At least 11 people, including four Russian soldiers, are said to have been killed when shooting erupted between President Putin’s forces in occupied southern Ukraine.
Ukrainian officials said that the gun battle occurred when Chechen fighters loyal to the Kremlin clashed with Russian soldiers in the village of Urzuf, around 25 miles from Mariupol, the Ukrainian port city that was seized by Moscow last year.
Footage published by Ukrainian officials showed two dead bodies slumped in bullet-riddled cars. One of the dead men was wearing a military uniform and the other was dressed in civilian clothing.
LOL. Let them keep fighting each other on the ground, let their unserviceable planes keep crashing on training exercises, and let their tanks keep exploding when the barrels get seized.
RMT general secretary Mick Lynch admits he can turn against supporting England at World Cups because he gets annoyed by some of the hype around them.
Lynch travels to watch Republic of Ireland matches and suggests he happily supports Scotland and Wales when they are at major tournaments.
But when it comes to England, he told an audience in Edinburgh that his backing depends on “how pompous the British press is”.
Lynch’s football allegiances, in stark contrast with many of the GMT’s 560,000 membership, were detailed in a talk with the broadcaster Iain Dale. The 61-year-old said his Irish heritage was “very important to me” and he had “never had a British passport ever”.
Almost half of voters – including one in five Leavers – believe there should be another Brexit referendum in the next decade, a new poll has found.
A YouGov survey revealed that 46 per cent of people believe there should be a rerun of the 2016 vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union in the next 10 years.
Just over a third – 36 per cent – said they believe there should not be a referendum in that period.
The poll, conducted between Aug 8 and 9, also suggested that almost half of people believe Brexit “is not done”.
Some 49 per cent of respondents said they believe Brexit is not yet done and dusted, while 30 per cent said they believe the matter is done.
Almost half of voters – including one in five Leavers – believe there should be another Brexit referendum in the next decade, a new poll has found.
A YouGov survey revealed that 46 per cent of people believe there should be a rerun of the 2016 vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union in the next 10 years.
Just over a third – 36 per cent – said they believe there should not be a referendum in that period.
The poll, conducted between Aug 8 and 9, also suggested that almost half of people believe Brexit “is not done”.
Some 49 per cent of respondents said they believe Brexit is not yet done and dusted, while 30 per cent said they believe the matter is done.
I think it will split two ways: populist anti immigrant under Braverman or someone, and a kinder, gentler, euro-curious and housebuildy lot under whoever turns out to be the next Cameron.
Assuming there's no big change to the electoral system, I think it will be a repeat, on steroids, of 1997-2005. A period of the party completely out in la-la land, possibly in the worst-case scenario under Braverman initially, until repeated electoral annihilation, sheer exhaustion, and the dying off and drifting away of the extremists, finally forces the party to accept that the only way back to power is to embrace reality again. Some future David Cameron will then be chosen as leader, and begin the long, hard slog of renewal.
This will a very slow process. I'd say two parliamentary terms as an absolute minimum, but probably three or more, given how utterly insane the party has become.
Fortunately for the Tories however, the economy a new Labour government will have to deal with will be worse than New Labour inherited in 1997. Inflation will certainly be higher, as likely will be interest rates, there will be more strikes and slower growth.
The worst thing the Tories did for themselves in 1997 was leaving Blair and Brown a growing economy, balanced budget and low inflation and low unemployment. Major and Clarke did well by the country but as New Labour didn't muck it up unlike some of their Labour predecessors that was pivotal as to why the Tories spent so long in opposition from 1997 to 2010
One could argue bequeathing a good economy left the Conservatives out of power for 13 years - one could also argue saying "there's no money left" has kept Labour out of Govenrment for the last 13 years.
It may not be as significant as you think - a strong economy failed to stop a Labour landslide in 1997, a weak economy failed to stop a Conservative in in 1992.
As to what will happen between 2024-29, I've not a clue. Will it be 1974-79 redux or 1997-2001 repeated? Probably elements of both and neither - it will take the Conservatives time to be heard again and Labour can for the first couple of years blame most things on the previous administration.
Who would have predicted Covid or a Russian invasion of the Ukraine back in 2019? Not many - Labour will have its issues but they will be different - one can anticipate climate change being an increasing part of political discourse.
There is a possible strong Conservative response to climate change in contrast to eco-authoritarianism and that's around empowering technology and invention but it has to start from realising there is a problem and not pandering to those in denial who just happen to wear a blue rosette.
Labour is currently about the politics - getting themselves elected. IF there is a radical edge to this incarnation of the Labour Party, we may see it in the second term and could well be even more about parking their zero emission tanks on the Conservative lawn.
Parties change when they want to win or rather when they want to stop losing and it will be uncomfortable to see some precious baggage jettisoned but politics rewards pragmatism and even if the regenerated Conservative Party of the early 2030s is unrecognisable from where it is now, if it's on course to win back power, the activists and members won't care.
Almost half of voters – including one in five Leavers – believe there should be another Brexit referendum in the next decade, a new poll has found.
A YouGov survey revealed that 46 per cent of people believe there should be a rerun of the 2016 vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union in the next 10 years.
Just over a third – 36 per cent – said they believe there should not be a referendum in that period.
The poll, conducted between Aug 8 and 9, also suggested that almost half of people believe Brexit “is not done”.
Some 49 per cent of respondents said they believe Brexit is not yet done and dusted, while 30 per cent said they believe the matter is done.
Almost half of voters – including one in five Leavers – believe there should be another Brexit referendum in the next decade, a new poll has found.
A YouGov survey revealed that 46 per cent of people believe there should be a rerun of the 2016 vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union in the next 10 years.
Just over a third – 36 per cent – said they believe there should not be a referendum in that period.
The poll, conducted between Aug 8 and 9, also suggested that almost half of people believe Brexit “is not done”.
Some 49 per cent of respondents said they believe Brexit is not yet done and dusted, while 30 per cent said they believe the matter is done.
But it's indelicate to point out the relevance of that to the Brexit debate.
However - how long do you expect a generation that opposed the idea in the first place and think it's going badly to keep it as a shrine to their ancestors?
I dont expect that at all. I expect time will move on, the priorities change and follow on generations will seek different things.
At present the polling is being flattered by not having the EU in the media. Weve forgotten the downsides. Run a campaign and that all changes. Rejoin\ Remain would have to set out a positive case, something they manifestly failed to do while in. The hurdles for rejoining are higher and more expensive.
Rejoin no more need to make a positive case, than SKS does in 2024. There's times when the alternative really, really speaks for itself.
US state of Georgia files legal action against Trump
New but long-expected.
I think the case here might well be more difficult for Trump than the Federal cases, and, if he gets re-elected and ends up being convicted, I don't think he would have the power to pardon himself, as it's a prosecution under state law. What a constitutional mess that would be, though.
Georgia is also unusual in the Governor not being able to grant pardons either - it's delegated to a Paroles Board.
Some amusing tidbits from Georgia parole rules:
"Good conduct, achievement of a fifth-grade level or higher on standardized reading tests, and efficient performance of duties by an inmate shall be considered by the board in his favor and shall merit consideration of an application for pardon or parole." So Trump better brush up on his reading skills.
"Furthermore, no person shall be released on pardon or placed on parole unless and until the board is satisfied that he will be suitably employed in self-sustaining employment or that he will not become a public charge." Not sure if the Presidency is a plus or minus in this respect.
"However, the board may, in its discretion, grant pardon or parole to any aged or disabled persons." Maybe Donald should consider replicating Biden's well-publicised stumbles.
It's hard to come to terms with the realistic possibility that the US may be heading for a situation where the president is banged up in a Georgian prison cell. How on earth could that be conceivable? But it is.
It likely won't happen, even half of GOP voters tell polls they won't vote for Trump again if he is convicted
Whilst I agree he'd probably lose enough independents if convicted, just watch the VAST majority of those GOP supporters rally round went the Donald turns out to have been the victim of the worst miscarriage of justice handed down by a kangaroo court of very bad people in the history of the planet, crucifixion of Jesus Christ included.
I think it will split two ways: populist anti immigrant under Braverman or someone, and a kinder, gentler, euro-curious and housebuildy lot under whoever turns out to be the next Cameron.
Assuming there's no big change to the electoral system, I think it will be a repeat, on steroids, of 1997-2005. A period of the party completely out in la-la land, possibly in the worst-case scenario under Braverman initially, until repeated electoral annihilation, sheer exhaustion, and the dying off and drifting away of the extremists, finally forces the party to accept that the only way back to power is to embrace reality again. Some future David Cameron will then be chosen as leader, and begin the long, hard slog of renewal.
