I think SKS has something interesting about him that his detractors seem to have underestimated. He does have a genuinely working class background and can speak to it. There's something vaguely British aspirational about it, I agree he hasn't communicated it brilliantly.
I think most would conclude though that he has been an effective leader - and has grown into the role. I have a lot more confidence in him than I did Ed M.
Major had a genuinely working class background and he was a pretty crap PM. I am more interested in what Starmer says and does than in his personal background.
I think Major has been a lot better than basically every Tory PM that has come since.
Major has remarkably improved as a PM since he stopped doing the job.
I think the same is true of Harold Wilson, but you are too young to remember him.
In US history, presidents who are/were rated better for their careers AFTER leaving office than while IN the White House;
> John Q Adams - mediocre POTUS defeated for reelection, but great US Representative > Ulysses S Grant (but only for writing his memoirs under pressure of terminal cancer) > William H Taft - mediocre POTUs defeated for reelection, but above-average Chief Justice > Herbert Hoover - failed POTUS defeated for reelection, but esteemed for contributions to government, diplomacy and international humanitarian relief afterward (as indeed before his presidency). > Harry S Truman - poll numbers abysmal when he left office, but steadily improved thereafter; personally recall by rockribbed GOP grandfather grudgingly praising HST circa 1964. > Richard M Nixon - special case, not that he became what you'd call popular or esteemed post-Watergate, just that he DID climb a wee bit out of the shaft he'd dug for himself. > Jimmy Carter - the prime example at the moment.
Presidents who did NOT get more popular after POTUS, at least during their remaining lifetime (an only including those who lived for some time after leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Ave):
> John Adams > Martin Van Buren > John Tyler > Millard Filmore > James Buchanan > Grover Cleveland > Gerald Ford > George Bush the Elder > Bill Clinton > George W Bush the Younger > Barack Obama
Bit early to tell for sure, but somehow doubt that Donald J Trump is gonna become a beloved elder whatever.
I think history may be kinder to W than while he was in office.
In office W was despised by lots across the spectrum and in part because of what followed next from the GOP he looks incredibly moderate in comparison.
I think Truss was and is a nutter. But she was right about one thing: Britain needs growth.
It is precisely because we don’t have growth, and an ageing demographic, that our taxes are rising - via bracket creep - from the low 30s % of GDP where Britain has traditionally been - to the high 30s - ie “German levels”.
Albeit without the commensurate quality of public services.
People say, wrongly, that Truss’s position on growth is just a truism. Well no, not quite. There’s actually very little consensus behind “growth” in modern day Britain.
Voters - and most commentators - are more motivated by small boats, nimbyism, the NHS, and the cost of living. Fair enough, but they fail to realise that without growth, most of these problems get worse.
What kind of growth? Labour supply or productivity?
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
We lost our on a contract to supply to a BEIS funded r and d project a couple of years back. The company that won the job absolutely rinsed the BEIS funded customer. So far as we could work out the main expenditure of the project was just going out in salaries to a bunch of jobs for the boys.
I think Truss was and is a nutter. But she was right about one thing: Britain needs growth.
It is precisely because we don’t have growth, and an ageing demographic, that our taxes are rising - via bracket creep - from the low 30s % of GDP where Britain has traditionally been - to the high 30s - ie “German levels”.
Albeit without the commensurate quality of public services.
People say, wrongly, that Truss’s position on growth is just a truism. Well no, not quite. There’s actually very little consensus behind “growth” in modern day Britain.
Voters - and most commentators - are more motivated by small boats, nimbyism, the NHS, and the cost of living. Fair enough, but they fail to realise that without growth, most of these problems get worse.
What kind of growth? Labour supply or productivity?
Both?
We need GDP growth per capita. We need to stop talking about GDP without the denominator.
Labour supply going up so long as construction matches, with sufficient proportionate new roads, new houses, new schools, hospitals etc to match population growth is absolutely fine, but we've not had that.
Labour supply going up, but GDP per capita going down, and no investment, is not a success even if it records GDP going up.
