If it hadn't been for Gordon Brown's recklessness, I reckon they'd have been able to start earlier.
They thought he had abolished bat and bowl
That's good. (Unlike your views on Labour, the public sector, and public sector pensions, which are somewhat out of date).
Labour, the public sector, and public sector pensions are somewhat out of date
Now I can agree with that sentence, though "somewhat" as a qualifier is an understatement. We can throw "Conservative Party" into the sentence too for political balance
That interview with Mr Sunak yesterday was toe-curling. How can anyone think he would get through an intensive General Election campaign? Who is advising him?
The irony of Mr Seely going on TV to defend the line and being caught lieing about what he himself said on the same programme a week before is remarkable.
So who comes out of this looking good? Penny Mordaunt - a woman who was rejected for leader due to 'culture war' issues. My oh my. With friends like the culture warriors what political party needs enemies!
Meanwhile, outside the Westminster/PB bubble, an update from my local association:
Disappointment that our MP voted with Labour. Donors and activists angry and deflated. Calls for Sunak to be replaced.
Your continued reminder that whilst Sunak is popular here, and 'supported' by people who wouldn't dream of voting for him, the only time we've had a proper, working majority for the Tory party since PB began is when Boris Johnson went to the country in 2019.
Yougov polling was clear yesterday: 2019 Tory voters prefer Boris.
That is how unpopular Sunak is....
The Tory party have a problem with their members, just as the Labour party had under Corbyn. They are cuckoos in the nest.
Starmer was able to kick them out or at least neutralise them. Which leader of the Conservatives can do the same? Sunak seems too weak to do it. My money is on Mordaunt. But will the current Tory members allow her to be leader to cleanse them?
I hope you're right.
I fear it will end up being one of the gruesome twosome, Braverman or Badenoch.
Then they are stuffed for a long time.
I know, it's the only reason I'm staying a member, to try and bring some sanity to the party.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Sunak's "business" career involved working as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, and later for an array of hedge funds. Now colour me skeptical but none of those enterprises involved chasing accounts receivable, juggling cashflow and harassing customers to make that order. That's my experience of a background in "business". Sunak's most informative business education was minding the chemist's shop for his mum.
If Starmer is not already engaging with business interest groups he has no desire to become PM.
Your criticism is valid, but it is still significantly greater than Sir Kier "when I was Director of Public Prosecutions" Starmer though n'est pas? And significantly greater than anyone on the Labour front bench unless I have missed something. Our economy requires people who don't just understand business, but understand what makes it tick. It is one of the worst aspects of our polarised system. We are about to replace one bunch who have no idea hwe a whole demographic works with another lot who are just as bad in a different direction. Maybe the LibDems are the compromise solution? (kidding)
It's "n'est-ce pas", by the way. Everyone forgets the "-ce"...
Anyway, good government needs people in Parliament who understand all parts of life. For example, what about nurses? I think Parliament would be better with more MPs who had been nurses beforehand. I can imagine an MP with a nursing background being really good for the Commons!!!
There are a lot of people with NHS backgrounds in the commons. Plenty of doctors -the second job argument appears not to apply to this elite group! The only person I can think of from a nursing background is Mad Nad!! I am sure tehre are better examples though
Dorries was in my mind (as she always is) and I was being ironic because of that. I hoped the triple exclamation mark would give it away.
But, seriously, I’m all for nurse->MP journeys, even if one notable example went poorly.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Sunak's "business" career involved working as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, and later for an array of hedge funds. Now colour me skeptical but none of those enterprises involved chasing accounts receivable, juggling cashflow and harassing customers to make that order. That's my experience of a background in "business". Sunak's most informative business education was minding the chemist's shop for his mum.
If Starmer is not already engaging with business interest groups he has no desire to become PM.
Your criticism is valid, but it is still significantly greater than Sir Kier "when I was Director of Public Prosecutions" Starmer though n'est pas? And significantly greater than anyone on the Labour front bench unless I have missed something. Our economy requires people who don't just understand business, but understand what makes it tick. It is one of the worst aspects of our polarised system. We are about to replace one bunch who have no idea hwe a whole demographic works with another lot who are just as bad in a different direction. Maybe the LibDems are the compromise solution? (kidding)
Tories are the party of "fuck business".
