Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
Yes - we have a tax system that heavily penalises employment, and rewards self employment and unearned wealth accumulation. I posted a few days ago about Finland, in essence public services are a million times better and almost everyone is happy (you get things like a state sponsored defined benefit pension, new roads AND cycle lanes in equal measure) but the marginal tax rate is similar for people who are in employment to that in the UK. The difference is that people in Finland who get income from wealth pay a similar amount of tax to that which you would pay if working, and there are very few allowances and loopholes. If you get any money coming through outside of employment it is usually taxed at 30-50%.
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Bobby is still bizarrely the same price for the Prez as for the Nom though. Implication being either there's a big chance he'll run anyway (and maybe win) without the Nom if necessary, or that if he does get the Nom he becomes a stone cold cert in November.
No idea who is betting on RFKJr either for the presidency or the nomination, but a lot of the money for American Values 2024, the super-PAC that's supporting his campaign, has come from billionaire Trump backer Timothy Mellon.
RFKJr going 3rd party may turn out to be a feasible path for Trump to return to the WH. (Or for added fun, how about one of them going 3rd party and the other going 4th party if for some reason Trump doesn't win the Rep nom?)
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
That early poll suggests that so few people will vote Tory that there's not much chance of the opposition vote being split and the Tories sneaking through.
I'm inclined to be dubious that the Tories will do that badly. Even if they do they are (rightly) keen on a LD/Lab battle in a hope of holding on.
The difference in publicity for a Tory win vs a loss here would be huge.
I just remembered in that poll you referenced @bondegezou I believe there was a high percentage for an independent. Independents normally get squeezed.
I know nothing about this independent, but as a general rule I believe the following happens with the majority of that vote:
A non targeted Tory seat - the vote largely goes Tory A Tory seat targeted by the LDs in a by election - the vote goes massively LD A Tory seat targeted by Lab - the vote is split between Lab and the Tories A Tory seat targeted by Lab and LD - the vote is confused
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
Yes - we have a tax system that heavily penalises employment, and rewards self employment and unearned wealth accumulation. I posted a few days ago about Finland, in essence public services are a million times better and almost everyone is happy (you get things like a state sponsored defined benefit pension, new roads AND cycle lanes in equal measure) but the marginal tax rate is similar for people who are in employment to that in the UK. The difference is that people in Finland who get income from wealth pay a similar amount of tax to that which you would pay if working, and there are very few allowances and loopholes. If you get any money coming through outside of employment it is usually taxed at 30-50%.
Not forgetting tax dodgers, of course. We have a government dedicated to creating loopholes so that wealthy tax-dodgers can continue to dodge paying tax quite legally.
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
The problems are house prices and inflation.
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
That's a killer stat.
That's 200 000 a year for 40 years.
Which is a measure both of how long this has been a problem and how long it will take to fix.
Not coincidentally, 40 years takes you back to early Thatcher, and Right to Buy.
Public sector secure and affordable long term rental is too small a piece of our housing landscape. There's a need to reverse the decline that started then.
The problem wasn't council housing it was council estates.
And by 1980 they had become associated with slums in the sky and edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
There are likely votes for any party which advocates increasing the size of every village by 2% by building a few council semis in it and to be reserved for local people.
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
The problems are house prices and inflation.
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
That's a killer stat.
That's 200 000 a year for 40 years.
Which is a measure both of how long this has been a problem and how long it will take to fix.
Not coincidentally, 40 years takes you back to early Thatcher, and Right to Buy.
Public sector secure and affordable long term rental is too small a piece of our housing landscape. There's a need to reverse the decline that started then.
The issue is not changing the rate of house building to match the increase in population from mass immigration.
This does result in some comic moments - at least one poster here has tried to deny there is a housing shortag.
I get why some liberal people feel they can’t say this. There is also the tension between environmentalism and building properties.
Not building is institutionally racist.
I am pro immigration. Therefore I am pro building properties, schools, hospitals, roads, railways etc to match.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
The unsaid thing is just how whopping our debt servicing costs have gone up.
I think it's something like from £25bn per annum to well over £100bn per annum.
So that's over 75bn a year HMG need to raise in taxes/cuts from public services.
Good morning
I quoted he figures from 2022-23 at £110 billion and few if any realise just how huge this is and a drag on our economy
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Harsh because much as I love Sir Geoffrey there were only 2 versions of him - dour and very dour. He'd play his way in and carry on like this until he was out. Yes I know there was sometimes a late cut off the back foot just behind square, but still.
SKS is risk averse (extremely so) but it's not general it's specific and it's focused. The risk he's averse to is throwing away an otherwise surefire election win by doing or saying anything too sparky. Keeping the excellent (and genuinely helpful) cricket theme he's playing his way in. So of course SKS looks like SGB right now. And this is good since nobody played his way in better than that great man.
Once he has done that (ie won the election) that's when we'll find out what Keir Starmer all about as a politician and a PM and (most importantly) as a batsman. I could be wrong (I'm only 75% convinced and could be doing a spot of pep talk to self) but I see him relaxing into some crowd-pleasing strokes and scoring a big hundred.
Geoffrey Boycott is a man whose personality problems make him a hero among a*seholes as if he were a kind of micro-Donald Trump, a racist, and a convicted woman beater. All round, a f***ing disgrace to Yorkshire.
Convicted in a French court, so not valid, as France, as we know, is a failed state.
French justice is indeed third world. You never want to be in their courts against an opponent who is more French than you are.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
The unsaid thing is just how whopping our debt servicing costs have gone up.
I think it's something like from £25bn per annum to well over £100bn per annum.
So that's over 75bn a year HMG need to raise in taxes/cuts from public services.
Though that's nominal money, in real-terms since most of our debt is not index-linked, then the debt burden goes down not up with inflation.
And yet, even ignoring that, they have still kept the Triple Lock in place. Despite the fact that we taxpayers pay more on the welfare budget than every single public sector employee our taxes pay for combined. We spend more on welfare than we spend on every soldier, every teacher, every police officer, doctor, nurse etc in the country combined - and most of that welfare is not going to those in serious need. Those in serious need get rather little from the welfare state.
Putting up taxes on those on work through fiscal drag. Paying less than inflation pay rises to those who work for a living, while doing double-digit pay rises to those who don't - that's not due to the economy, its a political choice Casino. A choice I don't understand how you can possibly agree with?
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Harsh because much as I love Sir Geoffrey there were only 2 versions of him - dour and very dour. He'd play his way in and carry on like this until he was out. Yes I know there was sometimes a late cut off the back foot just behind square, but still.
SKS is risk averse (extremely so) but it's not general it's specific and it's focused. The risk he's averse to is throwing away an otherwise surefire election win by doing or saying anything too sparky. Keeping the excellent (and genuinely helpful) cricket theme he's playing his way in. So of course SKS looks like SGB right now. And this is good since nobody played his way in better than that great man.
Once he has done that (ie won the election) that's when we'll find out what Keir Starmer all about as a politician and a PM and (most importantly) as a batsman. I could be wrong (I'm only 75% convinced and could be doing a spot of pep talk to self) but I see him relaxing into some crowd-pleasing strokes and scoring a big hundred.
Geoffrey Boycott is a man whose personality problems make him a hero among a*seholes as if he were a kind of micro-Donald Trump, a racist, and a convicted woman beater. All round, a f***ing disgrace to Yorkshire.
I wouldn't go that far. Flawed certainly. Eg he often seemed to bat for himself rather the team. So many runs though. So many.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Harsh because much as I love Sir Geoffrey there were only 2 versions of him - dour and very dour. He'd play his way in and carry on like this until he was out. Yes I know there was sometimes a late cut off the back foot just behind square, but still.
SKS is risk averse (extremely so) but it's not general it's specific and it's focused. The risk he's averse to is throwing away an otherwise surefire election win by doing or saying anything too sparky. Keeping the excellent (and genuinely helpful) cricket theme he's playing his way in. So of course SKS looks like SGB right now. And this is good since nobody played his way in better than that great man.
Once he has done that (ie won the election) that's when we'll find out what Keir Starmer all about as a politician and a PM and (most importantly) as a batsman. I could be wrong (I'm only 75% convinced and could be doing a spot of pep talk to self) but I see him relaxing into some crowd-pleasing strokes and scoring a big hundred.
There was a more aggressive third way but that required Brian Close to be batting with him:
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Harsh because much as I love Sir Geoffrey there were only 2 versions of him - dour and very dour. He'd play his way in and carry on like this until he was out. Yes I know there was sometimes a late cut off the back foot just behind square, but still.
SKS is risk averse (extremely so) but it's not general it's specific and it's focused. The risk he's averse to is throwing away an otherwise surefire election win by doing or saying anything too sparky. Keeping the excellent (and genuinely helpful) cricket theme he's playing his way in. So of course SKS looks like SGB right now. And this is good since nobody played his way in better than that great man.
Once he has done that (ie won the election) that's when we'll find out what Keir Starmer all about as a politician and a PM and (most importantly) as a batsman. I could be wrong (I'm only 75% convinced and could be doing a spot of pep talk to self) but I see him relaxing into some crowd-pleasing strokes and scoring a big hundred.