This will a very slow process. I'd say two parliamentary terms as an absolute minimum, but probably three or more, given how utterly insane the party has become.
I tend to agree. There are, simply, far too many nutters who hold positions of influence in the party. In contrast I heard Barclay this morning on R4. Very effective, very on top of his brief, good with numbers. But it needs a team, as Cameron had with Osborne, it is not enough to have one. Blair/Brown showed the same.
He was caught lying on the BBC . So a perfect fit for the next Tory Leader .
Don't know about that but in my view Penny Mordaunt will be the next leader and LOTO who will do well enough to prevent the 2024 massacre being consolidated.
I’m not convinced there will be a massacre . Don’t get me wrong I’d love to see the Tories eviscerated but expect they’ll make a recovery upto the GE and Labour might end up just largest party or with a small majority.
At some point Labour are going to have to introduce policies they will stick to
Thats when the fun will start
That really goes without saying. Opposition may be dull but it is much easier than government. Government is constrained by the Overton window, the fabric of reality, the billion laws passed by your predecessors since about 1200, the inherent contradictions in what people want and need, the place from which you start (about as unpromising as could be), the finite nature of power, our age of problems without solutions, and the infinite demands of a disappointed public.
All of that but Labour arent helped by how useless Starmer is. He has a huge task ahead if he becomes PM and has shown little sign he can hack it.
Maybe the election after next we will have candidates like Milei in Argentina
I'd not necessarily bank on that, and suspect it's wishful thinking.
I'm probably not alone in suspecting, based on CV and demeanour, that he'd be rather better at governing than the retail side of politics. He has tiny shoes to fill at least.
The country needs a bout of reform. Hes not the type of person to upset the apple cart, Wrong man for the times.
I don't agree. I think it needs a period of stability and sanity.
Truss was the "bout of reform & upset the apple cart" PM.
I think we need a bit of turmoil, but not the sort of incompetent and generally shitty turmoil we've had over the last few years. Proper, actual reforming, throwing the kitchen sink at it turmoil.
Almost half of voters – including one in five Leavers – believe there should be another Brexit referendum in the next decade, a new poll has found.
A YouGov survey revealed that 46 per cent of people believe there should be a rerun of the 2016 vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union in the next 10 years.
Just over a third – 36 per cent – said they believe there should not be a referendum in that period.
The poll, conducted between Aug 8 and 9, also suggested that almost half of people believe Brexit “is not done”.
Some 49 per cent of respondents said they believe Brexit is not yet done and dusted, while 30 per cent said they believe the matter is done.
Almost half of voters – including one in five Leavers – believe there should be another Brexit referendum in the next decade, a new poll has found.
A YouGov survey revealed that 46 per cent of people believe there should be a rerun of the 2016 vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union in the next 10 years.
Just over a third – 36 per cent – said they believe there should not be a referendum in that period.
The poll, conducted between Aug 8 and 9, also suggested that almost half of people believe Brexit “is not done”.
Some 49 per cent of respondents said they believe Brexit is not yet done and dusted, while 30 per cent said they believe the matter is done.
But it's indelicate to point out the relevance of that to the Brexit debate.
However - how long do you expect a generation that opposed the idea in the first place and think it's going badly to keep it as a shrine to their ancestors?
I dont expect that at all. I expect time will move on, the priorities change and follow on generations will seek different things.
At present the polling is being flattered by not having the EU in the media. Weve forgotten the downsides. Run a campaign and that all changes. Rejoin\ Remain would have to set out a positive case, something they manifestly failed to do while in. The hurdles for rejoining are higher and more expensive.
Rejoin no more need to make a positive case, than SKS does in 2024. There's times when the alternative really, really speaks for itself.
RMT general secretary Mick Lynch admits he can turn against supporting England at World Cups because he gets annoyed by some of the hype around them.
Lynch travels to watch Republic of Ireland matches and suggests he happily supports Scotland and Wales when they are at major tournaments.
But when it comes to England, he told an audience in Edinburgh that his backing depends on “how pompous the British press is”.
Lynch’s football allegiances, in stark contrast with many of the GMT’s 560,000 membership, were detailed in a talk with the broadcaster Iain Dale. The 61-year-old said his Irish heritage was “very important to me” and he had “never had a British passport ever”.
From reading his Wiki, he seems to have an Irish Passport and supports Brexit. So no contradiction there...
Since time immemorial militant Union leaders have either been comic-hall socialist or performative international Marxists.
The members don't care so long as they get them a good deal.
The Union leaders flatter themselves that they reflect and channel the politics of all their members, and the members largely don't and ignore them.
I think that is probably right, since loads of people are in unions and yet few seem to be as radical as the more performative union leaders.
We don't have a problem scoffing at politicians claiming to reflect all their constituents, I don't think we should hold back at shattering the pretense that the more political aspirations and claims of union leaders are also inflated. It's not what people want them for, primarily.
When looking to cast my union rep votes I tried to find ones who did not just parrot the same partisan talking points in their candidate statement. It wasn't easy (and also made them mostly indistinguisable, even as they sought to distinguish).
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Looking at the FX rates. The pound bought €1.50 in the mid-2000s. After the crash it bobbled around today's level of around €1.15, or a bit stronger before Brexit. So that covers a 23% purported collapse in "real dollar wages" in the UK versus euro countries. The pound bought $2, now it buys $1.25. So that is a 37% collapse. Not to deny that people do end up meaningfully poorer at petrol pumps, when in Tuscany, or when buying high-end devices or cars. But a ton of this is simply taken by investors and domestic prices adjust.
Almost half of voters – including one in five Leavers – believe there should be another Brexit referendum in the next decade, a new poll has found.
A YouGov survey revealed that 46 per cent of people believe there should be a rerun of the 2016 vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union in the next 10 years.
Just over a third – 36 per cent – said they believe there should not be a referendum in that period.
The poll, conducted between Aug 8 and 9, also suggested that almost half of people believe Brexit “is not done”.
Some 49 per cent of respondents said they believe Brexit is not yet done and dusted, while 30 per cent said they believe the matter is done.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That's ahistorical. Countries such as the Netherlands were far more vociferous abour austerity, and others had more severe austerity forced upon them. Blaming "Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy" for the UK's current economic position is lazy and partisan.
Almost half of voters – including one in five Leavers – believe there should be another Brexit referendum in the next decade, a new poll has found.
A YouGov survey revealed that 46 per cent of people believe there should be a rerun of the 2016 vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union in the next 10 years.
Just over a third – 36 per cent – said they believe there should not be a referendum in that period.
The poll, conducted between Aug 8 and 9, also suggested that almost half of people believe Brexit “is not done”.
Some 49 per cent of respondents said they believe Brexit is not yet done and dusted, while 30 per cent said they believe the matter is done.
Almost half of voters – including one in five Leavers – believe there should be another Brexit referendum in the next decade, a new poll has found.
A YouGov survey revealed that 46 per cent of people believe there should be a rerun of the 2016 vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union in the next 10 years.
Just over a third – 36 per cent – said they believe there should not be a referendum in that period.
The poll, conducted between Aug 8 and 9, also suggested that almost half of people believe Brexit “is not done”.
Some 49 per cent of respondents said they believe Brexit is not yet done and dusted, while 30 per cent said they believe the matter is done.
But it's indelicate to point out the relevance of that to the Brexit debate.
However - how long do you expect a generation that opposed the idea in the first place and think it's going badly to keep it as a shrine to their ancestors?
I dont expect that at all. I expect time will move on, the priorities change and follow on generations will seek different things.
At present the polling is being flattered by not having the EU in the media. Weve forgotten the downsides. Run a campaign and that all changes. Rejoin\ Remain would have to set out a positive case, something they manifestly failed to do while in. The hurdles for rejoining are higher and more expensive.
Rejoin no more need to make a positive case, than SKS does in 2024. There's times when the alternative really, really speaks for itself.
The case would need to be made - learning from the total failure to make the affirmative case in 2016. Also because the better answer is to join the SM without the political union through the EEA/EFTA route. This could, I think, be properly done without a referendum as it entirely conforms with the Brexit vote to leave the EU.
RMT general secretary Mick Lynch admits he can turn against supporting England at World Cups because he gets annoyed by some of the hype around them.
Lynch travels to watch Republic of Ireland matches and suggests he happily supports Scotland and Wales when they are at major tournaments.