Nope, Johnson, an ex-leader stated this, and though, as you know, I am no apologist for the fat incompetent twat, it was taken out of context. Many people in Labour genuinely believe it, and they will do everything they can to achieve it..
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
I'm not sure of the answer myself, but it is legitimate to challenge your post by asking who you think is serious and who you think is unserious in the Labour ranks or what, amongst the trickle of policy announcements, you regard as serious or unserious? Show your workings.
A good and fair question. My impression is that the curent Labour leadership is only interested in the public sector based on announcements made and questions put by LoTO. I would be delighted to be reassured, because we are almost certain to get a Labour government. Can I perhaps ask you a question or two? a) what policy announcements has Starmer made that demonstrate Labour's commitment to business and wealth creation in the private sector (as was done by Blair) and how many people on the Labour frontbench have had a substantial part of their career in the private, not public sector?
Tories have plenty of ministers with private sector experience. Hasn't led to much national wealth creation over the past decade that I can see.
Agree though that very few lab mps have business backgrounds, especially if you rule out the lawyers. Tbh many MPs have very little experience in anything other than politics.
'Tis why I don't buy the argument against second jobs. Being a backbencher is a part time job or how else can one also be a minister? All backbenchers should IMO be encouraged to have second jobs even if it is pushing trolleys in a Tesco car park.
Looking increasingly likely AUS may not get there by 80 overs which could give ENG a chance with second new ball. If AUS have established batters then, then this won't help ENG but it could do if they are say 7 or 8 down with new batters.
So apart from catastrophically bad financial regulation, an unchecked housing boom and bust, and a huge amount of poor value PFI to make UK government debt look better Gordon Brown was a pretty good Chancellor and later PM eh?
You Brown fans are as nuts as the Tories defending Boris yesterday evening.
You think Brown was boomier and buster in housing than Thatcher?
Also Brown didn't introduce additional risk with his financial services regulation. He failed to address the systemic risk he inherited from his predecessors due to inadequate regulation.
Undoubtedly. House prices rose 206% between 1997 and 2007.
They also nearly doubled between 1982 and 1989 and then fell back much harder than 2007
I'm talking about tripling, not doubling.
Ah OK. Difference between nominal and real house prices.
Point I'm making is not that Brown got this stuff right. It's that he did the same as everyone else, but for some reason people pick him out as uniquely catastrophic.
What he did was uniquely catastrophic. Well apart from all Labour government's running out of money, that's not unique.
Can you name any other government that oversaw house prices going from a 3x income multiple to a 7x income multiple in a few years?
Can you name any other government that saw a budget surplus turned into a budget deficit of 3% in a few years before rather than after the next recession hits?
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Sunak's "business" career involved working as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, and later for an array of hedge funds. Now colour me skeptical but none of those enterprises involved chasing accounts receivable, juggling cashflow and harassing customers to make that order. That's my experience of a background in "business". Sunak's most informative business education was minding the chemist's shop for his mum.
If Starmer is not already engaging with business interest groups he has no desire to become PM.
Your criticism is valid, but it is still significantly greater than Sir Kier "when I was Director of Public Prosecutions" Starmer though n'est pas? And significantly greater than anyone on the Labour front bench unless I have missed something. Our economy requires people who don't just understand business, but understand what makes it tick. It is one of the worst aspects of our polarised system. We are about to replace one bunch who have no idea hwe a whole demographic works with another lot who are just as bad in a different direction. Maybe the LibDems are the compromise solution? (kidding)
Tories are the party of "fuck business".
Nope, Johnson, an ex-leader stated this, and though, as you know, I am no apologist for the fat incompetent twat, it was taken out of context. Many people in Labour genuinely believe it, and they will do everything they can to achieve it..
Tories good, Labour bad, come what may, eh?
Let's not let the evidence get in the way of your dogma.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Sunak's "business" career involved working as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, and later for an array of hedge funds. Now colour me skeptical but none of those enterprises involved chasing accounts receivable, juggling cashflow and harassing customers to make that order. That's my experience of a background in "business". Sunak's most informative business education was minding the chemist's shop for his mum.
If Starmer is not already engaging with business interest groups he has no desire to become PM.