Will the Rutherglen SLab candidate be the mp to most quickly lose the whip when/if he enters parliament, or will he sink into a helpful silence? I think the price on it being the latter is shorter than his price to win the by-election.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
The unsaid thing is just how whopping our debt servicing costs have gone up.
I think it's something like from £25bn per annum to well over £100bn per annum.
So that's over 75bn a year HMG need to raise in taxes/cuts from public services.
Good morning
I quoted he figures from 2022-23 at £110 billion and few if any realise just how huge this is and a drag on our economy
Feel nostalgic for the days of AAA Labour rather than devalued Tories.
Micheal Crick says he has heard from trustworthy sources that Nadine is resigning early September. Lib Dems appear excited by this and are further stepping up campaigning. Me, I find it hard to believe anything at the moment about this one off MP.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Harsh because much as I love Sir Geoffrey there were only 2 versions of him - dour and very dour. He'd play his way in and carry on like this until he was out. Yes I know there was sometimes a late cut off the back foot just behind square, but still.
SKS is risk averse (extremely so) but it's not general it's specific and it's focused. The risk he's averse to is throwing away an otherwise surefire election win by doing or saying anything too sparky. Keeping the excellent (and genuinely helpful) cricket theme he's playing his way in. So of course SKS looks like SGB right now. And this is good since nobody played his way in better than that great man.
Once he has done that (ie won the election) that's when we'll find out what Keir Starmer all about as a politician and a PM and (most importantly) as a batsman. I could be wrong (I'm only 75% convinced and could be doing a spot of pep talk to self) but I see him relaxing into some crowd-pleasing strokes and scoring a big hundred.
Geoffrey Boycott is a man whose personality problems make him a hero among a*seholes as if he were a kind of micro-Donald Trump, a racist, and a convicted woman beater. All round, a f***ing disgrace to Yorkshire.
I wouldn't go that far. Flawed certainly. Eg he often seemed to bat for himself rather the team. So many runs though. So many.
Is he a racist ? His record coaching in Pakistan - and encouraging the recruitment of Asian players at Yorkshire doesn't suggest as much. His Wikipedia entry (which deals extensively with the assault case) doesn't raise it as an issue.
Opinionated arse would be fair comment (but the same could be said of most of us on this blog).
Will the Rutherglen SLab candidate be the mp to most quickly lose the whip when/if he enters parliament, or will he sink into a helpful silence? I think the price on it being the latter is shorter than his price to win the by-election.
What did I say about Brexit in this context? Though the bedroom tax is a good one to add.
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
The problems are house prices and inflation.
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
That's a killer stat.
That's 200 000 a year for 40 years.
Which is a measure both of how long this has been a problem and how long it will take to fix.
Not coincidentally, 40 years takes you back to early Thatcher, and Right to Buy.
Public sector secure and affordable long term rental is too small a piece of our housing landscape. There's a need to reverse the decline that started then.
The problem wasn't council housing it was council estates.
And by 1980 they had become associated with slums in the sky and edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
There are likely votes for any party which advocates increasing the size of every village by 2% by building a few council semis in it and to be reserved for local people.
Micheal Crick says he has heard from trustworthy sources that Nadine is resigning early September. Lib Dems appear excited by this and are further stepping up campaigning. Me, I find it hard to believe anything at the moment about this one off MP.
Micheal Crick says he has heard from trustworthy sources that Nadine is resigning early September. Lib Dems appear excited by this and are further stepping up campaigning. Me, I find it hard to believe anything at the moment about this one off MP.
If Crick's sources know Nad's resignation date, it suggests a deal has been done, but with whom and for what? Surely Rishi can't nominate her for a peerage?
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
"He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis." ;-)
Micheal Crick says he has heard from trustworthy sources that Nadine is resigning early September. Lib Dems appear excited by this and are further stepping up campaigning. Me, I find it hard to believe anything at the moment about this one off MP.
If the Lib Dems don't like it, they can one off back to Flitwick.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
That early poll suggests that so few people will vote Tory that there's not much chance of the opposition vote being split and the Tories sneaking through.
I'm inclined to be dubious that the Tories will do that badly. Even if they do they are (rightly) keen on a LD/Lab battle in a hope of holding on.
The difference in publicity for a Tory win vs a loss here would be huge.
You're right that an early poll could be way out. The Tories will probably do better once they have a candidate and they can talk about that candidate, and stop having to talking about Nadine Dorries's failings. However, I think it remains the case that the Tories are so unpopular that they have to be very lucky with how the non-Tory vote splits to be able to win.
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
"He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis." ;-)
More personable than De Santis... more honest than Trump... younger than Biden... the guy sounds like he's got it all.
Micheal Crick says he has heard from trustworthy sources that Nadine is resigning early September. Lib Dems appear excited by this and are further stepping up campaigning. Me, I find it hard to believe anything at the moment about this one off MP.
Do you have a link to that? It doesn't appear in Crick's recent Twitter feed. He has an earlier tweet in September last year about Nadine quitting from Truss's cabinet.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Harsh because much as I love Sir Geoffrey there were only 2 versions of him - dour and very dour. He'd play his way in and carry on like this until he was out. Yes I know there was sometimes a late cut off the back foot just behind square, but still.
SKS is risk averse (extremely so) but it's not general it's specific and it's focused. The risk he's averse to is throwing away an otherwise surefire election win by doing or saying anything too sparky. Keeping the excellent (and genuinely helpful) cricket theme he's playing his way in. So of course SKS looks like SGB right now. And this is good since nobody played his way in better than that great man.
Once he has done that (ie won the election) that's when we'll find out what Keir Starmer all about as a politician and a PM and (most importantly) as a batsman. I could be wrong (I'm only 75% convinced and could be doing a spot of pep talk to self) but I see him relaxing into some crowd-pleasing strokes and scoring a big hundred.
Geoffrey Boycott is a man whose personality problems make him a hero among a*seholes as if he were a kind of micro-Donald Trump, a racist, and a convicted woman beater. All round, a f***ing disgrace to Yorkshire.
I wouldn't go that far. Flawed certainly. Eg he often seemed to bat for himself rather the team. So many runs though. So many.
Is he a racist ? His record coaching in Pakistan - and encouraging the recruitment of Asian players at Yorkshire doesn't suggest as much. His Wikipedia entry (which deals extensively with the assault case) doesn't raise it as an issue.
Opinionated arse would be fair comment (but the same could be said of most of us on this blog).
Not aware of any particular racism scandals with GB. 'Opinionated arse' for sure. He's a Yorkshireman.
Micheal Crick says he has heard from trustworthy sources that Nadine is resigning early September. Lib Dems appear excited by this and are further stepping up campaigning. Me, I find it hard to believe anything at the moment about this one off MP.
Do you have a link to that? It doesn't appear in Crick's recent Twitter feed. He has an earlier tweet in September last year about Nadine quitting from Truss's cabinet.
It's on his "Tomorrow's MPs" Twitter rather than his personal one. Says: "MID BEDFORDSHIRE: It seems that I was wrong. Someone I trust has just rung to correct me, and says that Nadine Dorries will resign from her seat at the start of September."
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
"He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis." ;-)
Low bar, sure.
Point is, though, that Ramaswamy is picking up support when he appears at GOP events; the more people see of DeSantis, the less they like him.
As is, of course, Tim Scott (who also has a remarkable facility for quoting the Bible for his own ends, which matters with this selectorate).
Micheal Crick says he has heard from trustworthy sources that Nadine is resigning early September. Lib Dems appear excited by this and are further stepping up campaigning. Me, I find it hard to believe anything at the moment about this one off MP.
Do you have a link to that? It doesn't appear in Crick's recent Twitter feed. He has an earlier tweet in September last year about Nadine quitting from Truss's cabinet.
There is a LD email to get people there so make your own judgement on the accuracy:
"Michael Crick (ex Channel 4, BBC & ITN journalist) has heard that there will definitely be a by-election in Mid Bedfordshire, and Nadine Dorries will resign in early September."
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Harsh because much as I love Sir Geoffrey there were only 2 versions of him - dour and very dour. He'd play his way in and carry on like this until he was out. Yes I know there was sometimes a late cut off the back foot just behind square, but still.
SKS is risk averse (extremely so) but it's not general it's specific and it's focused. The risk he's averse to is throwing away an otherwise surefire election win by doing or saying anything too sparky. Keeping the excellent (and genuinely helpful) cricket theme he's playing his way in. So of course SKS looks like SGB right now. And this is good since nobody played his way in better than that great man.
Once he has done that (ie won the election) that's when we'll find out what Keir Starmer all about as a politician and a PM and (most importantly) as a batsman. I could be wrong (I'm only 75% convinced and could be doing a spot of pep talk to self) but I see him relaxing into some crowd-pleasing strokes and scoring a big hundred.
What's wrong with being dour?
Nothing when you're playing your way in. But then it's nice to see a few shots.
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
"He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis." ;-)
Low bar, sure.