But when it comes to England, he told an audience in Edinburgh that his backing depends on “how pompous the British press is”.
Lynch’s football allegiances, in stark contrast with many of the GMT’s 560,000 membership, were detailed in a talk with the broadcaster Iain Dale. The 61-year-old said his Irish heritage was “very important to me” and he had “never had a British passport ever”.
Almost half of voters – including one in five Leavers – believe there should be another Brexit referendum in the next decade, a new poll has found.
A YouGov survey revealed that 46 per cent of people believe there should be a rerun of the 2016 vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union in the next 10 years.
Just over a third – 36 per cent – said they believe there should not be a referendum in that period.
The poll, conducted between Aug 8 and 9, also suggested that almost half of people believe Brexit “is not done”.
Some 49 per cent of respondents said they believe Brexit is not yet done and dusted, while 30 per cent said they believe the matter is done.
Almost half of voters – including one in five Leavers – believe there should be another Brexit referendum in the next decade, a new poll has found.
A YouGov survey revealed that 46 per cent of people believe there should be a rerun of the 2016 vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union in the next 10 years.
Just over a third – 36 per cent – said they believe there should not be a referendum in that period.
The poll, conducted between Aug 8 and 9, also suggested that almost half of people believe Brexit “is not done”.
Some 49 per cent of respondents said they believe Brexit is not yet done and dusted, while 30 per cent said they believe the matter is done.
But it's indelicate to point out the relevance of that to the Brexit debate.
However - how long do you expect a generation that opposed the idea in the first place and think it's going badly to keep it as a shrine to their ancestors?
I dont expect that at all. I expect time will move on, the priorities change and follow on generations will seek different things.
At present the polling is being flattered by not having the EU in the media. Weve forgotten the downsides. Run a campaign and that all changes. Rejoin\ Remain would have to set out a positive case, something they manifestly failed to do while in. The hurdles for rejoining are higher and more expensive.
Rejoin no more need to make a positive case, than SKS does in 2024. There's times when the alternative really, really speaks for itself.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
It's mostly due to the devaluation of sterling, and that happened between 2007 and 2009, with a small addendum after the Brexit vote. Why this is not reflected in the FT's stats is a puzzle to me, but it's not convenient to their centre-left editorial line, so this is my working hypothesis.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That just shows you the desperate political bias of the FT.
The growth plateaued under Labour, the foundations for which were laid under the previous Conservative administration, at the peak of the GFC and that's when it starts to turn down; on the second graph they've kept the whole line blue even though the Conservatives weren't even in office in 2009.
What it shows is we've never really had an answer since the GFC.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That's ahistorical. Countries such as the Netherlands were far more vociferous abour austerity, and others had more severe austerity forced upon them. Blaming "Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy" for the UK's current economic position is lazy and partisan.
Yes, it's essentially ahistorical. Merkel wasn't borrowing or investing in capital. France didn't ever get unemployment below 7%.
I think it will split two ways: populist anti immigrant under Braverman or someone, and a kinder, gentler, euro-curious and housebuildy lot under whoever turns out to be the next Cameron.
Assuming there's no big change to the electoral system, I think it will be a repeat, on steroids, of 1997-2005. A period of the party completely out in la-la land, possibly in the worst-case scenario under Braverman initially, until repeated electoral annihilation, sheer exhaustion, and the dying off and drifting away of the extremists, finally forces the party to accept that the only way back to power is to embrace reality again. Some future David Cameron will then be chosen as leader, and begin the long, hard slog of renewal.
This will a very slow process. I'd say two parliamentary terms as an absolute minimum, but probably three or more, given how utterly insane the party has become.
Oh please God no, not another Cameron. I couldnt go through another Brexit referendum.
I am not convinced entirely about all this. In a place the size of NI is it really possible that sufficiently determined people don't already know exactly who is a copper and where they live?
It may be harder than you think. Even if it is not, the additional effort required really would prevent what might be termed casual dissident nutters from getting the information, who wouldn't have gone looking but will make use of a windfall.
Yes, the new hard men with guns are less numerous and not as well organised as the old hard men with guns. In Northern Ireland, there may also be more undercover police officers or others in sensitive roles, or who might have offended one community or other in the past.
In short, someone messed up, but it should also remind us that often privacy is important.
In NI, local communities are very closed mouth. Strangers are assumed to be a potential danger. It’s eased off a bit.
But on occasion you hear of some idiot who goes for a walk, starts chatting to people and ends up in a local bar having a bit of a…. debrief by the local community leader. So far no tourists have got hurt - the local community leaders value the money that comes their way via Community Outreach Projects* and the like.
*the government stretches out a hand, holding a bag of money. And says “Every week without trouble, more outreach”.
I think it will split two ways: populist anti immigrant under Braverman or someone, and a kinder, gentler, euro-curious and housebuildy lot under whoever turns out to be the next Cameron.
Assuming there's no big change to the electoral system, I think it will be a repeat, on steroids, of 1997-2005. A period of the party completely out in la-la land, possibly in the worst-case scenario under Braverman initially, until repeated electoral annihilation, sheer exhaustion, and the dying off and drifting away of the extremists, finally forces the party to accept that the only way back to power is to embrace reality again. Some future David Cameron will then be chosen as leader, and begin the long, hard slog of renewal.
This will a very slow process. I'd say two parliamentary terms as an absolute minimum, but probably three or more, given how utterly insane the party has become.
Oh please God no, not another Cameron. I couldnt go through another Brexit referendum.
I think it will split two ways: populist anti immigrant under Braverman or someone, and a kinder, gentler, euro-curious and housebuildy lot under whoever turns out to be the next Cameron.
Assuming there's no big change to the electoral system, I think it will be a repeat, on steroids, of 1997-2005. A period of the party completely out in la-la land, possibly in the worst-case scenario under Braverman initially, until repeated electoral annihilation, sheer exhaustion, and the dying off and drifting away of the extremists, finally forces the party to accept that the only way back to power is to embrace reality again. Some future David Cameron will then be chosen as leader, and begin the long, hard slog of renewal.
This will a very slow process. I'd say two parliamentary terms as an absolute minimum, but probably three or more, given how utterly insane the party has become.
Oh please God no, not another Cameron. I couldnt go through another Brexit referendum.
Given that Dave was first elected as an MP four years AFTER the Tory debacle of 1997, the next Cameron hasn't even entered Parliament yet.
At least 11 people, including four Russian soldiers, are said to have been killed when shooting erupted between President Putin’s forces in occupied southern Ukraine.
Ukrainian officials said that the gun battle occurred when Chechen fighters loyal to the Kremlin clashed with Russian soldiers in the village of Urzuf, around 25 miles from Mariupol, the Ukrainian port city that was seized by Moscow last year.
Footage published by Ukrainian officials showed two dead bodies slumped in bullet-riddled cars. One of the dead men was wearing a military uniform and the other was dressed in civilian clothing.
Unpleasant though they are, what have they done that's actually illegal?
Have they even proposed doing anything illegal?
My knowledge of German politics is pretty sketchy, so I could easily be wrong, but we're not as far as I can see talking about the MAGA nutters, who really should be banned for treason and attempted insurrection. Or possibly sectioned for thinking Donald Trump is anything other than a failed businessman with a small one.
I would caution against them taking the advice of Boyle Roche, who suggested 'we should be prepared to give up if necessary, not only a part but the whole of our constitution, in order to preserve the remainder.'
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
RMT general secretary Mick Lynch admits he can turn against supporting England at World Cups because he gets annoyed by some of the hype around them.
Lynch travels to watch Republic of Ireland matches and suggests he happily supports Scotland and Wales when they are at major tournaments.
But when it comes to England, he told an audience in Edinburgh that his backing depends on “how pompous the British press is”.
Lynch’s football allegiances, in stark contrast with many of the GMT’s 560,000 membership, were detailed in a talk with the broadcaster Iain Dale. The 61-year-old said his Irish heritage was “very important to me” and he had “never had a British passport ever”.
Some people would been thrown out of the RSS for going over the top with the anti-Muslim thing made an alliance with the local BNP, in Bristol a while back. Aryans of the world unite?
I think it will split two ways: populist anti immigrant under Braverman or someone, and a kinder, gentler, euro-curious and housebuildy lot under whoever turns out to be the next Cameron.