Your criticism is valid, but it is still significantly greater than Sir Kier "when I was Director of Public Prosecutions" Starmer though n'est pas? And significantly greater than anyone on the Labour front bench unless I have missed something. Our economy requires people who don't just understand business, but understand what makes it tick. It is one of the worst aspects of our polarised system. We are about to replace one bunch who have no idea hwe a whole demographic works with another lot who are just as bad in a different direction. Maybe the LibDems are the compromise solution? (kidding)
Tories are the party of "fuck business".
Nope, Johnson, an ex-leader stated this, and though, as you know, I am no apologist for the fat incompetent twat, it was taken out of context. Many people in Labour genuinely believe it, and they will do everything they can to achieve it..
BREAKING: Hunter Biden is being charged w/ a gun felony and two tax misdemeanors.
He is pleading guilty to the tax offenses and entering into a pre-trial diversion agreement on illegally possessing a gun while addicted to a controlled substance.
Looking increasingly likely AUS may not get there by 80 overs which could give ENG a chance with second new ball. If AUS have established batters then, then this won't help ENG but it could do if they are say 7 or 8 down with new batters.
Am I a dinosaur for preferring 'batsman' to 'batter'? Batter is a flour mixture.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Sunak's "business" career involved working as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, and later for an array of hedge funds. Now colour me skeptical but none of those enterprises involved chasing accounts receivable, juggling cashflow and harassing customers to make that order. That's my experience of a background in "business". Sunak's most informative business education was minding the chemist's shop for his mum.
If Starmer is not already engaging with business interest groups he has no desire to become PM.
Your criticism is valid, but it is still significantly greater than Sir Kier "when I was Director of Public Prosecutions" Starmer though n'est pas? And significantly greater than anyone on the Labour front bench unless I have missed something. Our economy requires people who don't just understand business, but understand what makes it tick. It is one of the worst aspects of our polarised system. We are about to replace one bunch who have no idea hwe a whole demographic works with another lot who are just as bad in a different direction. Maybe the LibDems are the compromise solution? (kidding)
Tories are the party of "fuck business".
Nope, Johnson, an ex-leader stated this, and though, as you know, I am no apologist for the fat incompetent twat, it was taken out of context. Many people in Labour genuinely believe it, and they will do everything they can to achieve it..
Tories good, Labour bad, come what may, eh?
Let's not let the evidence get in the way of your dogma.
Lol. Pretty ironic coming from you eh? Tories are NOT good and I have been saying that since TMay took over you muppet! The sad thing on here is the inability of people to actually see the faults in their own "tribe". I guess it is the polarising nature of FPTP
So apart from catastrophically bad financial regulation, an unchecked housing boom and bust, and a huge amount of poor value PFI to make UK government debt look better Gordon Brown was a pretty good Chancellor and later PM eh?
You Brown fans are as nuts as the Tories defending Boris yesterday evening.
You think Brown was boomier and buster in housing than Thatcher?
Also Brown didn't introduce additional risk with his financial services regulation. He failed to address the systemic risk he inherited from his predecessors due to inadequate regulation.
Undoubtedly. House prices rose 206% between 1997 and 2007.
They also nearly doubled between 1982 and 1989 and then fell back much harder than 2007
I'm talking about tripling, not doubling.
Ah OK. Difference between nominal and real house prices.
Point I'm making is not that Brown got this stuff right. It's that he did the same as everyone else, but for some reason people pick him out as uniquely catastrophic.
What he did was uniquely catastrophic. Well apart from all Labour government's running out of money, that's not unique.
Can you name any other government that oversaw house prices going from a 3x income multiple to a 7x income multiple in a few years?
Can you name any other government that saw a budget surplus turned into a budget deficit of 3% in a few years before rather than after the next recession hits?
The government ran out of money? So the subsequent government had to spend less than it took in?
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.
Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.
Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.
The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.
It is judging of them as PM not overall.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.
But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.
That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.
As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
Anyone who suggests either Blair or Brown is a war criminal is outing themselves as ridiculous.
And yes, Cameron deserves massive praise for introduction of equal marriage rights. 👍
He said it was the achievement he was most proud of. And I'll resist the obvious comment of 'from a short list' because it was an achievement and he's right to feel that way.
Particularly against the majority of his MPs; nowadays the PM is running scared of a minority of his.