Point is, though, that Ramaswamy is picking up support when he appears at GOP events; the more people see of DeSantis, the less they like him.
As is, of course, Tim Scott (who also has a remarkable facility for quoting the Bible for his own ends, which matters with this selectorate).
I agree. In the (still fairly unlikely) event Trump becomes unavailable for selection, I'd bet on either of these two over De Santis.
Will the Rutherglen SLab candidate be the mp to most quickly lose the whip when/if he enters parliament, or will he sink into a helpful silence? I think the price on it being the latter is shorter than his price to win the by-election.
Given even Corbyn won Rutherglen in 2017 I am sure Starmer will allow his MPs in seats like that some flexibility if they get elected
In 2010 the UK unemployment rate was 7.79% and Social Protection (welfare) formed 27.9% of Governmental expenditure. £194bn out of £697bn total expenditure.
In 2022 the UK unemployment rate was 3.5% and Social Protection formed 30.1% of Governmental expenditure. £318.8bn out of £1058bn total expenditure.
Despite unemployment being half what it was, despite the two-child cap, the 'bedroom tax', austerity and any other cuts the Government has ever made ... the spending the state is now making is going more on welfare than it was when Labour left office.
How? Why? And is that what you would have thought without seeing the numbers?
Because its not going to those in need. Social Protection in 2022/23 isn't a safety net anymore, its not going to those who need support. Those who need support aren't getting very much, but those who don't need it are getting it anyway.
And Sunak and Hunt are by choice keeping the Triple Lock to ratchet it even further.
If 30.1% of all Governmental expenditure is going on welfare, when we have record low unemployment, how on Earth is the situation going to be afforded if we ever had substantial unemployment?
This Government is ratchetting money from those working, to those not working, which at 3.5% unemployment rate doesn't mean the unemployed, and it is doing so as a matter of political choice.
On the 1983 election, those of us old enough remember the toxic effect of a) Michael Foot, and b) Labour's manifesto being the "longest suicide note in history". Although Foot was a great chap, his capacity to win a GE was comparable to Corbyn's. I think a) and b) were more significant than the Falklands or the SDP (and, of course, they gave rise to the SDP in the first place).
The Labour Party went Full Tonto - the SDP was a side effect of going ultra hard left.
You mean they wanted NATO to, in the fullness of time, perhaps consider a non-nuclear strategy? I put it that way because the 1983 manifesto didn't even promise to leave NATO. On the contrary it promised to stay in NATO. "Ultra hard left", my a*sehole! How on Earth can you be ultra hard left (not an expression I'd ever heard before BTW) and pro NATO membership?
Where was say the commitment to land nationalisation and to sorting out the private schools that was displayed by the Labour party under Clement Attlee in 1945? That was a MORE left wing manifesto than in 1983 and they won a landslide with it.
The SDP was primarily, absolutely primarily, about "defence" - defence of the USA.
Attlee was pro NATO, pro Truman's nuclear deterrent, pro Korean War it was promising to build more housing, create the NHS and welfare state that got him elected and even Thatcher didn't reverse most of that, she just reversed his nationalisations
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
The problems are house prices and inflation.
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
That's a killer stat.
That's 200 000 a year for 40 years.
Which is a measure both of how long this has been a problem and how long it will take to fix.
Not coincidentally, 40 years takes you back to early Thatcher, and Right to Buy.
Public sector secure and affordable long term rental is too small a piece of our housing landscape. There's a need to reverse the decline that started then.
The issue is not changing the rate of house building to match the increase in population from mass immigration.
This does result in some comic moments - at least one poster here has tried to deny there is a housing shortag.
I get why some liberal people feel they can’t say this. There is also the tension between environmentalism and building properties.
Not building is institutionally racist.
I am pro immigration. Therefore I am pro building properties, schools, hospitals, roads, railways etc to match.
Well it's not THE issue - the rent/buy and private/public mix is important - but we do desperately need to build more homes, yes.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Will the Rutherglen SLab candidate be the mp to most quickly lose the whip when/if he enters parliament, or will he sink into a helpful silence? I think the price on it being the latter is shorter than his price to win the by-election.
Given even Corbyn won Rutherglen in 2017 I am sure Starmer will allow his MPs in seats like that some flexibility if they get elected
You think the Rutherglen Red will be making statements about rejoining the EU and opposing Labour welfare policy once he’s through the portals of Westminster?
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
The problems are house prices and inflation.
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
That's a killer stat.
That's 200 000 a year for 40 years.
Which is a measure both of how long this has been a problem and how long it will take to fix.
Not coincidentally, 40 years takes you back to early Thatcher, and Right to Buy.
Public sector secure and affordable long term rental is too small a piece of our housing landscape. There's a need to reverse the decline that started then.
The issue is not changing the rate of house building to match the increase in population from mass immigration.
This does result in some comic moments - at least one poster here has tried to deny there is a housing shortag.
I get why some liberal people feel they can’t say this. There is also the tension between environmentalism and building properties.
Not building is institutionally racist.
I am pro immigration. Therefore I am pro building properties, schools, hospitals, roads, railways etc to match.
I am pro a declining population. I am pro rewilding. I am anti construction. Especially on green field sites.
Actually, many brown field sites where an old building has been demolished and the site just left make for very good habitats - poor soils allow a diverse range of plants to grow without being swamped by more vigorous species that require higher nutrient levels. So we'd better leave these alone too.
Perhaps the government should encourage a few million pensioners to move to France to occupy all of this spare housing and enjoy their retirement?
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
No, that's not basic economics. Wages are only a small fraction of what makes inflation, inflation is mostly imported due to the cost of raw resources.
Besides, the Government is by political choice increasing the wages (eg Triple Lock) of some by 10%, while not increasing the wages of others. That is a choice, and that fuels the wage spiral every bit as much as others getting pay rises does.
And it is by political choice choosing to increase taxes via fiscal drag. It could eliminate the triple lock and eliminate the tax rise of fiscal drag without contributing inflationary wage spirals, if that is what you pretend to care about today.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
That early poll suggests that so few people will vote Tory that there's not much chance of the opposition vote being split and the Tories sneaking through.
I'm inclined to be dubious that the Tories will do that badly. Even if they do they are (rightly) keen on a LD/Lab battle in a hope of holding on.
The difference in publicity for a Tory win vs a loss here would be huge.
You're right that an early poll could be way out. The Tories will probably do better once they have a candidate and they can talk about that candidate, and stop having to talking about Nadine Dorries's failings. However, I think it remains the case that the Tories are so unpopular that they have to be very lucky with how the non-Tory vote splits to be able to win.
They have to be very lucky with how the non-Tory vote splits to be able to win
Is that so? At the last GE, the result was Tory 60%, Lab 22%, LD 12%, Rest 6%. If the Tories lose 40% of their share in line with the swing from the last GE (44.7% to 26.8%) then the Tories with get about 36%.
So to beat them either Lab or LD need to get 37% or more. That means the other contender has to get 21% or less (assuming The Rest still get 6%).
Given the motivation and resources that Lab and LD are pouring in, I think it is quite likely that both parties will get more than 21% share and the Tories therefore win.
Who does the court sketches for news reports on criminal trials ? The artists' impressions of the protagonists (both here and in the US) never look like actual human beings.
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
"He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis." ;-)
Low bar, sure.
Point is, though, that Ramaswamy is picking up support when he appears at GOP events; the more people see of DeSantis, the less they like him.
As is, of course, Tim Scott (who also has a remarkable facility for quoting the Bible for his own ends, which matters with this selectorate).
That is a bar so low a limbo dancing mouse who's just had an unfortunate encounter with a steam roller wouldn't fit under it.
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
The problems are house prices and inflation.
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
That's a killer stat.
That's 200 000 a year for 40 years.
Which is a measure both of how long this has been a problem and how long it will take to fix.
Not coincidentally, 40 years takes you back to early Thatcher, and Right to Buy.
Public sector secure and affordable long term rental is too small a piece of our housing landscape. There's a need to reverse the decline that started then.
The issue is not changing the rate of house building to match the increase in population from mass immigration.
This does result in some comic moments - at least one poster here has tried to deny there is a housing shortag.
I get why some liberal people feel they can’t say this. There is also the tension between environmentalism and building properties.
Not building is institutionally racist.
I am pro immigration. Therefore I am pro building properties, schools, hospitals, roads, railways etc to match.
I am pro a declining population. I am pro rewilding. I am anti construction. Especially on green field sites.
Actually, many brown field sites where an old building has been demolished and the site just left make for very good habitats - poor soils allow a diverse range of plants to grow without being swamped by more vigorous species that require higher nutrient levels. So we'd better leave these alone too.
Perhaps the government should encourage a few million pensioners to move to France to occupy all of this spare housing and enjoy their retirement?
Or Rwanda. Just tell them heating isn't much of a problem.
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
"He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis." ;-)
Low bar, sure.
Point is, though, that Ramaswamy is picking up support when he appears at GOP events; the more people see of DeSantis, the less they like him.