Assuming there's no big change to the electoral system, I think it will be a repeat, on steroids, of 1997-2005. A period of the party completely out in la-la land, possibly in the worst-case scenario under Braverman initially, until repeated electoral annihilation, sheer exhaustion, and the dying off and drifting away of the extremists, finally forces the party to accept that the only way back to power is to embrace reality again. Some future David Cameron will then be chosen as leader, and begin the long, hard slog of renewal.
This will a very slow process. I'd say two parliamentary terms as an absolute minimum, but probably three or more, given how utterly insane the party has become.
Oh please God no, not another Cameron. I couldnt go through another Brexit referendum.
Given that Dave was first elected as an MP four years AFTER the Tory debacle of 1997, the next Cameron hasn't even entered Parliament yet.
Unpleasant though they are, what have they done that's actually illegal?
Have they even proposed doing anything illegal?
My knowledge of German politics is pretty sketchy, so I could easily be wrong, but we're not as far as I can see talking about the MAGA nutters, who really should be banned for treason and attempted insurrection. Or possibly sectioned for thinking Donald Trump is anything other than a failed businessman with a small one.
I would caution against them taking the advice of Boyle Roche, who suggested 'we should be prepared to give up if necessary, not only a part but the whole of our constitution, in order to preserve the remainder.'
As long as your testing is rigorous then ChatGPT is capable of correcting it's mistakes once they're pointed out. It's better than many graduates in that respect.
I think it will split two ways: populist anti immigrant under Braverman or someone, and a kinder, gentler, euro-curious and housebuildy lot under whoever turns out to be the next Cameron.
Assuming there's no big change to the electoral system, I think it will be a repeat, on steroids, of 1997-2005. A period of the party completely out in la-la land, possibly in the worst-case scenario under Braverman initially, until repeated electoral annihilation, sheer exhaustion, and the dying off and drifting away of the extremists, finally forces the party to accept that the only way back to power is to embrace reality again. Some future David Cameron will then be chosen as leader, and begin the long, hard slog of renewal.
This will a very slow process. I'd say two parliamentary terms as an absolute minimum, but probably three or more, given how utterly insane the party has become.
Fortunately for the Tories however, the economy a new Labour government will have to deal with will be worse than New Labour inherited in 1997. Inflation will certainly be higher, as likely will be interest rates, there will be more strikes and slower growth.
The worst thing the Tories did for themselves in 1997 was leaving Blair and Brown a growing economy, balanced budget and low inflation and low unemployment. Major and Clarke did well by the country but as New Labour didn't muck it up unlike some of their Labour predecessors that was pivotal as to why the Tories spent so long in opposition from 1997 to 2010
One could argue bequeathing a good economy left the Conservatives out of power for 13 years - one could also argue saying "there's no money left" has kept Labour out of Govenrment for the last 13 years.
It may not be as significant as you think - a strong economy failed to stop a Labour landslide in 1997, a weak economy failed to stop a Conservative in in 1992.
As to what will happen between 2024-29, I've not a clue. Will it be 1974-79 redux or 1997-2001 repeated? Probably elements of both and neither - it will take the Conservatives time to be heard again and Labour can for the first couple of years blame most things on the previous administration.
Who would have predicted Covid or a Russian invasion of the Ukraine back in 2019? Not many - Labour will have its issues but they will be different - one can anticipate climate change being an increasing part of political discourse.
There is a possible strong Conservative response to climate change in contrast to eco-authoritarianism and that's around empowering technology and invention but it has to start from realising there is a problem and not pandering to those in denial who just happen to wear a blue rosette.
Labour is currently about the politics - getting themselves elected. IF there is a radical edge to this incarnation of the Labour Party, we may see it in the second term and could well be even more about parking their zero emission tanks on the Conservative lawn.
Parties change when they want to win or rather when they want to stop losing and it will be uncomfortable to see some precious baggage jettisoned but politics rewards pragmatism and even if the regenerated Conservative Party of the early 2030s is unrecognisable from where it is now, if it's on course to win back power, the activists and members won't care.
A weak economy does however usually make general elections closer and a change of government to the opposition more likely, see 1970, 1974 and 1979, 2010 and even 1992 was close. Even Foot had a poll lead from 1980-1982 as the Thatcher government left high unemployment as it tried to get to get inflation down and pursued a strongly monetarist agenda and squeeze on the money supply.
1997 was an exception in which a strong economy did not see the government re elected, firstly as the Tories had been in so long anyway, 18 years and voters wanted a change. Second as Blair was uber centrist and went out of his way to seem more economically competent than Kinnock. Third as voters remembered Black Wednesday and negative equity and the economic incompetence of the Tories earlier in the Parliament as well as Tory disunity over Europe
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That's ahistorical. Countries such as the Netherlands were far more vociferous abour austerity, and others had more severe austerity forced upon them. Blaming "Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy" for the UK's current economic position is lazy and partisan.
Austerity in the UK would have been far more severe post 2009 if we'd been a member of the euro.
I think it will split two ways: populist anti immigrant under Braverman or someone, and a kinder, gentler, euro-curious and housebuildy lot under whoever turns out to be the next Cameron.
Assuming there's no big change to the electoral system, I think it will be a repeat, on steroids, of 1997-2005. A period of the party completely out in la-la land, possibly in the worst-case scenario under Braverman initially, until repeated electoral annihilation, sheer exhaustion, and the dying off and drifting away of the extremists, finally forces the party to accept that the only way back to power is to embrace reality again. Some future David Cameron will then be chosen as leader, and begin the long, hard slog of renewal.
This will a very slow process. I'd say two parliamentary terms as an absolute minimum, but probably three or more, given how utterly insane the party has become.
Fortunately for the Tories however, the economy a new Labour government will have to deal with will be worse than New Labour inherited in 1997. Inflation will certainly be higher, as likely will be interest rates, there will be more strikes and slower growth.
The worst thing the Tories did for themselves in 1997 was leaving Blair and Brown a growing economy, balanced budget and low inflation and low unemployment. Major and Clarke did well by the country but as New Labour didn't muck it up unlike some of their Labour predecessors that was pivotal as to why the Tories spent so long in opposition from 1997 to 2010
Well, the Tories have learned their lesson, they've trashed the economy this time. Take that Labour!
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That's ahistorical. Countries such as the Netherlands were far more vociferous abour austerity, and others had more severe austerity forced upon them. Blaming "Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy" for the UK's current economic position is lazy and partisan.
Austerity in the UK would have been far more severe post 2009 if we'd been a member of the euro.
I have to say I think it unlikely the euro would have made it to 2009 if we had been members of it.
I'd think he'd be a big fan of the fact ChatGPT is adept at fluent BS, other than it threatening journalistic livelihood with that skill.
The only thing that ChatGPT is good at, as we demonstrated years ago, is making plausible and implausible bullshit up as soon as it runs out of actual facts.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That's ahistorical. Countries such as the Netherlands were far more vociferous abour austerity, and others had more severe austerity forced upon them. Blaming "Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy" for the UK's current economic position is lazy and partisan.
Austerity in the UK would have been far more severe post 2009 if we'd been a member of the euro.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That's ahistorical. Countries such as the Netherlands were far more vociferous abour austerity, and others had more severe austerity forced upon them. Blaming "Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy" for the UK's current economic position is lazy and partisan.
Also, the selection of peer countries is partial.
They've got 11 in the mix there (four of which are nordics) but no Australia, Spain, NZ, Italy or Japan.
Could it be the FT created a graph that showed the story they want to tell?
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That's ahistorical. Countries such as the Netherlands were far more vociferous abour austerity, and others had more severe austerity forced upon them. Blaming "Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy" for the UK's current economic position is lazy and partisan.
Austerity in the UK would have been far more severe post 2009 if we'd been a member of the euro.
I have to say I think it unlikely the euro would have made it to 2009 if we had been members of it.
Yes, we'd have bounced out and Brexit would have probably happened earlier and been a landslide.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That's ahistorical. Countries such as the Netherlands were far more vociferous abour austerity, and others had more severe austerity forced upon them. Blaming "Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy" for the UK's current economic position is lazy and partisan.
Austerity in the UK would have been far more severe post 2009 if we'd been a member of the euro.
we would have bust the whole system
That's why we should Rejoin, we join the Euro and the blow the whole thing apart from the inside.
Unpleasant though they are, what have they done that's actually illegal?
Have they even proposed doing anything illegal?
My knowledge of German politics is pretty sketchy, so I could easily be wrong, but we're not as far as I can see talking about the MAGA nutters, who really should be banned for treason and attempted insurrection. Or possibly sectioned for thinking Donald Trump is anything other than a failed businessman with a small one.