I think SKS has something interesting about him that his detractors seem to have underestimated. He does have a genuinely working class background and can speak to it. There's something vaguely British aspirational about it, I agree he hasn't communicated it brilliantly.
I think most would conclude though that he has been an effective leader - and has grown into the role. I have a lot more confidence in him than I did Ed M.
Major had a genuinely working class background and he was a pretty crap PM. I am more interested in what Starmer says and does than in his personal background.
I think Major has been a lot better than basically every Tory PM that has come since.
Major has remarkably improved as a PM since he stopped doing the job.
I think the same is true of Harold Wilson, but you are too young to remember him.
In US history, presidents who are/were rated better for their careers AFTER leaving office than while IN the White House;
> John Q Adams - mediocre POTUS defeated for reelection, but great US Representative > Ulysses S Grant (but only for writing his memoirs under pressure of terminal cancer) > William H Taft - mediocre POTUs defeated for reelection, but above-average Chief Justice > Herbert Hoover - failed POTUS defeated for reelection, but esteemed for contributions to government, diplomacy and international humanitarian relief afterward (as indeed before his presidency). > Harry S Truman - poll numbers abysmal when he left office, but steadily improved thereafter; personally recall by rockribbed GOP grandfather grudgingly praising HST circa 1964. > Richard M Nixon - special case, not that he became what you'd call popular or esteemed post-Watergate, just that he DID climb a wee bit out of the shaft he'd dug for himself. > Jimmy Carter - the prime example at the moment.
Presidents who did NOT get more popular after POTUS, at least during their remaining lifetime (an only including those who lived for some time after leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Ave):
> John Adams > Martin Van Buren > John Tyler > Millard Filmore > James Buchanan > Grover Cleveland > Gerald Ford > George Bush the Elder > Bill Clinton > George W Bush the Younger > Barack Obama
Bit early to tell for sure, but somehow doubt that Donald J Trump is gonna become a beloved elder whatever.
I think history is proving kinder to Gerald Ford and Bush Sr than people were at the time.
It's also remarkable how far Clinton's star has fallen. Perhaps he could be due for a little... resurrection?
Gerald Ford spent toooooo much of his post-Presidency playing golf and etc. in Palm Springs and etc. And NOT enough (or hardly any) in what might be called service to others, even broadly.
George Bush the Elder somewhat similar. In both cases, ex-POTUS was outshined in public esteem, during their lifetimes, by their former FLOTUS: Betty Ford and Barbara Bush.
As well documented by the 1988 election classic "What It Takes" - which I recommend every year or so to PB readers - Bush's problem was selling his carefully curated image of soundness to take over the Reagan party of deficit economics and culture wars, which did him no good.
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
Isn’t the phrase you want - “We’ve had quite enough of experts” ?
Actually round table of PB, what do you all do for work?
I am a software engineer.
I think people already know about me to some extent.
Consultant Geologist and Archaeologist. Main income stream is oil and gas but also do site investigation work, geophysical surveying, rescue and research archaeology and specialist rock and soil analysis, particularly with regard to palaeo-environment modelling.
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
Isn’t the phrase you want - “We’ve had quite enough of experts” ?
I think SKS has something interesting about him that his detractors seem to have underestimated. He does have a genuinely working class background and can speak to it. There's something vaguely British aspirational about it, I agree he hasn't communicated it brilliantly.
I think most would conclude though that he has been an effective leader - and has grown into the role. I have a lot more confidence in him than I did Ed M.
Major had a genuinely working class background and he was a pretty crap PM. I am more interested in what Starmer says and does than in his personal background.
I think Major has been a lot better than basically every Tory PM that has come since.
Major has remarkably improved as a PM since he stopped doing the job.
I think the same is true of Harold Wilson, but you are too young to remember him.