As is, of course, Tim Scott (who also has a remarkable facility for quoting the Bible for his own ends, which matters with this selectorate).
I cannot quite understand how Ron DeSantis has imploded so quickly. As a successful Governor of Florida, he must know a thing or two about retail politics and yet in the last year or so he has gone off-the-charts crazy, even declaring war on The Mouse. It is as if DeSantis is cos-playing what he imagines Trump to be, and is trying to appeal to a bizarre caricature of MAGA voters.
ETA one possible explanation is RDS expected Trump to be locked up or at least disqualified, so RDS could easily replace him, but now Trump remains dominant, he is forcing RDS to extremes. I'm not sure I believe it though.
Will the Rutherglen SLab candidate be the mp to most quickly lose the whip when/if he enters parliament, or will he sink into a helpful silence? I think the price on it being the latter is shorter than his price to win the by-election.
Given even Corbyn won Rutherglen in 2017 I am sure Starmer will allow his MPs in seats like that some flexibility if they get elected
You think the Rutherglen Red will be making statements about rejoining the EU and opposing Labour welfare policy once he’s through the portals of Westminster?
Also struck by the notion that Mr Corbyn won Ru'glen. A North London allotmenteer, which is fine, but who also wanted Scottish Water renationalised as the key theme of his major keynote speech north of the Border.
Micheal Crick says he has heard from trustworthy sources that Nadine is resigning early September. Lib Dems appear excited by this and are further stepping up campaigning. Me, I find it hard to believe anything at the moment about this one off MP.
Do you have a link to that? It doesn't appear in Crick's recent Twitter feed. He has an earlier tweet in September last year about Nadine quitting from Truss's cabinet.
There is a LD email to get people there so make your own judgement on the accuracy:
"Michael Crick (ex Channel 4, BBC & ITN journalist) has heard that there will definitely be a by-election in Mid Bedfordshire, and Nadine Dorries will resign in early September."
Yes I got that email too. I responded with a copy of Crick's September 2022 tweet. I think there's been some misunderstanding.
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
"He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis." ;-)
Low bar, sure.
Point is, though, that Ramaswamy is picking up support when he appears at GOP events; the more people see of DeSantis, the less they like him.
As is, of course, Tim Scott (who also has a remarkable facility for quoting the Bible for his own ends, which matters with this selectorate).
I cannot quite understand how Ron DeSantis has imploded so quickly. As a successful Governor of Florida, he must know a thing or two about retail politics and yet in the last year or so he has gone off-the-charts crazy, even declaring war on The Mouse. It is as if DeSantis is cos-playing what he imagines Trump to be, and is trying to appeal to a bizarre caricature of MAGA voters.
ETA one possible explanation is RDS expected Trump to be locked up or at least disqualified, so RDS could easily replace him, but now Trump remains dominant, he is forcing RDS to extremes. I'm not sure I believe it though.
His video attacking Trump for being the ultra-Woke transgenders' friend perhaps falls into the it's-so-bad-it's-good category.
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
"He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis." ;-)
Low bar, sure.
Point is, though, that Ramaswamy is picking up support when he appears at GOP events; the more people see of DeSantis, the less they like him.
As is, of course, Tim Scott (who also has a remarkable facility for quoting the Bible for his own ends, which matters with this selectorate).
I cannot quite understand how Ron DeSantis has imploded so quickly. As a successful Governor of Florida, he must know a thing or two about retail politics and yet in the last year or so he has gone off-the-charts crazy, even declaring war on The Mouse. It is as if DeSantis is cos-playing what he imagines Trump to be, and is trying to appeal to a bizarre caricature of MAGA voters.
ETA one possible explanation is RDS expected Trump to be locked up or at least disqualified, so RDS could easily replace him, but now Trump remains dominant, he is forcing RDS to extremes. I'm not sure I believe it though.
His video attacking Trump for being the ultra-Woke transgenders' friend perhaps falls into the it's-so-bad-it's-good category.
Micheal Crick says he has heard from trustworthy sources that Nadine is resigning early September. Lib Dems appear excited by this and are further stepping up campaigning. Me, I find it hard to believe anything at the moment about this one off MP.
Do you have a link to that? It doesn't appear in Crick's recent Twitter feed. He has an earlier tweet in September last year about Nadine quitting from Truss's cabinet.
It's on his "Tomorrow's MPs" Twitter rather than his personal one. Says: "MID BEDFORDSHIRE: It seems that I was wrong. Someone I trust has just rung to correct me, and says that Nadine Dorries will resign from her seat at the start of September."
Thanks. Got it. OK - someone he trusts has told him. So it could be true.
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
"He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis." ;-)
Low bar, sure.
Point is, though, that Ramaswamy is picking up support when he appears at GOP events; the more people see of DeSantis, the less they like him.
As is, of course, Tim Scott (who also has a remarkable facility for quoting the Bible for his own ends, which matters with this selectorate).
I cannot quite understand how Ron DeSantis has imploded so quickly. As a successful Governor of Florida, he must know a thing or two about retail politics and yet in the last year or so he has gone off-the-charts crazy, even declaring war on The Mouse. It is as if DeSantis is cos-playing what he imagines Trump to be, and is trying to appeal to a bizarre caricature of MAGA voters.
ETA one possible explanation is RDS expected Trump to be locked up or at least disqualified, so RDS could easily replace him, but now Trump remains dominant, he is forcing RDS to extremes. I'm not sure I believe it though.
Trump was locked in when the Republicans voted against his second impeachment and primaried or forced out the few who found him guilty. Quite why it has taken people, including RDS, two and a half years to understand this, I am not sure.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
That early poll suggests that so few people will vote Tory that there's not much chance of the opposition vote being split and the Tories sneaking through.
I'm inclined to be dubious that the Tories will do that badly. Even if they do they are (rightly) keen on a LD/Lab battle in a hope of holding on.
The difference in publicity for a Tory win vs a loss here would be huge.
You're right that an early poll could be way out. The Tories will probably do better once they have a candidate and they can talk about that candidate, and stop having to talking about Nadine Dorries's failings. However, I think it remains the case that the Tories are so unpopular that they have to be very lucky with how the non-Tory vote splits to be able to win.
They have to be very lucky with how the non-Tory vote splits to be able to win
Is that so? At the last GE, the result was Tory 60%, Lab 22%, LD 12%, Rest 6%. If the Tories lose 40% of their share in line with the swing from the last GE (44.7% to 26.8%) then the Tories with get about 36%.
So to beat them either Lab or LD need to get 37% or more. That means the other contender has to get 21% or less (assuming The Rest still get 6%).
Given the motivation and resources that Lab and LD are pouring in, I think it is quite likely that both parties will get more than 21% share and the Tories therefore win.
I'm betting on a Tory win at 9/2 on Betfair.
If you're right and the Tories get about 36%, to win on 36% still requires your opposition to be fairly equally split. Not many seats are won on 36%. But, sure, some are. However, in Somerton & Frome, the Tories went from 55.8% to 26.2%, so they lost 53% of their share. In Selby & Ainsty, the Tories went from 60.3% to 34.3%, so they lost 43% of their share. In Tiverton & Honiton, the Tories went from 60.2% to 38.5%, so they lost 36% of their share. In North Shropshire, the Tories went from 62.7% to 31.6%, so they lost 50% of their share.
Obviously, the Tories did better in Uxbridge. However, I suggest that your estimate of the Tories losing 40% of their share would be a good result for the party and they will probably lose more. They could easily lose 50% of their share, so they'd be on 30%. The one poll we'd had had them on 24%. If the Tories are getting 24-30% of the vote, then they're not going to "come through the middle" and win.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
CPI Inflation for July out next wednesday.
Release date: 19 July 2023 Next release: 16 August 2023
Will the Rutherglen SLab candidate be the mp to most quickly lose the whip when/if he enters parliament, or will he sink into a helpful silence? I think the price on it being the latter is shorter than his price to win the by-election.
Given even Corbyn won Rutherglen in 2017 I am sure Starmer will allow his MPs in seats like that some flexibility if they get elected
You think the Rutherglen Red will be making statements about rejoining the EU and opposing Labour welfare policy once he’s through the portals of Westminster?
He might, Starmer if he becomes PM will have a big majority with more rightwing RedWall MPs anyway and indeed some other Scottish Labour MPs may only have got elected with Tory tactical votes to beat the SNP so may also be more rightwing
I expect Labour to win Rutherglen based on enough SNP supporters abstaining as there seems no clear way forward to independence, coupled with a collapsing Tory vote decamping en masse to Labour in opposition to independence.
However, I think it likely that Labour will drift out from 1.11 as the Labour candidate Shanks tries to urge people to vote for his party in spite of him opposing Labour's policy on Brexit, the 2 child benefit cap, and the GRR bill (and no doubt other issues to come). Increasing Scotland's Labour MPs from 1 to 2 is unlikely to convince many that he can change Labour's UK policies.
Flynn is likely to prove to be a better campaigner than Murray or Sarwar, no matter how much BBC Scotland and most of the media campaign for Shanks.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
No, that's not basic economics. Wages are only a small fraction of what makes inflation, inflation is mostly imported due to the cost of raw resources.