I would caution against them taking the advice of Boyle Roche, who suggested 'we should be prepared to give up if necessary, not only a part but the whole of our constitution, in order to preserve the remainder.'
I cannot find the article but there were a lot of people who were ex AfD in this plot.
So I can understand the government are nervous. But it's a bit of a stretch to say a political party should be banned because at least one former prominent member was involved of a possible coup attempt that doesn't seem to have got even as far as the Cato Street Conspiracy a political party should be banned.
The far right is of course on the march all over Europe - in Ireland,* Italy, Spain, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Russia. And it's obviously not great news for Europe, or for the established political parties. Indeed, it's happening all over the world - Brazil, Mexico, the Phillipines, India, China.
But perhaps rather than trying to ban parties because they don't approve of what they say, the governments might be better of working out *why* people are turning their backs on them and then doing something practical about it.
The moment they do something violent or illegal in their party's name, different rules apply, of course.
*Sinn Fein poses as left, but so did Farage when it suited him.
This is a bit misleading. The Federal Constitutional Court can ban parties but the ‘discussions’ that have been taking place have been purely theoretical ‘what ifs’. There’s no active case before the court.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
Austerity isn't a one size fits all.
I'd say the problem we had with it is we had a hyperpolitical Chancellor (Osborne) who played a political game much more enthusiastically than he did an economic one.
I don't think pensioners should have been mollycuddled during it, and we cut back far too much in areas like education, capital spend, industry and R&D.
As long as your testing is rigorous then ChatGPT is capable of correcting it's mistakes once they're pointed out. It's better than many graduates in that respect.
I'm actually finding AI pretty useful for coding. It's like having an enthusiastic and very knowledgeable but rather stupid assistant. It sometimes gets the wrong end of the stick, but gets it right often enough to be useful and occasionally gives me ideas that wouldn't otherwise have occurred to me.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That just shows you the desperate political bias of the FT.
The growth plateaued under Labour, the foundations for which were laid under the previous Conservative administration, at the peak of the GFC and that's when it starts to turn down; on the second graph they've kept the whole line blue even though the Conservatives weren't even in office in 2009.
What it shows is we've never really had an answer since the GFC.
Conservatives responsible for 13 years of Labour growth; Labour responsible for 13 years of Tory stagnation. Welcome to the new Conservative doublethink.
I'd think he'd be a big fan of the fact ChatGPT is adept at fluent BS, other than it threatening journalistic livelihood with that skill.
The only thing that ChatGPT is good at, as we demonstrated years ago, is making plausible and implausible bullshit up as soon as it runs out of actual facts.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That just shows you the desperate political bias of the FT.
The growth plateaued under Labour, the foundations for which were laid under the previous Conservative administration, at the peak of the GFC and that's when it starts to turn down; on the second graph they've kept the whole line blue even though the Conservatives weren't even in office in 2009.
What it shows is we've never really had an answer since the GFC.
Conservatives responsible for 13 years of Labour growth; Labour responsible for 13 years of Tory stagnation. Welcome to the new Conservative doublethink.
Sounds entirely consistent to me if the argument is that changes/decisions made now will strongly affect outcomes in the next decade/decades.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That's ahistorical. Countries such as the Netherlands were far more vociferous abour austerity, and others had more severe austerity forced upon them. Blaming "Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy" for the UK's current economic position is lazy and partisan.
Ok. The Netherlands introduced an austerity programme, not as harsh as the UK, and real wages stagnated there, albeit didn't actually fall like the UK.
US state of Georgia files legal action against Trump
New but long-expected.
I think the case here might well be more difficult for Trump than the Federal cases, and, if he gets re-elected and ends up being convicted, I don't think he would have the power to pardon himself, as it's a prosecution under state law. What a constitutional mess that would be, though.
Georgia is also unusual in the Governor not being able to grant pardons either - it's delegated to a Paroles Board.
Some amusing tidbits from Georgia parole rules:
"Good conduct, achievement of a fifth-grade level or higher on standardized reading tests, and efficient performance of duties by an inmate shall be considered by the board in his favor and shall merit consideration of an application for pardon or parole." So Trump better brush up on his reading skills.
"Furthermore, no person shall be released on pardon or placed on parole unless and until the board is satisfied that he will be suitably employed in self-sustaining employment or that he will not become a public charge." Not sure if the Presidency is a plus or minus in this respect.
"However, the board may, in its discretion, grant pardon or parole to any aged or disabled persons." Maybe Donald should consider replicating Biden's well-publicised stumbles.
It's hard to come to terms with the realistic possibility that the US may be heading for a situation where the president is banged up in a Georgian prison cell. How on earth could that be conceivable? But it is.
It likely won't happen, even half of GOP voters tell polls they won't vote for Trump again if he is convicted
Whilst I agree he'd probably lose enough independents if convicted, just watch the VAST majority of those GOP supporters rally round went the Donald turns out to have been the victim of the worst miscarriage of justice handed down by a kangaroo court of very bad people in the history of the planet, crucifixion of Jesus Christ included.
If Trump ends up in state prison but gets elected, he could always try using the laws and rulings that protect Federal agents from being detained by local agencies. They date from the Civil Rights era, to stop the local sheriffs trying to arrest all the FBI agents.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Failing to see the decline in wages starting in 2004 on that FT graph.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That just shows you the desperate political bias of the FT.
The growth plateaued under Labour, the foundations for which were laid under the previous Conservative administration, at the peak of the GFC and that's when it starts to turn down; on the second graph they've kept the whole line blue even though the Conservatives weren't even in office in 2009.
What it shows is we've never really had an answer since the GFC.
Who is it that has never had an answer since the GFC, which was fifteen years ago and almost entirely coincides with the Conservative government.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That just shows you the desperate political bias of the FT.
The growth plateaued under Labour, the foundations for which were laid under the previous Conservative administration, at the peak of the GFC and that's when it starts to turn down; on the second graph they've kept the whole line blue even though the Conservatives weren't even in office in 2009.
What it shows is we've never really had an answer since the GFC.
Who is it that has never had an answer since the GFC, which was fifteen years ago and almost entirely coincides with the Conservative government.
What deficit deniers like you seem to forget is that Labour went into the 2010 general election campaign promising more savage cuts than Thatcher.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Failing to see the decline in wages starting in 2004 on that FT graph.
suggest you look again. Wages in the UK have been stagnant for almost two decades, unless you are a civil servant or a company director. Low wages have been driven by high immigration and a failure by business to improve productivity which ultimately allows increases in salaries.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That's ahistorical. Countries such as the Netherlands were far more vociferous abour austerity, and others had more severe austerity forced upon them. Blaming "Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy" for the UK's current economic position is lazy and partisan.
Ok. The Netherlands introduced an austerity programme, not as harsh as the UK, and real wages stagnated there, albeit didn't actually fall like the UK.
Would you have swapped our fiscal policies for Ireland's over than period?
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That just shows you the desperate political bias of the FT.
The growth plateaued under Labour, the foundations for which were laid under the previous Conservative administration, at the peak of the GFC and that's when it starts to turn down; on the second graph they've kept the whole line blue even though the Conservatives weren't even in office in 2009.
What it shows is we've never really had an answer since the GFC.
Who is it that has never had an answer since the GFC, which was fifteen years ago and almost entirely coincides with the Conservative government.
What deficit deniers like you seem to forget is that Labour went into the 2010 general election campaign promising more savage cuts than Thatcher.
Austerity wasn't a choice.
Actually I agree that austerity wasn't a choice for one or two years after the GFC. It was continuing with it indefinitely that was so disastrous. Disclosure, I was in favour of it at the time. But I can't argue against the evidence. It was a disastrous policy.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That's ahistorical. Countries such as the Netherlands were far more vociferous abour austerity, and others had more severe austerity forced upon them. Blaming "Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy" for the UK's current economic position is lazy and partisan.
Austerity in the UK would have been far more severe post 2009 if we'd been a member of the euro.
we would have bust the whole system
That's why we should Rejoin, we join the Euro and the blow the whole thing apart from the inside.
Germany runs the Euro, via Frankfurt, unless we become the largest economy in Europe the UK would have no chance of setting the direction of the Eurozone.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That just shows you the desperate political bias of the FT.
The growth plateaued under Labour, the foundations for which were laid under the previous Conservative administration, at the peak of the GFC and that's when it starts to turn down; on the second graph they've kept the whole line blue even though the Conservatives weren't even in office in 2009.