'Dave' masked it for a while but the Tory Party seem to be uncomfortable with the modern world again. Not sure about Sunak at all. I find it hard to get a read on what he's all about. When he took over I was a bit worried he might be very good but no, he decidedly isn't. Phew.
Yes, but sorry to break it to you, but podgy Kier will be worse. Unlike Sunak, he knows fuck all about business and he has failed (unlike Blair) to make up for that massive deficit by surrounding himself with people that do. I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see the economy improve a little on the optimism of a change of government but then for it to tank under the mismanagement of people that have even less understanding of how an economy and business works that Peppa Pig Boy and Lizzy Lightweight combined.
In that case, let me put you out of your misery: you are wrong.
The Shadow Chancellor worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the UK embassy in Washington DC and Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering the Commons. She also chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from 2017 to 2020. These are not the hallmarks of a wide-eyed ingenue that “knows fuck all about business”, are they?
Wind your bloody neck in, for Pete’s sake.
Obviously touched a nerve. As this is only your 51st post, and you clearly find it difficult to look at your own political idols with anything less than rose tinted specs I will be polite, but feel obliged to point out that it seems that it might be your neck that may be getting overdistended. And by the way, Pete really doesn't mind when I last asked him.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Sunak's "business" career involved working as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, and later for an array of hedge funds. Now colour me skeptical but none of those enterprises involved chasing accounts receivable, juggling cashflow and harassing customers to make that order. That's my experience of a background in "business". Sunak's most informative business education was minding the chemist's shop for his mum.
If Starmer is not already engaging with business interest groups he has no desire to become PM.
Your criticism is valid, but it is still significantly greater than Sir Kier "when I was Director of Public Prosecutions" Starmer though n'est pas? And significantly greater than anyone on the Labour front bench unless I have missed something. Our economy requires people who don't just understand business, but understand what makes it tick. It is one of the worst aspects of our polarised system. We are about to replace one bunch who have no idea hwe a whole demographic works with another lot who are just as bad in a different direction. Maybe the LibDems are the compromise solution? (kidding)
Tories are the party of "fuck business".
Nope, Johnson, an ex-leader stated this, and though, as you know, I am no apologist for the fat incompetent twat, it was taken out of context. Many people in Labour genuinely believe it, and they will do everything they can to achieve it..
Gordon Brown made him say it.
He has a lot to answer for. With respect to Johnson he definitely didn't put an end to Tory boobs and busts
Comments
Propping up house prices has caused a lot of pain in the last 15 years.
The irony of Mr Seely going on TV to defend the line and being caught lieing about what he himself said on the same programme a week before is remarkable.
So who comes out of this looking good? Penny Mordaunt - a woman who was rejected for leader due to 'culture war' issues. My oh my. With friends like the culture warriors what political party needs enemies!
There are several things we could export with positive effects both in tax revenues and balance-of-payments, but we choose not to. Some weapons, for example.
Certainly compared to the average Labour politician she has more credentials here than most of her colleagues, and like Starmer, she is a huge improvement on her predecessors. Just to educate your good self though, economist does not equal business person. As I am guessing you might be a bit of an enthusiastic uncritical Labour supporter I am sure that is a revelation to you, as you probably assume they are the same. They are not.
Starmer needs to do a lot more work with the business community. He still has time.
Disappointment that our MP voted with Labour. Donors and activists angry and deflated. Calls for Sunak to be replaced.
Your continued reminder that whilst Sunak is popular here, and 'supported' by people who wouldn't dream of voting for him, the only time we've had a proper, working majority for the Tory party since PB began is when Boris Johnson went to the country in 2019.
Yougov polling was clear yesterday: 2019 Tory voters prefer Boris.
That is how unpopular Sunak is....
If the oil is left in the ground now it'll still be there and available for use by future generations. Extracting it at a slower rate just makes it last longer.
So Labour was destroyed by the Winter of discontent
The Tories were destroyed by Black Wednesday
Labour by the GFC
Now (arguably perhaps) the Tories CoL crisis
So they will only regain economic confidence when Labour screw up economically, which probably means second term or so.
(I think the cycle goes back further: Tories 3 day week, Wilson devaluation etc)
It’s not just a question of looking at the numbers on a particular business but also working out where that business has upside or downside or where that sector does so knowing about business would be somewhat helpful.