Besides, the Government is by political choice increasing the wages (eg Triple Lock) of some by 10%, while not increasing the wages of others. That is a choice, and that fuels the wage spiral every bit as much as others getting pay rises does.
And it is by political choice choosing to increase taxes via fiscal drag. It could eliminate the triple lock and eliminate the tax rise of fiscal drag without contributing inflationary wage spirals, if that is what you pretend to care about today.
Those who only rely on the state pension and minimum wage or benefits are on only a fraction of yearly income of even average earners and they are the only ones who saw a pay rise of 10%
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
That's not how it works.
But the Government has increased wages of many of those that it pays for by taxes by 10%+ last year.
I can't find the 2022/23 data but in 2021/22 total pay for public sector employees was £232bn while welfare was £300bn.
The Government is increasing the former by ~7% and the latter by Triple Lock double-digits.
The latter is much, much more inflationary than the former. It is a much higher increase in expenditure, both in percentage terms and in nominal terms.
So why should those working for a living get a less than inflation pay-rise, while those who aren't working get a double-digit pay rise?
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
"He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis." ;-)
Low bar, sure.
Point is, though, that Ramaswamy is picking up support when he appears at GOP events; the more people see of DeSantis, the less they like him.
As is, of course, Tim Scott (who also has a remarkable facility for quoting the Bible for his own ends, which matters with this selectorate).
I cannot quite understand how Ron DeSantis has imploded so quickly. As a successful Governor of Florida, he must know a thing or two about retail politics and yet in the last year or so he has gone off-the-charts crazy, even declaring war on The Mouse. It is as if DeSantis is cos-playing what he imagines Trump to be, and is trying to appeal to a bizarre caricature of MAGA voters.
ETA one possible explanation is RDS expected Trump to be locked up or at least disqualified, so RDS could easily replace him, but now Trump remains dominant, he is forcing RDS to extremes. I'm not sure I believe it though.
He'd hardly be the only Presidential candidate in history who has been elected to statewide office in a large state, been popular in that role, but crashed and burned in the heat of a Presidential race.
Indeed, the 2016 GOP primaries saw a popular ex-Governor of Florida and a popular current Senator for Florida both implode at least as spectacularly.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
No, that's not basic economics. Wages are only a small fraction of what makes inflation, inflation is mostly imported due to the cost of raw resources.
Besides, the Government is by political choice increasing the wages (eg Triple Lock) of some by 10%, while not increasing the wages of others. That is a choice, and that fuels the wage spiral every bit as much as others getting pay rises does.
And it is by political choice choosing to increase taxes via fiscal drag. It could eliminate the triple lock and eliminate the tax rise of fiscal drag without contributing inflationary wage spirals, if that is what you pretend to care about today.
Those who only rely on the state pension and minimum wage or benefits are on only a fraction of yearly income of even average earners and they are the only ones who saw a pay rise of 10%
You are either lying, or don't understand how this works.
Those only relying on state pension aren't the only ones who saw a 10% pay rise from our taxes, every single pensioner whether they needed it or not got one.
That is why welfare is now over 30% of Governmental Expenditure, higher than it was in 2010, despite unemployment being less than half what it was in 2010 and welfare going to those actually in need being cut to the bone. Because it is being pissed around like money is no object to others instead.
Some people may have noticed that Andrew Hewston, an OFSTED inspector who thought it OK to touch a child, has won a claim for unfair dismissal. I've just been looking at the judgement.
Let's leave aside the fact that Hewston is clearly a complete idiot and that judgements like this make a mockery of the legal system. Let's consider what it shows about OFSTED.
1) Hewston was an inspector of children's homes. He had never worked in a school. Why the hell was he inspecting one? Because OFSTED's remit is far too wide so they are using non-specialist inspectors. It urgently needs to be broken up into smaller, more focussed agencies.
2) He didn't know there was a 'no touching' policy in place for OFSTED inspectors in schools. Because he had not been told. This is all of a piece with OFSTED inspectors not being told they shouldn't discuss medical records in public because they don't understand GDPR. I really would like to speak to whatever imbecile manages their training. Loudly.
3) He had not been given the necessary information to prepare a defence (not that he should have had one) because OFSTED does not have proper safeguarding processes or any means of dealing with safeguarding allegations efficiently. This is because the people running it have the intellectual capacity of a civil servant after the fifth works meeting.*
It is deeply disturbing that OFSTED could fail a primary school on a very technical safeguarding breach while committing so many appallingly dangerous mistakes themselves to the extent they are a significant menace to children.
But they get away with it, because nobody regulates them. They are no longer part of the DfE and the Education Select Committee refuses to exercise oversight powers.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
I expect Labour to win Rutherglen based on enough SNP supporters abstaining as there seems no clear way forward to independence, coupled with a collapsing Tory vote decamping en masse to Labour in opposition to independence.
However, I think it likely that Labour will drift out from 1.11 as the Labour candidate Shanks tries to urge people to vote for his party in spite of him opposing Labour's policy on Brexit, the 2 child benefit cap, and the GRR bill (and no doubt other issues to come). Increasing Scotland's Labour MPs from 1 to 2 is unlikely to convince many that he can change Labour's UK policies.
Flynn is likely to prove to be a better campaigner than Murray or Sarwar, no matter how much BBC Scotland and most of the media campaign for Shanks.
The exciting new policies from those fresh faces Murray (almost defected to Change-UK) & Sarwar (beaten by Richard Leonard) will be hard to match though.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
If my granny were a gibbon, I could swing in the tree and show you what I thought of that logic.
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
"He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis." ;-)
Low bar, sure.
Point is, though, that Ramaswamy is picking up support when he appears at GOP events; the more people see of DeSantis, the less they like him.
As is, of course, Tim Scott (who also has a remarkable facility for quoting the Bible for his own ends, which matters with this selectorate).
I cannot quite understand how Ron DeSantis has imploded so quickly. As a successful Governor of Florida, he must know a thing or two about retail politics and yet in the last year or so he has gone off-the-charts crazy, even declaring war on The Mouse. It is as if DeSantis is cos-playing what he imagines Trump to be, and is trying to appeal to a bizarre caricature of MAGA voters.
ETA one possible explanation is RDS expected Trump to be locked up or at least disqualified, so RDS could easily replace him, but now Trump remains dominant, he is forcing RDS to extremes. I'm not sure I believe it though.
Trump was locked in when the Republicans voted against his second impeachment and primaried or forced out the few who found him guilty. Quite why it has taken people, including RDS, two and a half years to understand this, I am not sure.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 76% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents have a favourable view of former President Donald Trump. Presumably 24% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents do not, and will vote Democrat, or more likely, not vote at all.
In a recent poll by ABC News/Washington Post, 39% of Americans said they had a favorable view of Trump, while 59% said they had an unfavorable view.
Taken together, these polls suggest that Trump is supported by not more than 40% of voters. He got 46.8% of the popular vote last time.
It's hard to see him winning unless an independent splits the vote. I'm wondering whether Kennedy is being set up by Trump to run as an independent? But if he does, who will he take more votes from?
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
No, that's not basic economics. Wages are only a small fraction of what makes inflation, inflation is mostly imported due to the cost of raw resources.
Besides, the Government is by political choice increasing the wages (eg Triple Lock) of some by 10%, while not increasing the wages of others. That is a choice, and that fuels the wage spiral every bit as much as others getting pay rises does.
And it is by political choice choosing to increase taxes via fiscal drag. It could eliminate the triple lock and eliminate the tax rise of fiscal drag without contributing inflationary wage spirals, if that is what you pretend to care about today.
Those who only rely on the state pension and minimum wage or benefits are on only a fraction of yearly income of even average earners and they are the only ones who saw a pay rise of 10%
You are either lying, or don't understand how this works.
Those only relying on state pension aren't the only ones who saw a 10% pay rise from our taxes, every single pensioner whether they needed it or not got one.
That is why welfare is now over 30% of Governmental Expenditure, higher than it was in 2010, despite unemployment being less than half what it was in 2010 and welfare going to those actually in need being cut to the bone. Because it is being pissed around like money is no object to others instead.
This is not a bad point. To many, £10k odd a year is completely unneeded but too much money not to bother with claiming it (or to give it to charity). But try standing on a manifesto to means test it
I expect Labour to win Rutherglen based on enough SNP supporters abstaining as there seems no clear way forward to independence, coupled with a collapsing Tory vote decamping en masse to Labour in opposition to independence.
However, I think it likely that Labour will drift out from 1.11 as the Labour candidate Shanks tries to urge people to vote for his party in spite of him opposing Labour's policy on Brexit, the 2 child benefit cap, and the GRR bill (and no doubt other issues to come). Increasing Scotland's Labour MPs from 1 to 2 is unlikely to convince many that he can change Labour's UK policies.
Flynn is likely to prove to be a better campaigner than Murray or Sarwar, no matter how much BBC Scotland and most of the media campaign for Shanks.