In US history, presidents who are/were rated better for their careers AFTER leaving office than while IN the White House;
> John Q Adams - mediocre POTUS defeated for reelection, but great US Representative > Ulysses S Grant (but only for writing his memoirs under pressure of terminal cancer) > William H Taft - mediocre POTUs defeated for reelection, but above-average Chief Justice > Herbert Hoover - failed POTUS defeated for reelection, but esteemed for contributions to government, diplomacy and international humanitarian relief afterward (as indeed before his presidency). > Harry S Truman - poll numbers abysmal when he left office, but steadily improved thereafter; personally recall by rockribbed GOP grandfather grudgingly praising HST circa 1964. > Richard M Nixon - special case, not that he became what you'd call popular or esteemed post-Watergate, just that he DID climb a wee bit out of the shaft he'd dug for himself. > Jimmy Carter - the prime example at the moment.
Presidents who did NOT get more popular after POTUS, at least during their remaining lifetime (an only including those who lived for some time after leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Ave):
> John Adams > Martin Van Buren > John Tyler > Millard Filmore > James Buchanan > Grover Cleveland > Gerald Ford > George Bush the Elder > Bill Clinton > George W Bush the Younger > Barack Obama
Bit early to tell for sure, but somehow doubt that Donald J Trump is gonna become a beloved elder whatever.
I think history may be kinder to W than while he was in office.
In office W was despised by lots across the spectrum and in part because of what followed next from the GOP he looks incredibly moderate in comparison.
That 42% approval rating he's getting today is far, far higher than the low 30s approval rating he was scoring throughout 2008.
W's record will be judged at least in part on how he behaved at the end of his presidency. The kindness and thought he extended to the Obama's as they were taking over really did strike a chord with many, not least because it was Michelle Obama who was so vocal about it.
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
We lost our on a contract to supply to a BEIS funded r and d project a couple of years back. The company that won the job absolutely rinsed the BEIS funded customer. So far as we could work out the main expenditure of the project was just going out in salaries to a bunch of jobs for the boys.
My strong suspicion is that all the costs are everything but the actual infrastructure. And a culture of layering* - where a contract is sub contracted repeatedly.
This was the case in the old style US space industry where costs and inflation were getting demented.
Most shops don't keep that kind of money on site for obvious reasons. There is presumably a protocol for unexpected big wins and of course you can take your winning ticket to any other shop in the chain so the protocol will be company-wide.
I think SKS has something interesting about him that his detractors seem to have underestimated. He does have a genuinely working class background and can speak to it. There's something vaguely British aspirational about it, I agree he hasn't communicated it brilliantly.
I think most would conclude though that he has been an effective leader - and has grown into the role. I have a lot more confidence in him than I did Ed M.
Major had a genuinely working class background and he was a pretty crap PM. I am more interested in what Starmer says and does than in his personal background.
I think Major has been a lot better than basically every Tory PM that has come since.
Major has remarkably improved as a PM since he stopped doing the job.
I think the same is true of Harold Wilson, but you are too young to remember him.
In US history, presidents who are/were rated better for their careers AFTER leaving office than while IN the White House;
> John Q Adams - mediocre POTUS defeated for reelection, but great US Representative > Ulysses S Grant (but only for writing his memoirs under pressure of terminal cancer) > William H Taft - mediocre POTUs defeated for reelection, but above-average Chief Justice > Herbert Hoover - failed POTUS defeated for reelection, but esteemed for contributions to government, diplomacy and international humanitarian relief afterward (as indeed before his presidency). > Harry S Truman - poll numbers abysmal when he left office, but steadily improved thereafter; personally recall by rockribbed GOP grandfather grudgingly praising HST circa 1964. > Richard M Nixon - special case, not that he became what you'd call popular or esteemed post-Watergate, just that he DID climb a wee bit out of the shaft he'd dug for himself. > Jimmy Carter - the prime example at the moment.
Presidents who did NOT get more popular after POTUS, at least during their remaining lifetime (an only including those who lived for some time after leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Ave):
> John Adams > Martin Van Buren > John Tyler > Millard Filmore > James Buchanan > Grover Cleveland > Gerald Ford > George Bush the Elder > Bill Clinton > George W Bush the Younger > Barack Obama
Bit early to tell for sure, but somehow doubt that Donald J Trump is gonna become a beloved elder whatever.