Way back in the mists of time when I was an equity analyst if I had just looked at the numbers I wouldn’t have done very well, I had to understand the business I was telling people to buy or sell and the market they were in.
Ultimately, interest rates were always going to return to normal at some point.
But, I guess that now you have decided to insert the word 'podgy' when you mention Starmer you're probably not old enough to follow what's going on.
The plan is presuming that the existing wells will continue to produce enough oil and gas for our future needs, given we will be massively reducing consumption. Or, put the other way around, those wells won't run out because we won't be using enough oil and gas for those wells to run out. Existing wells contain 250 arbitrary units (say), but we'll only need 100 of those.
“... confirms the degree to which he believes that imitating China’s lockdown policies at the start of 2020 changed the parameters of what Western societies consider acceptable.
“I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March,” Professor Ferguson says. When SAGE observed the “innovative intervention” out of China, of locking entire communities down and not permitting them to leave their homes, they initially presumed it would not be an available option in a liberal Western democracy. It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
Not convinced on the substance of what you say though, but I actually hope you are right. They need to ramp it up, because I am not convinced they have the first clue. Willing to give them the benefit of the doubt , as I quite like them both. It's the rest of the Labour Party I worry about though.
No wells run forever so what happens when the existing wells run out? What's the plan then? Where are the licences to replace them?
That's what the Government needs to be doing, not going for short-term gimmicks but planning sensibly for the long-term. Those wells that exist today may be enough for today [they're not already as it happens which is why we have major imports already], but when those wells stop production we need a licensing regime to replace then.
You seem to have spun on a dime from a notion that total oil extractable will run out anyway, to that our existing wells alone will never, ever run out. No existing wells have enough oil to satisfy demand in perpetuity.
But in the meantime, what's different is the huge size of some people's mortgages, especially in London and the south east, compared to when interest rates were last 'normal'. Which brings us back to the absurd cost of houses in some regions.
So it was Italy's experience.
Italy didn't do it because they were sitting around going, "Oh, what will we do today? I'm a bit bored, say, let's do a China-style lockdown."
They did it because things were going so badly that they were reaching for anything possible. If anything, that quote suggests that we were being pushed away from lockdowns because we associated them with a communist one-party state and couldn't do them here.
I suppose the very fact that China pulled it off with a really harsh lockdown, way beyond anything tried here, was a learning point, but it also glosses over the fact that lockdowns here, lockdowns in France, lockdowns in Italy, lockdowns in China were all different things with different levels of harshness and restrictions, all given the same term of "lockdown."
But anyone thinking we'd have done things that much differently, or just let things get on with it and ignored the overflowing hospitals and morgues in Italy if we'd never have got a picture of what they were doing in China is not really being serious. Are they?
Richard Tyndall has made a few comments about it on PB. Well worth reading.
If we look at existing North Sea reserves, what should come up through existing wells, we are f***ed if we burn all of those. (Gas is simpler as that's almost the only thing we do with it, burn it. Oil is more complicated because we also use it to make other substances, which doesn't add to CO2 in the atmosphere, but which is problematic for other reasons.)
Look at this graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_oil#/media/File:US_Whale_Oil_and_Sperm_Oil_Imports_(1805-1905).jpg This describes the last big shift in oil usage, from whale oils to geological oils. With geological oil and gas, we're currently around the equivalent of 1860. We will/need the same massive decline in usage. Which will mean, yes, the existing wells will not run out.
The "naïve short-termism", so to speak, is the inability to see how much the oil and gas industry will change.
Prince Michael of Kent’s private office lobbied a senior Foreign Office official to help obtain a fast-track UK visa for a Russian financier closely linked to a sanctioned oligarch, The Times can reveal.
The equerry of the prince, the late Queen’s cousin, emailed a diplomat in Moscow asking him if he could “expedite” an application by Maxim Viktorov, a 50-year-old businessman. Viktorov was able to get on a flight to London arriving six days later.
At the time of the intervention in 2018, the prince was the global ambassador and part owner of a UK finance firm that was in the process of securing £100,000 of investment from an organisation run by Viktorov.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-michael-of-kent-sanctioned-russian-oligarch-boris-rotenberg-adviser-uk-visa-k8trndv5s
The approach known as Housing First has long enjoyed bipartisan support. But conservatives are pushing efforts to replace it with programs that put more emphasis on sobriety and employment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/us/politics/federal-policy-on-homelessness-becomes-new-target-of-the-right.html?smid=tw-share
Agree though that very few lab mps have business backgrounds, especially if you rule out the lawyers. Tbh many MPs have very little experience in anything other than politics.