What it shows is we've never really had an answer since the GFC.
Who is it that has never had an answer since the GFC, which was fifteen years ago and almost entirely coincides with the Conservative government.
What deficit deniers like you seem to forget is that Labour went into the 2010 general election campaign promising more savage cuts than Thatcher.
Austerity wasn't a choice.
Well, it was a choice.
In the sense that Vetinari gave that thief a choice between of his own free will becoming a spy, or of his own free will being thrown into the scorpion pit.
In the immediate aftermath of the GFC, the line was very much about trying to get the public finances back on track and the debate wasn't about the ends but the means.
Yes, we could have increased taxes but the Cameron/Osborne line was spending cuts should do most of the heavy lifting but such cuts were targeted not across all of spending but just some areas - a form of hypothecated spending cut I suppose.
Cameron was too anxious to appear "one nation" and needed the support of ex and continuing LDs to make the tough call on NHS and Education spending so other areas of central and local Government spending took the hit.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Failing to see the decline in wages starting in 2004 on that FT graph.
suggest you look again. Wages in the UK have been stagnant for almost two decades, unless you are a civil servant or a company director. Low wages have been driven by high immigration and a failure by business to improve productivity which ultimately allows increases in salaries.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That's ahistorical. Countries such as the Netherlands were far more vociferous abour austerity, and others had more severe austerity forced upon them. Blaming "Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy" for the UK's current economic position is lazy and partisan.
Austerity in the UK would have been far more severe post 2009 if we'd been a member of the euro.
we would have bust the whole system
That's why we should Rejoin, we join the Euro and the blow the whole thing apart from the inside.
Germany runs the Euro, via Frankfurt, unless we become the largest economy in Europe the UK would have no chance of setting the direction of the Eurozone.
Depending on your forecaster its not inconceivable the UK will be Europes largest economy by 2050. Most suggest that Germany will be about 10% bigger than the UK but they assume Germanys manufacturing sector will stay strong. Currently thats a brave orecast.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Failing to see the decline in wages starting in 2004 on that FT graph.
suggest you look again. Wages in the UK have been stagnant for almost two decades, unless you are a civil servant or a company director. Low wages have been driven by high immigration and a failure by business to improve productivity which ultimately allows increases in salaries.
Give me a link to the data then.
Dont believe me if you dont want to but Im not playing linky, there enough of it out there if you can be bothered.
Under Labour we actually had a notion of society. People cared about each other and you really did feel that whilst not perfect, things really did feel better.
The Tories have destroyed the fabric of our society - possibly beyond repair - and the saddest thing is that they seem proud of it.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Failing to see the decline in wages starting in 2004 on that FT graph.
suggest you look again. Wages in the UK have been stagnant for almost two decades, unless you are a civil servant or a company director. Low wages have been driven by high immigration and a failure by business to improve productivity which ultimately allows increases in salaries.
Wages have been stagnant in most of the developed world, almost irrespective of levels of immigration, or hue of the government.
Under Labour we actually had a notion of society. People cared about each other and you really did feel that whilst not perfect, things really did feel better.
The Tories have destroyed the fabric of our society - possibly beyond repair - and the saddest thing is that they seem proud of it.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Failing to see the decline in wages starting in 2004 on that FT graph.
suggest you look again. Wages in the UK have been stagnant for almost two decades, unless you are a civil servant or a company director. Low wages have been driven by high immigration and a failure by business to improve productivity which ultimately allows increases in salaries.
Wages have been stagnant in most of the developed world, almost irrespective of levels of immigration, or hue of the government.
That's also largely true, but as your friends at the FT are pointing out the UK seems worst affected.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Failing to see the decline in wages starting in 2004 on that FT graph.
suggest you look again. Wages in the UK have been stagnant for almost two decades, unless you are a civil servant or a company director. Low wages have been driven by high immigration and a failure by business to improve productivity which ultimately allows increases in salaries.
Yup. Simple example - Relative running a building business bought an electric mini digger. Does the work of 6 guys shovelling. Costs about the same as paying 2 of them. The driver of the digger gets more money.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Failing to see the decline in wages starting in 2004 on that FT graph.
suggest you look again. Wages in the UK have been stagnant for almost two decades, unless you are a civil servant or a company director. Low wages have been driven by high immigration and a failure by business to improve productivity which ultimately allows increases in salaries.
Wages have been stagnant in most of the developed world, almost irrespective of levels of immigration, or hue of the government.
That's also largely true, but as your friends at the FT are pointing out the UK seems worst affected.
We were also much more dependent on financial services in 2008 than peer countries, and the unravelling of that bubble will have had an impact.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That just shows you the desperate political bias of the FT.
The growth plateaued under Labour, the foundations for which were laid under the previous Conservative administration, at the peak of the GFC and that's when it starts to turn down; on the second graph they've kept the whole line blue even though the Conservatives weren't even in office in 2009.
What it shows is we've never really had an answer since the GFC.
Who is it that has never had an answer since the GFC, which was fifteen years ago and almost entirely coincides with the Conservative government.
What deficit deniers like you seem to forget is that Labour went into the 2010 general election campaign promising more savage cuts than Thatcher.
Austerity wasn't a choice.
Well, it was a choice.
In the sense that Vetinari gave that thief a choice between of his own free will becoming a spy, or of his own free will being thrown into the scorpion pit.
At the time of the coalition government forming, the cost of government borrowing was beginning to take off. If we had simply said no austerity, then borrowing that sustained spending would have resulted in a disorganised austerity - see Greece.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Failing to see the decline in wages starting in 2004 on that FT graph.
suggest you look again. Wages in the UK have been stagnant for almost two decades, unless you are a civil servant or a company director. Low wages have been driven by high immigration and a failure by business to improve productivity which ultimately allows increases in salaries.
Give me a link to the data then.
Dont believe me if you dont want to but Im not playing linky, there enough of it out there if you can be bothered.
With all due respect, there's a distinct lack of easy correlations.
Britain's Gross Capital Formation as a % of GDP did not deviate from peer countries in the post 2008 period, so it can't simply be that it was lack of capex.
And net immigration has not been a great predictor of median wages: Germany, Switzerland, Canada and Australia make up four of the top seven countries; and they were all top of the class for median wage growth.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Failing to see the decline in wages starting in 2004 on that FT graph.
suggest you look again. Wages in the UK have been stagnant for almost two decades, unless you are a civil servant or a company director. Low wages have been driven by high immigration and a failure by business to improve productivity which ultimately allows increases in salaries.
Give me a link to the data then.
Dont believe me if you dont want to but Im not playing linky, there enough of it out there if you can be bothered.
What tosh.
You're not 'playing linky' because that would involve trying to link to something that doesn't exist.
Here's the ONS chart of real pay 2001-2023. What it clearly shows is that real pay continued to grow after 2004. It only fell in June 2008 as the GFC kicked in.
Real pay fell continuously for four years after the Tories were elected in 2010 and has never really recovered.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That just shows you the desperate political bias of the FT.
The growth plateaued under Labour, the foundations for which were laid under the previous Conservative administration, at the peak of the GFC and that's when it starts to turn down; on the second graph they've kept the whole line blue even though the Conservatives weren't even in office in 2009.
What it shows is we've never really had an answer since the GFC.
Who is it that has never had an answer since the GFC, which was fifteen years ago and almost entirely coincides with the Conservative government.
What deficit deniers like you seem to forget is that Labour went into the 2010 general election campaign promising more savage cuts than Thatcher.
Austerity wasn't a choice.
Well, it was a choice.
In the sense that Vetinari gave that thief a choice between of his own free will becoming a spy, or of his own free will being thrown into the scorpion pit.
At the time of the coalition government forming, the cost of government borrowing was beginning to take off. If we had simply said no austerity, then borrowing that sustained spending would have resulted in a disorganised austerity - see Greece.
Almost half of voters – including one in five Leavers – believe there should be another Brexit referendum in the next decade, a new poll has found.
A YouGov survey revealed that 46 per cent of people believe there should be a rerun of the 2016 vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union in the next 10 years.
Just over a third – 36 per cent – said they believe there should not be a referendum in that period.
The poll, conducted between Aug 8 and 9, also suggested that almost half of people believe Brexit “is not done”.
Some 49 per cent of respondents said they believe Brexit is not yet done and dusted, while 30 per cent said they believe the matter is done.
But it's indelicate to point out the relevance of that to the Brexit debate.
However - how long do you expect a generation that opposed the idea in the first place and think it's going badly to keep it as a shrine to their ancestors?