Ooh, had forgotten about GRR. It'll be interesting how far Slab oppose SKS policies for, erm, the UK, ie how far Mr Shanks is representative of Slab.
Mr Murray, it must be said, is hardly representative of Slab, but reasons (special, Morningside variety).
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
No, that's not basic economics. Wages are only a small fraction of what makes inflation, inflation is mostly imported due to the cost of raw resources.
Besides, the Government is by political choice increasing the wages (eg Triple Lock) of some by 10%, while not increasing the wages of others. That is a choice, and that fuels the wage spiral every bit as much as others getting pay rises does.
And it is by political choice choosing to increase taxes via fiscal drag. It could eliminate the triple lock and eliminate the tax rise of fiscal drag without contributing inflationary wage spirals, if that is what you pretend to care about today.
Those who only rely on the state pension and minimum wage or benefits are on only a fraction of yearly income of even average earners and they are the only ones who saw a pay rise of 10%
You are either lying, or don't understand how this works.
Those only relying on state pension aren't the only ones who saw a 10% pay rise from our taxes, every single pensioner whether they needed it or not got one.
That is why welfare is now over 30% of Governmental Expenditure, higher than it was in 2010, despite unemployment being less than half what it was in 2010 and welfare going to those actually in need being cut to the bone. Because it is being pissed around like money is no object to others instead.
There have been complaints from people on £100,000 a year about cliff-edge withdrawal of child benefits or some such. First world problems but also a cash incentive for highly-paid professionals to go part-time.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Abnd what do you think of the massive inflation of remuneration in recent years?
Some people may have noticed that Andrew Hewston, an OFSTED inspector who thought it OK to touch a child, has won a claim for unfair dismissal. I've just been looking at the judgement.
Let's leave aside the fact that Hewston is clearly a complete idiot and that judgements like this make a mockery of the legal system. Let's consider what it shows about OFSTED.
1) Hewston was an inspector of children's homes. He had never worked in a school. Why the hell was he inspecting one? Because OFSTED's remit is far too wide so they are using non-specialist inspectors. It urgently needs to be broken up into smaller, more focussed agencies.
2) He didn't know there was a 'no touching' policy in place for OFSTED inspectors in schools. Because he had not been told. This is all of a piece with OFSTED inspectors not being told they shouldn't discuss medical records in public because they don't understand GDPR. I really would like to speak to whatever imbecile manages their training. Loudly.
3) He had not been given the necessary information to prepare a defence (not that he should have had one) because OFSTED does not have proper safeguarding processes or any means of dealing with safeguarding allegations efficiently. This is because the people running it have the intellectual capacity of a civil servant after the fifth works meeting.*
It is deeply disturbing that OFSTED could fail a primary school on a very technical safeguarding breach while committing so many appallingly dangerous mistakes themselves to the extent they are a significant menace to children.
But they get away with it, because nobody regulates them. They are no longer part of the DfE and the Education Select Committee refuses to exercise oversight powers.
It's just awful.
*well, on a good day.
And yet among their number are still some decent inspectors, despite all of that.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
That's to assume Trump is elected again. It's far from certain that he'll even be the GOP candidate.
Some people may have noticed that Andrew Hewston, an OFSTED inspector who thought it OK to touch a child, has won a claim for unfair dismissal. I've just been looking at the judgement.
Let's leave aside the fact that Hewston is clearly a complete idiot and that judgements like this make a mockery of the legal system. Let's consider what it shows about OFSTED.
1) Hewston was an inspector of children's homes. He had never worked in a school. Why the hell was he inspecting one? Because OFSTED's remit is far too wide so they are using non-specialist inspectors. It urgently needs to be broken up into smaller, more focussed agencies.
2) He didn't know there was a 'no touching' policy in place for OFSTED inspectors in schools. Because he had not been told. This is all of a piece with OFSTED inspectors not being told they shouldn't discuss medical records in public because they don't understand GDPR. I really would like to speak to whatever imbecile manages their training. Loudly.
3) He had not been given the necessary information to prepare a defence (not that he should have had one) because OFSTED does not have proper safeguarding processes or any means of dealing with safeguarding allegations efficiently. This is because the people running it have the intellectual capacity of a civil servant after the fifth works meeting.*
It is deeply disturbing that OFSTED could fail a primary school on a very technical safeguarding breach while committing so many appallingly dangerous mistakes themselves to the extent they are a significant menace to children.
But they get away with it, because nobody regulates them. They are no longer part of the DfE and the Education Select Committee refuses to exercise oversight powers.
It's just awful.
*well, on a good day.
Sounds a bit odd, 'rubbing water off a pupil's head'. I went to a prep school with canings and there were a couple of bona fide nonces in my secondary school and I never saw or experienced that particular interaction.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
Some people may have noticed that Andrew Hewston, an OFSTED inspector who thought it OK to touch a child, has won a claim for unfair dismissal. I've just been looking at the judgement.
Let's leave aside the fact that Hewston is clearly a complete idiot and that judgements like this make a mockery of the legal system. Let's consider what it shows about OFSTED.
1) Hewston was an inspector of children's homes. He had never worked in a school. Why the hell was he inspecting one? Because OFSTED's remit is far too wide so they are using non-specialist inspectors. It urgently needs to be broken up into smaller, more focussed agencies.
2) He didn't know there was a 'no touching' policy in place for OFSTED inspectors in schools. Because he had not been told. This is all of a piece with OFSTED inspectors not being told they shouldn't discuss medical records in public because they don't understand GDPR. I really would like to speak to whatever imbecile manages their training. Loudly.
3) He had not been given the necessary information to prepare a defence (not that he should have had one) because OFSTED does not have proper safeguarding processes or any means of dealing with safeguarding allegations efficiently. This is because the people running it have the intellectual capacity of a civil servant after the fifth works meeting.*
It is deeply disturbing that OFSTED could fail a primary school on a very technical safeguarding breach while committing so many appallingly dangerous mistakes themselves to the extent they are a significant menace to children.
But they get away with it, because nobody regulates them. They are no longer part of the DfE and the Education Select Committee refuses to exercise oversight powers.
It's just awful.
*well, on a good day.
Sounds a bit odd, 'rubbing water off a pupil's head'. I went to a prep school with canings and there were a couple of bona fide nonces in my secondary school and I never saw or experienced that particular interaction.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
"He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis." ;-)
Low bar, sure.
Point is, though, that Ramaswamy is picking up support when he appears at GOP events; the more people see of DeSantis, the less they like him.
As is, of course, Tim Scott (who also has a remarkable facility for quoting the Bible for his own ends, which matters with this selectorate).
I cannot quite understand how Ron DeSantis has imploded so quickly. As a successful Governor of Florida, he must know a thing or two about retail politics and yet in the last year or so he has gone off-the-charts crazy, even declaring war on The Mouse. It is as if DeSantis is cos-playing what he imagines Trump to be, and is trying to appeal to a bizarre caricature of MAGA voters.
ETA one possible explanation is RDS expected Trump to be locked up or at least disqualified, so RDS could easily replace him, but now Trump remains dominant, he is forcing RDS to extremes. I'm not sure I believe it though.
Trump was locked in when the Republicans voted against his second impeachment and primaried or forced out the few who found him guilty. Quite why it has taken people, including RDS, two and a half years to understand this, I am not sure.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 76% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents have a favourable view of former President Donald Trump. Presumably 24% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents do not, and will vote Democrat, or more likely, not vote at all.
In a recent poll by ABC News/Washington Post, 39% of Americans said they had a favorable view of Trump, while 59% said they had an unfavorable view.
Taken together, these polls suggest that Trump is supported by not more than 40% of voters. He got 46.8% of the popular vote last time.
It's hard to see him winning unless an independent splits the vote. I'm wondering whether Kennedy is being set up by Trump to run as an independent? But if he does, who will he take more votes from?
Mind you, only 40% approve of Biden!
I was talking about the Republican nomination but even on the Presidential market I'd suggest your post is far too downbeat on his chances.
Most of the 24% who don't have a favourable view will still vote for Trump rather than Biden (who they won't have a favourable view of either). Yes, Trump will want a third and even fourth candidate on the ballot, the Green Party are likely to oblige and harm Biden's chances.
Biden should be a bit shorter than he is, but not much, and needs an economic recovery of sorts to arrive early enough.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
That's to assume Trump is elected again. It's far from certain that he'll even be the GOP candidate.
Unless convicted and jailed next year (in which case the RNC would change the rules if necessary and pick a new candidate) he will likely be the GOP candidate
Some people may have noticed that Andrew Hewston, an OFSTED inspector who thought it OK to touch a child, has won a claim for unfair dismissal. I've just been looking at the judgement.
Let's leave aside the fact that Hewston is clearly a complete idiot and that judgements like this make a mockery of the legal system. Let's consider what it shows about OFSTED.
1) Hewston was an inspector of children's homes. He had never worked in a school. Why the hell was he inspecting one? Because OFSTED's remit is far too wide so they are using non-specialist inspectors. It urgently needs to be broken up into smaller, more focussed agencies.