I think some psychologists/behavioural scientists/public health experts early on underestimated the willingness of (most of) the public to put up with dramatic restrictions, and this made them and the governments they advised slow to adopt lockdowns. But that's just an example of the difficulty we all have imagining extreme and novel situations, as COVID-19 was.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/15/liberal-democracy-will-biggest-casualty-pandemic/
If Starmer is not already engaging with business interest groups he has no desire to become PM.
I have listened to Ed Conway, who has written a book about the critical materials for Net Zero, he has said we will need oil for the next 40 or so years at least, and not just for fuel. I would recommend people listen to it. It is really interesting.
The expectation the demand will fall for these products just does not seem to be backed up by the reality so far. We are extracting more not less and until we have replacements for the other products derived from oil, fertilisers, plastics and so on, we will still need it.
Even if it does fall no one know by how much and when. Bart is right, far better to rely on our own production than that of others
Whatever we say about the US under Trump, there would not have been the same discontinuity; the western world would have had data on the spread of the virus far earlier. Perhaps that would not have altered the decision to lock down; but we would have made the decisions on much better early data.
"I do not doubt that there are extreme situations in which oppressive controls over our daily lives may be necessary and justified: an imminent threat of invasion, for example, or a violent general insurrection. Some health crises may qualify, such as a major epidemic of smallpox (case mortality about 30 per cent) or Ebola (about 50 per cent)."
The rest of the article presents the issue as one of principle, but in this paragraph he conceded that it's simply about where one draws the threshold for taking unusual coercive action.
This makes me more of a freedom fighter in this regard than Sumption, because I argue that the government should have implemented "lockdown" via public health advice and recommendation, rather than the force of law, because it was fundamentally wrong for the government to regulate who could enter private households (but the pandemic needed fighting so it should have advised that people self-regulated, and trusted informed citizens of a democracy to mostly do so).
Starmer was able to kick them out or at least neutralise them. Which leader of the Conservatives can do the same? Sunak seems too weak to do it. My money is on Mordaunt. But will the current Tory members allow her to be leader to cleanse them?
Point I'm making is not that Brown got this stuff right. It's that he did the same as everyone else, but for some reason people pick him out as uniquely catastrophic.
He is pleading guilty to the tax offenses and entering into a pre-trial diversion agreement on illegally possessing a gun while addicted to a controlled substance.
https://twitter.com/AlexThomp/status/1671147617512747008
AIUI, we burn ~100% of the gas and ~84% of the oil. So, at worst, we need 0% of the gas and 16% of the oil in future, and the figure for oil will go down.
I fear it will end up being one of the gruesome twosome, Braverman or Badenoch.
SO UNFAIR
WORST TREATMENT OF ANY PRESIDENT'S SON IN ALL HISTORY
SAD
"Noone cares about Europe"
P.S. BTW, isn't natural gas also used to make fertilisers?
Anyway, good government needs people in Parliament who understand all parts of life. For example, what about nurses? I think Parliament would be better with more MPs who had been nurses beforehand. I can imagine an MP with a nursing background being really good for the Commons!!!
If it doesn't rain, looks comfortable for them.
Above par innings from Boland.
@mikewadejourno
Q: 'Is your husband innocent?'
A: 'I can only speak for myself ...'
1) most people have better things to do
2) the end of late-night sittings means no cross-party friendships formed in the tea rooms in the wee small hours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbYASSrGTKQ
Q: 'Is your husband innocent?'
A: 'I can only speak for myself ...'
https://twitter.com/mikewadejourno/status/1671151957002813440?
Now I can agree with that sentence, though "somewhat" as a qualifier is an understatement. We can throw "Conservative Party" into the sentence too for political balance
But, seriously, I’m all for nurse->MP journeys, even if one notable example went poorly.
Can you name any other government that oversaw house prices going from a 3x income multiple to a 7x income multiple in a few years?
Can you name any other government that saw a budget surplus turned into a budget deficit of 3% in a few years before rather than after the next recession hits?
Let's not let the evidence get in the way of your dogma.