Probably a similar design to the Turd Hotel in Edinburgh, only smaller. So it can be polished at shoulder height.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Failing to see the decline in wages starting in 2004 on that FT graph.
suggest you look again. Wages in the UK have been stagnant for almost two decades, unless you are a civil servant or a company director. Low wages have been driven by high immigration and a failure by business to improve productivity which ultimately allows increases in salaries.
Give me a link to the data then.
Dont believe me if you dont want to but Im not playing linky, there enough of it out there if you can be bothered.
What tosh.
You're not 'playing linky' because that would involve trying to link to something that doesn't exist.
Here's the ONS chart of real pay 2001-2023. What it clearly shows is that real pay continued to grow after 2004. It only fell in June 2008 as the GFC kicked in.
Real pay fell continuously for four years after the Tories were elected in 2010 and has never really recovered.
Over a period where peer countries mostly saw real wage growth, as shown in the FT graph, while the UK saw a fall in real wages followed by stagnation.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
That just shows you the desperate political bias of the FT.
The growth plateaued under Labour, the foundations for which were laid under the previous Conservative administration, at the peak of the GFC and that's when it starts to turn down; on the second graph they've kept the whole line blue even though the Conservatives weren't even in office in 2009.
What it shows is we've never really had an answer since the GFC.
Tories shouting "political bias" when the facts discredit them does not make these facts untrue. In fact the political pressure put on the media, especially the BBC, has mostly come from the Conservatives themselves, and is increasingly intense. I think some important stories that have been spiked under pressure from the top may end up being published, and then- as usual- it will be the cover up that kills them.
O/T but following up from Mr Barclays' claim that the Scottish NHS is crap as is the Welsh one - a rather different conclusion here, and one which would really make English voters wonder wtf he is on about with his proposals.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
Much of the Eurozone had real austerity, not the increasing annually (but at a slower rate) "austerity" that the UK had.
Look at Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, the Netherlands and more for the austerity other nations had.
The only ones that didn't were those that didn't have a deficit like ours.
I can't think of any European peer that was spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave when the GFC hit (like Brown's was) that then continued to without any form of austerity afterwards.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Failing to see the decline in wages starting in 2004 on that FT graph.
suggest you look again. Wages in the UK have been stagnant for almost two decades, unless you are a civil servant or a company director. Low wages have been driven by high immigration and a failure by business to improve productivity which ultimately allows increases in salaries.
Give me a link to the data then.
Dont believe me if you dont want to but Im not playing linky, there enough of it out there if you can be bothered.
What tosh.
You're not 'playing linky' because that would involve trying to link to something that doesn't exist.
Here's the ONS chart of real pay 2001-2023. What it clearly shows is that real pay continued to grow after 2004. It only fell in June 2008 as the GFC kicked in.
Real pay fell continuously for four years after the Tories were elected in 2010 and has never really recovered.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
Austerity isn't a one size fits all.
I'd say the problem we had with it is we had a hyperpolitical Chancellor (Osborne) who played a political game much more enthusiastically than he did an economic one.
I don't think pensioners should have been mollycuddled during it, and we cut back far too much in areas like education, capital spend, industry and R&D.
This is what I said at the time. Osborne said we were all in it together, but straight away he made a large number of very political choices about who would bear the brunt of the cuts and who were the chosen groups who would be protected. A
O/T but following up from Mr Barclays' claim that the Scottish NHS is crap as is the Welsh one - a rather different conclusion here, and one which would really make English voters wonder wtf he is on about with his proposals.
Barclay was owned by Sally Nugent on BBC Breakfast over his spurious comparison between waiting lists in Wales which came as some surprise. She isn't exactly Jeremy Paxman. Anyway in the interests of BBC balance Sarah Montague in WATO was very defensive of Barclays assertion. Her guest was Eluned Morgan who is no Aneurin Bevan, and yet, and yet, Morgan who is not the sharpest knife in the drawer managed to take apart both Montague's defence of Barclay and thus Barclay's proposition.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
Much of the Eurozone had real austerity, not the increasing annually (but at a slower rate) "austerity" that the UK had.
Look at Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, the Netherlands and more for the austerity other nations had.
The only ones that didn't were those that didn't have a deficit like ours.
I can't think of any European peer that was spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave when the GFC hit (like Brown's was) that then continued to without any form of austerity afterwards.
Labour should use that graph in its election ads.
Whatever, spin you and fellow rightists try to put on it, most people will see the the simple truth: Labour = growing wages; Tories = stagnant wages.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
Austerity isn't a one size fits all.
I'd say the problem we had with it is we had a hyperpolitical Chancellor (Osborne) who played a political game much more enthusiastically than he did an economic one.
I don't think pensioners should have been mollycuddled during it, and we cut back far too much in areas like education, capital spend, industry and R&D.
This is what I said at the time. Osborne said we were all in it together, but straight away he made a large number of very political choices about who would bear the brunt of the cuts and who were the chosen groups who would be protected. A
That absolutely is a much fairer and more legitimate criticism than that austerity happened at all. Its a good point and well made.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
Much of the Eurozone had real austerity, not the increasing annually (but at a slower rate) "austerity" that the UK had.
Look at Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, the Netherlands and more for the austerity other nations had.
The only ones that didn't were those that didn't have a deficit like ours.
I can't think of any European peer that was spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave when the GFC hit (like Brown's was) that then continued to without any form of austerity afterwards.
Labour should use that graph in its election ads.
Whatever, spin you and fellow rightists try to put on it, most people will see the the simple truth: Labour = growing wages; Tories = stagnant wages.
Borrowing to boost wages isn't growing wages, its stealing from your grandchildren.
But a lot of voters seem to like that as a policy.
I disagreed vigorously with Cameron and Osborne over their fiscal policy but it would be wrong to blame all our problems on it - just as it was wrong to try and blame everything on Labour's fiscal policy pre-2010.
I do think they came into office with little understanding of the problems they were dealing with and it showed.
O/T but following up from Mr Barclays' claim that the Scottish NHS is crap as is the Welsh one - a rather different conclusion here, and one which would really make English voters wonder wtf he is on about with his proposals.
Barclay was owned by Sally Nugent on BBC Breakfast over his spurious comparison between waiting lists in Wales which came as some surprise. She isn't exactly Jeremy Paxman. Anyway in the interests of BBC balance Sarah Montague in WATO was very defensive of Barclays assertion. Her guest was Eluned Morgan who is no Aneurin Bevan, and yet, and yet, Morgan who is not the sharpest knife in the drawer managed to take apart both Montague's defence of Barclay and thus Barclay's proposition.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
Much of the Eurozone had real austerity, not the increasing annually (but at a slower rate) "austerity" that the UK had.
Look at Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, the Netherlands and more for the austerity other nations had.
The only ones that didn't were those that didn't have a deficit like ours.
I can't think of any European peer that was spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave when the GFC hit (like Brown's was) that then continued to without any form of austerity afterwards.
Labour should use that graph in its election ads.
Whatever, spin you and fellow rightists try to put on it, most people will see the the simple truth: Labour = growing wages; Tories = stagnant wages.
Borrowing to boost wages isn't growing wages, its stealing from your grandchildren.
But a lot of voters seem to like that as a policy.
13 years of real wage stagnation. Really, what is the point of the Tories?
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
It's not really Cameron's fault that Gordon Brown stoked a credit-fuelled boom, or that the UK had the largest financial sector in the EU at the time. (Edit: and don't forget that $ rate includes the post-Brexit slide of the sterling, bad for people buying lots of iPhones or holidays, but the average person doesn't care as much.)
No. They just wrecked the economy. The choice doesn't have to be between credit fuelled booms and deflation. No other country made the same disastrous choice, as that chart illustrates so clearly.
The lack of earnings growth is due to uncontrolled immigation pushing down wages and enabling employers to ignore basic productivity. That was a Labour decision,
Immigration is essentially neutral on wages, although it does help to pay the taxes. Lump of labour actually is a fallacy.
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
No it isnt. If you have several million people come in to the country and they take low paid jobs your average will go down. Wages started to decline post 2004 when there were allegedly only 15000 people coming from E Europe, Turned out there were lots more,
Failing to see the decline in wages starting in 2004 on that FT graph.
suggest you look again. Wages in the UK have been stagnant for almost two decades, unless you are a civil servant or a company director. Low wages have been driven by high immigration and a failure by business to improve productivity which ultimately allows increases in salaries.