2) He didn't know there was a 'no touching' policy in place for OFSTED inspectors in schools. Because he had not been told. This is all of a piece with OFSTED inspectors not being told they shouldn't discuss medical records in public because they don't understand GDPR. I really would like to speak to whatever imbecile manages their training. Loudly.
3) He had not been given the necessary information to prepare a defence (not that he should have had one) because OFSTED does not have proper safeguarding processes or any means of dealing with safeguarding allegations efficiently. This is because the people running it have the intellectual capacity of a civil servant after the fifth works meeting.*
It is deeply disturbing that OFSTED could fail a primary school on a very technical safeguarding breach while committing so many appallingly dangerous mistakes themselves to the extent they are a significant menace to children.
But they get away with it, because nobody regulates them. They are no longer part of the DfE and the Education Select Committee refuses to exercise oversight powers.
It's just awful.
*well, on a good day.
Sounds a bit odd, 'rubbing water off a pupil's head'. I went to a prep school with canings and there were a couple of bona fide nonces in my secondary school and I never saw or experienced that particular interaction.
He was acting as a carer in a home would. What's alarming is how he didn't grasp in a school you have a very different sort of relationship which has very different boundaries. Which makes him, in my book, an utter fool.
Also, though, that thing about 'different relationships' applies with more force to an inspector. How would any parent feel if they saw a complete stranger patting their child's head and shoulder? I'm guessing they wouldn't automatically think 'oh, how nice to see somebody helping my child.'
I mean, I've worked in a school where I had to blow the whistle on a paedophile and even he wouldn't have done that. (Admittedly, that might have been because it would have been too obvious.)
Another ageing player off to join a pointless comedy league for silly money
Kane to Bayern
Agreed with "pointless" insofar as it's a one horse race. But the Prem is going that way I fear. At some point the the Old Firm duopoly is going to look like a bastion of open competition.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
For GDP per head to grow, i.e. real income growth, wages need to increase faster than inflation.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Abnd what do you think of the massive inflation of remuneration in recent years?
You know, the ones for the bosses.
I expect Labour would tax that more but inflation is caused by average earnings primarily not a few high earners at the top and of course we had low inflation until Putin invaded Ukraine, Covid and Brexit regardless of high executive earnings
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
I expect Labour to win Rutherglen based on enough SNP supporters abstaining as there seems no clear way forward to independence, coupled with a collapsing Tory vote decamping en masse to Labour in opposition to independence.
However, I think it likely that Labour will drift out from 1.11 as the Labour candidate Shanks tries to urge people to vote for his party in spite of him opposing Labour's policy on Brexit, the 2 child benefit cap, and the GRR bill (and no doubt other issues to come). Increasing Scotland's Labour MPs from 1 to 2 is unlikely to convince many that he can change Labour's UK policies.
Flynn is likely to prove to be a better campaigner than Murray or Sarwar, no matter how much BBC Scotland and most of the media campaign for Shanks.
Ooh, had forgotten about GRR. It'll be interesting how far Slab oppose SKS policies for, erm, the UK, ie how far Mr Shanks is representative of Slab.
Mr Murray, it must be said, is hardly representative of Slab, but reasons (special, Morningside variety).
Most SLab voters now are more rightwing than most SNP voters as well as more Unionist
"Svitlana and Khrystyna, the two young women killed in yesterday's Russian missile strike on Zaporizhzhia. This video was taken hours before the attack that killed them.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
That's to assume Trump is elected again. It's far from certain that he'll even be the GOP candidate.
Unless convicted and jailed next year (in which case the RNC would change the rules if necessary and pick a new candidate) he will likely be the GOP candidate
There isn't enough time to jail and convict. 154 days until the Iowa caucus.
Some people may have noticed that Andrew Hewston, an OFSTED inspector who thought it OK to touch a child, has won a claim for unfair dismissal. I've just been looking at the judgement.
Let's leave aside the fact that Hewston is clearly a complete idiot and that judgements like this make a mockery of the legal system. Let's consider what it shows about OFSTED.
1) Hewston was an inspector of children's homes. He had never worked in a school. Why the hell was he inspecting one? Because OFSTED's remit is far too wide so they are using non-specialist inspectors. It urgently needs to be broken up into smaller, more focussed agencies.
2) He didn't know there was a 'no touching' policy in place for OFSTED inspectors in schools. Because he had not been told. This is all of a piece with OFSTED inspectors not being told they shouldn't discuss medical records in public because they don't understand GDPR. I really would like to speak to whatever imbecile manages their training. Loudly.
3) He had not been given the necessary information to prepare a defence (not that he should have had one) because OFSTED does not have proper safeguarding processes or any means of dealing with safeguarding allegations efficiently. This is because the people running it have the intellectual capacity of a civil servant after the fifth works meeting.*
It is deeply disturbing that OFSTED could fail a primary school on a very technical safeguarding breach while committing so many appallingly dangerous mistakes themselves to the extent they are a significant menace to children.
But they get away with it, because nobody regulates them. They are no longer part of the DfE and the Education Select Committee refuses to exercise oversight powers.
It's just awful.
*well, on a good day.
It’s a sad reflection of where we are that oversight by the DfE, a department not exactly known for its outstanding administrative quality, would be an improvement on the current situation.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
Some people may have noticed that Andrew Hewston, an OFSTED inspector who thought it OK to touch a child, has won a claim for unfair dismissal. I've just been looking at the judgement.
Let's leave aside the fact that Hewston is clearly a complete idiot and that judgements like this make a mockery of the legal system. Let's consider what it shows about OFSTED.
1) Hewston was an inspector of children's homes. He had never worked in a school. Why the hell was he inspecting one? Because OFSTED's remit is far too wide so they are using non-specialist inspectors. It urgently needs to be broken up into smaller, more focussed agencies.
2) He didn't know there was a 'no touching' policy in place for OFSTED inspectors in schools. Because he had not been told. This is all of a piece with OFSTED inspectors not being told they shouldn't discuss medical records in public because they don't understand GDPR. I really would like to speak to whatever imbecile manages their training. Loudly.
3) He had not been given the necessary information to prepare a defence (not that he should have had one) because OFSTED does not have proper safeguarding processes or any means of dealing with safeguarding allegations efficiently. This is because the people running it have the intellectual capacity of a civil servant after the fifth works meeting.*
It is deeply disturbing that OFSTED could fail a primary school on a very technical safeguarding breach while committing so many appallingly dangerous mistakes themselves to the extent they are a significant menace to children.
But they get away with it, because nobody regulates them. They are no longer part of the DfE and the Education Select Committee refuses to exercise oversight powers.
It's just awful.
*well, on a good day.
Sounds a bit odd, 'rubbing water off a pupil's head'. I went to a prep school with canings and there were a couple of bona fide nonces in my secondary school and I never saw or experienced that particular interaction.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
For GDP per head to grow, i.e. real income growth, wages need to increase faster than inflation.
You used so many fewer words than me to say the same thing. So annoying.
Edit: And there I go again. What was the point of me saying 'so many'
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
"That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges"
A very good observation - I always try to give them a wide berth at any party meetings.
Unless you were referring to "Boy Scouts for Labour"?
Comments
RFKJr going 3rd party may turn out to be a feasible path for Trump to return to the WH. (Or for added fun, how about one of them going 3rd party and the other going 4th party if for some reason Trump doesn't win the Rep nom?)
I know nothing about this independent, but as a general rule I believe the following happens with the majority of that vote:
A non targeted Tory seat - the vote largely goes Tory
A Tory seat targeted by the LDs in a by election - the vote goes massively LD
A Tory seat targeted by Lab - the vote is split between Lab and the Tories
A Tory seat targeted by Lab and LD - the vote is confused
That is what the Conservative Party is for.
And by 1980 they had become associated with slums in the sky and edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
There are likely votes for any party which advocates increasing the size of every village by 2% by building a few council semis in it and to be reserved for local people.
This does result in some comic moments - at least one poster here has tried to deny there is a housing shortag.
I get why some liberal people feel they can’t say this. There is also the tension between environmentalism and building properties.
Not building is institutionally racist.
I am pro immigration. Therefore I am pro building properties, schools, hospitals, roads, railways etc to match.
I quoted he figures from 2022-23 at £110 billion and few if any realise just how huge this is and a drag on our economy
He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis.
And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
And yet, even ignoring that, they have still kept the Triple Lock in place. Despite the fact that we taxpayers pay more on the welfare budget than every single public sector employee our taxes pay for combined. We spend more on welfare than we spend on every soldier, every teacher, every police officer, doctor, nurse etc in the country combined - and most of that welfare is not going to those in serious need. Those in serious need get rather little from the welfare state.
Putting up taxes on those on work through fiscal drag. Paying less than inflation pay rises to those who work for a living, while doing double-digit pay rises to those who don't - that's not due to the economy, its a political choice Casino. A choice I don't understand how you can possibly agree with?
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/gillette-cup-england-1965-252442/surrey-vs-yorkshire-final-368638/full-scorecard
Story has updated, at least 36 dead
So just looking at islands that's the Dodecanese Ionians Canaries and Hawaii in a couple of months. We have a problem.