I think history may be kinder to W than while he was in office.
In office W was despised by lots across the spectrum and in part because of what followed next from the GOP he looks incredibly moderate in comparison.
That 42% approval rating he's getting today is far, far higher than the low 30s approval rating he was scoring throughout 2008.
W's record will be judged at least in part on how he behaved at the end of his presidency. The kindness and thought he extended to the Obama's as they were taking over really did strike a chord with many, not least because it was Michelle Obama who was so vocal about it.
It was said that he was unimpressed by the lack of professionalism in Clinton’s staffers - removing the “W” keys from keyboards and crap like that, that he decided that he’d bend over backwards for his own handover, even if it was to a Democrat. Sadly, the Obama>Trump and Trump>Biden handovers were just as bad as W experienced on the way in.
On Sunak, I decided he was rubbish even earlier, during the 2019 GE, when he deputised for Boris in one of the leader debates. He was stilted, wooden and dull. Nothing since has changed my view for the better. Rather, I think, as LG says, he's added a rather poor Boris impression and a healthy dose of being patronising to his repertoire, not to mention the child-like PR videos. He's not really a serious politician.
He's been an MP for 8 years, a senior Minister for half of that, and a backbencher for only 3 years of it. Given how the next GE might go his entire political career might be over in a decade, before he turns 45.
I don't rule out MPs being able to develop the necessary skills within a short time, and lord knows there's plenty of duffers who've been there decades, but I do wonder if political skills beyond slick media training require a bit more toiling away before you can properly manage it.
Of course it does, but our political institutions, including the way we recruit politicians, is up the spout.
Thought in this instance, Britain is not at all alone.
The decline in the quality of politicians in our lifetime is horribly palpable.
I'm not particularly nostalgic over the quality of politicians we used to get. The past can often lend a veneer of sophistication, cover for some glaring personal flaws and political skulduggery, and the way we learn it makes it all seem more coherent a narrative, overseen by figures of greater vision, dynamism, and skill, than I suspect was the case a lot of the time.
But at the moment the political culture does feel very tired, lazily regurgitating cliches or attempts at lame reactionary ideas, and generally only looking positive, cooperative or innovative when compared to the political landscape of the United States.
I think things have got a lot worse. When you look at the quality of Wilson’s cabinets and the early Thatcher cabinets and compare them to either the current cabinet or the shadow cabinet today the difference in quality is truly painful.
Far fewer people of genuine talent are being attracted to politics these days. It’s become a much less tempting career. Public service seems to have died as an ethos. I don’t want to be naive about the past but ego seems to play a much greater role today.
In part, neo-liberalism has hollowed out the idea of public service as a kind of mentality for losers.
Globalisation has made the rewards outside politics literally life-changing.
And the modern media has made the job shit most of the time.
Dunno how to fix it.
I would agree with all of your reasons and share your perplexity about what to do about it. It is a long way from being a UK only problem, as the US painfully shows, but we seem to have a particularly bad dose of the problem.
People will always come forward to stand for election. In the end the people that really run things are political advisors/civil servants/Council staff and they have ways of managing whatever character end up being elected. If someone totally incompetent somehow gets elected, their problems will quickly mount up and they won't go on for very long, as people like Jared O'Mara found out. In reality I don't think you need intellectual geniuses as politicians, just people who can deal with the public and are good performers.
I think SKS has something interesting about him that his detractors seem to have underestimated. He does have a genuinely working class background and can speak to it. There's something vaguely British aspirational about it, I agree he hasn't communicated it brilliantly.
I think most would conclude though that he has been an effective leader - and has grown into the role. I have a lot more confidence in him than I did Ed M.
Major had a genuinely working class background and he was a pretty crap PM. I am more interested in what Starmer says and does than in his personal background.
I think Major has been a lot better than basically every Tory PM that has come since.
Major has remarkably improved as a PM since he stopped doing the job.
I think the same is true of Harold Wilson, but you are too young to remember him.