Wages have been stagnant in most of the developed world, almost irrespective of levels of immigration, or hue of the government.
That's also largely true, but as your friends at the FT are pointing out the UK seems worst affected.
We were also much more dependent on financial services in 2008 than peer countries, and the unravelling of that bubble will have had an impact.
None of our political elites seemed overly keen on mentioning it even though they must have known it was true.
Completely off topic but another musical find in the forests of eastern European composers. The Rebirth Symphony by Wieczyslaw Karlowicz. Written when he was 26 - but he died 6 years later in a avalanche in the Tatras. A true Romantic. What did we miss.
Stark illustration of the absolute disaster of Cameron's and Osborne's austerity policy. None of our peers followed us down that route.
The Conservatives have done nothing else right since then, either.
Much of the Eurozone had real austerity, not the increasing annually (but at a slower rate) "austerity" that the UK had.
Look at Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, the Netherlands and more for the austerity other nations had.
The only ones that didn't were those that didn't have a deficit like ours.
I can't think of any European peer that was spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave when the GFC hit (like Brown's was) that then continued to without any form of austerity afterwards.
Labour should use that graph in its election ads.
Whatever, spin you and fellow rightists try to put on it, most people will see the the simple truth: Labour = growing wages; Tories = stagnant wages.
Borrowing to boost wages isn't growing wages, its stealing from your grandchildren.
But a lot of voters seem to like that as a policy.
That's more bullshit.
Here's the UK defict as %GDP for the period 1998 - 2023
Comments
The members don't care so long as they get them a good deal.
The Union leaders flatter themselves that they reflect and channel the politics of all their members, and the members largely don't and ignore them.
It may not be as significant as you think - a strong economy failed to stop a Labour landslide in 1997, a weak economy failed to stop a Conservative in in 1992.
As to what will happen between 2024-29, I've not a clue. Will it be 1974-79 redux or 1997-2001 repeated? Probably elements of both and neither - it will take the Conservatives time to be heard again and Labour can for the first couple of years blame most things on the previous administration.
Who would have predicted Covid or a Russian invasion of the Ukraine back in 2019? Not many - Labour will have its issues but they will be different - one can anticipate climate change being an increasing part of political discourse.
There is a possible strong Conservative response to climate change in contrast to eco-authoritarianism and that's around empowering technology and invention but it has to start from realising there is a problem and not pandering to those in denial who just happen to wear a blue rosette.
Labour is currently about the politics - getting themselves elected. IF there is a radical edge to this incarnation of the Labour Party, we may see it in the second term and could well be even more about parking their zero emission tanks on the Conservative lawn.
Parties change when they want to win or rather when they want to stop losing and it will be uncomfortable to see some precious baggage jettisoned but politics rewards pragmatism and even if the regenerated Conservative Party of the early 2030s is unrecognisable from where it is now, if it's on course to win back power, the activists and members won't care.
We don't have a problem scoffing at politicians claiming to reflect all their constituents, I don't think we should hold back at shattering the pretense that the more political aspirations and claims of union leaders are also inflated. It's not what people want them for, primarily.
When looking to cast my union rep votes I tried to find ones who did not just parrot the same partisan talking points in their candidate statement. It wasn't easy (and also made them mostly indistinguisable, even as they sought to distinguish).
67% of Conservative voters also oppose another EU referendum in the next 10 years, as do 63% of 2016 Leave voters.
69% of Labour voters though want another EU referendum in 10 years as do 70% of 2016 Remain voters
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1691018678270078976?s=20
Call to 'defend democracy' as party surges to 21pc in opinion polls"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/13/afd-party-ban-germany-far-right-extremists
The growth plateaued under Labour, the foundations for which were laid under the previous Conservative administration, at the peak of the GFC and that's when it starts to turn down; on the second graph they've kept the whole line blue even though the Conservatives weren't even in office in 2009.
What it shows is we've never really had an answer since the GFC.
ChatGPT Isn't as Good at Coding as We Thought
While the chatbot's answers to questions sound great, they're often wrong.
https://uk.pcmag.com/ai/148196/chatgpt-isnt-as-good-at-coding-as-we-thought
But on occasion you hear of some idiot who goes for a walk, starts chatting to people and ends up in a local bar having a bit of a…. debrief by the local community leader. So far no tourists have got hurt - the local community leaders value the money that comes their way via Community Outreach Projects* and the like.
*the government stretches out a hand, holding a bag of money. And says “Every week without trouble, more outreach”.
Have they even proposed doing anything illegal?
My knowledge of German politics is pretty sketchy, so I could easily be wrong, but we're not as far as I can see talking about the MAGA nutters, who really should be banned for treason and attempted insurrection. Or possibly sectioned for thinking Donald Trump is anything other than a failed businessman with a small one.
I would caution against them taking the advice of Boyle Roche, who suggested 'we should be prepared to give up if necessary, not only a part but the whole of our constitution, in order to preserve the remainder.'
The truth is as the chart shows, and as you would expect. Austerity caused real wages to fall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_German_coup_d'état_plot
I cannot find the article but there were a lot of people who were ex AfD in this plot.
1997 was an exception in which a strong economy did not see the government re elected, firstly as the Tories had been in so long anyway, 18 years and voters wanted a change. Second as Blair was uber centrist and went out of his way to seem more economically competent than Kinnock. Third as voters remembered Black Wednesday and negative equity and the economic incompetence of the Tories earlier in the Parliament as well as Tory disunity over Europe
They've got 11 in the mix there (four of which are nordics) but no Australia, Spain, NZ, Italy or Japan.
Could it be the FT created a graph that showed the story they want to tell?
The far right is of course on the march all over Europe - in Ireland,* Italy, Spain, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Russia. And it's obviously not great news for Europe, or for the established political parties. Indeed, it's happening all over the world - Brazil, Mexico, the Phillipines, India, China.
But perhaps rather than trying to ban parties because they don't approve of what they say, the governments might be better of working out *why* people are turning their backs on them and then doing something practical about it.
The moment they do something violent or illegal in their party's name, different rules apply, of course.
*Sinn Fein poses as left, but so did Farage when it suited him.
I'd say the problem we had with it is we had a hyperpolitical Chancellor (Osborne) who played a political game much more enthusiastically than he did an economic one.
I don't think pensioners should have been mollycuddled during it, and we cut back far too much in areas like education, capital spend, industry and R&D.
Austerity wasn't a choice.
In the sense that Vetinari gave that thief a choice between of his own free will becoming a spy, or of his own free will being thrown into the scorpion pit.
Yes, we could have increased taxes but the Cameron/Osborne line was spending cuts should do most of the heavy lifting but such cuts were targeted not across all of spending but just some areas - a form of hypothecated spending cut I suppose.
Cameron was too anxious to appear "one nation" and needed the support of ex and continuing LDs to make the tough call on NHS and Education spending so other areas of central and local Government spending took the hit.
The Tories have destroyed the fabric of our society - possibly beyond repair - and the saddest thing is that they seem proud of it.
You have provided proof we live in a multverse
Britain's Gross Capital Formation as a % of GDP did not deviate from peer countries in the post 2008 period, so it can't simply be that it was lack of capex.
And net immigration has not been a great predictor of median wages: Germany, Switzerland, Canada and Australia make up four of the top seven countries; and they were all top of the class for median wage growth.
You're not 'playing linky' because that would involve trying to link to something that doesn't exist.
Here's the ONS chart of real pay 2001-2023. What it clearly shows is that real pay continued to grow after 2004. It only fell in June 2008 as the GFC kicked in.
Real pay fell continuously for four years after the Tories were elected in 2010 and has never really recovered.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/july2023
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/14/which-uk-nation-has-got-the-longest-nhs-waiting-list
Basically: depends which metric you pick.
Look at Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, the Netherlands and more for the austerity other nations had.
The only ones that didn't were those that didn't have a deficit like ours.
I can't think of any European peer that was spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave when the GFC hit (like Brown's was) that then continued to without any form of austerity afterwards.
Whatever, spin you and fellow rightists try to put on it, most people will see the the simple truth: Labour = growing wages; Tories = stagnant wages.
But a lot of voters seem to like that as a policy.
I do think they came into office with little understanding of the problems they were dealing with and it showed.
Obvious mediocrities who only got as far as they did thanks to the lingering poison of the English class system
Here's the UK defict as %GDP for the period 1998 - 2023
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1998_2023UKp_17c1li111lcn_H0t_Current_Budget_Deficit