Me, I find it hard to believe anything at the moment about this one off MP.
His record coaching in Pakistan - and encouraging the recruitment of Asian players at Yorkshire doesn't suggest as much.
His Wikipedia entry (which deals extensively with the assault case) doesn't raise it as an issue.
Opinionated arse would be fair comment (but the same could be said of most of us on this blog).
Is he competing to be the Dennis Canavan Mk 2?
He has an earlier tweet in September last year about Nadine quitting from Truss's cabinet.
Point is, though, that Ramaswamy is picking up support when he appears at GOP events; the more people see of DeSantis, the less they like him.
As is, of course, Tim Scott (who also has a remarkable facility for quoting the Bible for his own ends, which matters with this selectorate).
"Michael Crick (ex Channel 4, BBC & ITN journalist) has heard that there will definitely be a by-election in Mid Bedfordshire, and Nadine Dorries will resign in early September."
In 2022 the UK unemployment rate was 3.5% and Social Protection formed 30.1% of Governmental expenditure. £318.8bn out of £1058bn total expenditure.
Despite unemployment being half what it was, despite the two-child cap, the 'bedroom tax', austerity and any other cuts the Government has ever made ... the spending the state is now making is going more on welfare than it was when Labour left office.
How? Why? And is that what you would have thought without seeing the numbers?
Because its not going to those in need. Social Protection in 2022/23 isn't a safety net anymore, its not going to those who need support. Those who need support aren't getting very much, but those who don't need it are getting it anyway.
And Sunak and Hunt are by choice keeping the Triple Lock to ratchet it even further.
If 30.1% of all Governmental expenditure is going on welfare, when we have record low unemployment, how on Earth is the situation going to be afforded if we ever had substantial unemployment?
This Government is ratchetting money from those working, to those not working, which at 3.5% unemployment rate doesn't mean the unemployed, and it is doing so as a matter of political choice.
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/09/jacqueline-mckenzie-conservative-hq-criticised-targeted-campaign-against-immigration-lawyer
Basic economics
Actually, many brown field sites where an old building has been demolished and the site just left make for very good habitats - poor soils allow a diverse range of plants to grow without being swamped by more vigorous species that require higher nutrient levels. So we'd better leave these alone too.
Perhaps the government should encourage a few million pensioners to move to France to occupy all of this spare housing and enjoy their retirement?
Besides, the Government is by political choice increasing the wages (eg Triple Lock) of some by 10%, while not increasing the wages of others. That is a choice, and that fuels the wage spiral every bit as much as others getting pay rises does.
And it is by political choice choosing to increase taxes via fiscal drag. It could eliminate the triple lock and eliminate the tax rise of fiscal drag without contributing inflationary wage spirals, if that is what you pretend to care about today.
Is that so?
At the last GE, the result was Tory 60%, Lab 22%, LD 12%, Rest 6%.
If the Tories lose 40% of their share in line with the swing from the last GE (44.7% to 26.8%) then the Tories with get about 36%.
So to beat them either Lab or LD need to get 37% or more.
That means the other contender has to get 21% or less (assuming The Rest still get 6%).
Given the motivation and resources that Lab and LD are pouring in, I think it is quite likely that both parties will get more than 21% share and the Tories therefore win.
I'm betting on a Tory win at 9/2 on Betfair.
The artists' impressions of the protagonists (both here and in the US) never look like actual human beings.
When you’re getting indicted but your lawyer won’t stop beatboxing
https://twitter.com/AbbyHiggs/status/1689328920166825984
ETA one possible explanation is RDS expected Trump to be locked up or at least disqualified, so RDS could easily replace him, but now Trump remains dominant, he is forcing RDS to extremes. I'm not sure I believe it though.
- 1 Ka-52 'Alligator' attack helicopter (destroyed)
A total of 36 Ka-52s are now confirmed to have been lost by Russia since February 2022.
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1689582806991519744
That's over a quarter of their fleet of this type.
https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1675505353650307072
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Obviously, the Tories did better in Uxbridge. However, I suggest that your estimate of the Tories losing 40% of their share would be a good result for the party and they will probably lose more. They could easily lose 50% of their share, so they'd be on 30%. The one poll we'd had had them on 24%. If the Tories are getting 24-30% of the vote, then they're not going to "come through the middle" and win.
Release date:
19 July 2023
Next release:
16 August 2023
However, I think it likely that Labour will drift out from 1.11 as the Labour candidate Shanks tries to urge people to vote for his party in spite of him opposing Labour's policy on Brexit, the 2 child benefit cap, and the GRR bill (and no doubt other issues to come). Increasing Scotland's Labour MPs from 1 to 2 is unlikely to convince many that he can change Labour's UK policies.
Flynn is likely to prove to be a better campaigner than Murray or Sarwar, no matter how much BBC Scotland and most of the media campaign for Shanks.
But the Government has increased wages of many of those that it pays for by taxes by 10%+ last year.
I can't find the 2022/23 data but in 2021/22 total pay for public sector employees was £232bn while welfare was £300bn.
The Government is increasing the former by ~7% and the latter by Triple Lock double-digits.
The latter is much, much more inflationary than the former. It is a much higher increase in expenditure, both in percentage terms and in nominal terms.
So why should those working for a living get a less than inflation pay-rise, while those who aren't working get a double-digit pay rise?
Kane to Bayern
Indeed, the 2016 GOP primaries saw a popular ex-Governor of Florida and a popular current Senator for Florida both implode at least as spectacularly.
Those only relying on state pension aren't the only ones who saw a 10% pay rise from our taxes, every single pensioner whether they needed it or not got one.
That is why welfare is now over 30% of Governmental Expenditure, higher than it was in 2010, despite unemployment being less than half what it was in 2010 and welfare going to those actually in need being cut to the bone. Because it is being pissed around like money is no object to others instead.
Some people may have noticed that Andrew Hewston, an OFSTED inspector who thought it OK to touch a child, has won a claim for unfair dismissal. I've just been looking at the judgement.
Let's leave aside the fact that Hewston is clearly a complete idiot and that judgements like this make a mockery of the legal system. Let's consider what it shows about OFSTED.
1) Hewston was an inspector of children's homes. He had never worked in a school. Why the hell was he inspecting one? Because OFSTED's remit is far too wide so they are using non-specialist inspectors. It urgently needs to be broken up into smaller, more focussed agencies.
2) He didn't know there was a 'no touching' policy in place for OFSTED inspectors in schools. Because he had not been told. This is all of a piece with OFSTED inspectors not being told they shouldn't discuss medical records in public because they don't understand GDPR. I really would like to speak to whatever imbecile manages their training. Loudly.
3) He had not been given the necessary information to prepare a defence (not that he should have had one) because OFSTED does not have proper safeguarding processes or any means of dealing with safeguarding allegations efficiently. This is because the people running it have the intellectual capacity of a civil servant after the fifth works meeting.*
It is deeply disturbing that OFSTED could fail a primary school on a very technical safeguarding breach while committing so many appallingly dangerous mistakes themselves to the extent they are a significant menace to children.
But they get away with it, because nobody regulates them. They are no longer part of the DfE and the Education Select Committee refuses to exercise oversight powers.
It's just awful.
*well, on a good day.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
In a recent poll by ABC News/Washington Post, 39% of Americans said they had a favorable view of Trump, while 59% said they had an unfavorable view.
Taken together, these polls suggest that Trump is supported by not more than 40% of voters. He got 46.8% of the popular vote last time.
It's hard to see him winning unless an independent splits the vote. I'm wondering whether Kennedy is being set up by Trump to run as an independent? But if he does, who will he take more votes from?
Mind you, only 40% approve of Biden!
Mr Murray, it must be said, is hardly representative of Slab, but reasons (special, Morningside variety).
You know, the ones for the bosses.
It's far from certain that he'll even be the GOP candidate.
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ai-is-the-end-of-writing/
"He was a sincere nonce"...
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/13/23794224/sag-aftra-actors-strike-ai-image-rights
Most of the 24% who don't have a favourable view will still vote for Trump rather than Biden (who they won't have a favourable view of either). Yes, Trump will want a third and even fourth candidate on the ballot, the Green Party are likely to oblige and harm Biden's chances.
Biden should be a bit shorter than he is, but not much, and needs an economic recovery of sorts to arrive early enough.
Also, though, that thing about 'different relationships' applies with more force to an inspector. How would any parent feel if they saw a complete stranger patting their child's head and shoulder? I'm guessing they wouldn't automatically think 'oh, how nice to see somebody helping my child.'
I mean, I've worked in a school where I had to blow the whistle on a paedophile and even he wouldn't have done that. (Admittedly, that might have been because it would have been too obvious.)
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
They were just 19 and 21 years old."
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1689581245120806912
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66460059
https://uk-database.org/2012/06/16/john-skermer-coventry/
Edit: And there I go again. What was the point of me saying 'so many'
A very good observation - I always try to give them a wide berth at any party meetings.
Unless you were referring to "Boy Scouts for Labour"?