In US history, presidents who are/were rated better for their careers AFTER leaving office than while IN the White House;
> John Q Adams - mediocre POTUS defeated for reelection, but great US Representative > Ulysses S Grant (but only for writing his memoirs under pressure of terminal cancer) > William H Taft - mediocre POTUs defeated for reelection, but above-average Chief Justice > Herbert Hoover - failed POTUS defeated for reelection, but esteemed for contributions to government, diplomacy and international humanitarian relief afterward (as indeed before his presidency). > Harry S Truman - poll numbers abysmal when he left office, but steadily improved thereafter; personally recall by rockribbed GOP grandfather grudgingly praising HST circa 1964. > Richard M Nixon - special case, not that he became what you'd call popular or esteemed post-Watergate, just that he DID climb a wee bit out of the shaft he'd dug for himself. > Jimmy Carter - the prime example at the moment.
Presidents who did NOT get more popular after POTUS, at least during their remaining lifetime (an only including those who lived for some time after leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Ave):
> John Adams > Martin Van Buren > John Tyler > Millard Filmore > James Buchanan > Grover Cleveland > Gerald Ford > George Bush the Elder > Bill Clinton > George W Bush the Younger > Barack Obama
Bit early to tell for sure, but somehow doubt that Donald J Trump is gonna become a beloved elder whatever.
I think history may be kinder to W than while he was in office.
In office W was despised by lots across the spectrum and in part because of what followed next from the GOP he looks incredibly moderate in comparison.
That 42% approval rating he's getting today is far, far higher than the low 30s approval rating he was scoring throughout 2008.
W's record will be judged at least in part on how he behaved at the end of his presidency. The kindness and thought he extended to the Obama's as they were taking over really did strike a chord with many, not least because it was Michelle Obama who was so vocal about it.
Indeed, that's an excellent point.
I recently re-watched Boston Legal (controversially Shatner's greatest TV show in my view) which was largely written against W and politics of the day. Its still funny, but quite dated now that the news has moved on. However it is amusing to think after what's come since how things that could generate such heat and anger 15 years ago seem almost quaint after the outrages of what we've seen since like 6 January.
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
We lost our on a contract to supply to a BEIS funded r and d project a couple of years back. The company that won the job absolutely rinsed the BEIS funded customer. So far as we could work out the main expenditure of the project was just going out in salaries to a bunch of jobs for the boys.
My strong suspicion is that all the costs are everything but the actual infrastructure. And a culture of layering* - where a contract is sub contracted repeatedly.
This was the case in the old style US space industry where costs and inflation were getting demented.
*yes I know what it implies
Here’s a good thread on how the planning system inflates costs, by a (former) road designed.
I work primarily in B2B (have essentially done that in my career at various companies, primarily producing software for large corporate clients, focus now these days on SAAS. A lot of consultancies etc I have worked with and also have worked for Vodafone earlier in my career on VGE software
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
We lost our on a contract to supply to a BEIS funded r and d project a couple of years back. The company that won the job absolutely rinsed the BEIS funded customer. So far as we could work out the main expenditure of the project was just going out in salaries to a bunch of jobs for the boys.
My strong suspicion is that all the costs are everything but the actual infrastructure. And a culture of layering* - where a contract is sub contracted repeatedly.
This was the case in the old style US space industry where costs and inflation were getting demented.
*yes I know what it implies
Here’s a good thread on how the planning system inflates costs, by a (former) road designed.
I work primarily in B2B (have essentially done that in my career at various companies, primarily producing software for large corporate clients, focus now these days on SAAS. A lot of consultancies etc I have worked with and also have worked for Vodafone earlier in my career on VGE software
Thanks for expanding. Now can you do so in English?
I think SKS has something interesting about him that his detractors seem to have underestimated. He does have a genuinely working class background and can speak to it. There's something vaguely British aspirational about it, I agree he hasn't communicated it brilliantly.
I think most would conclude though that he has been an effective leader - and has grown into the role. I have a lot more confidence in him than I did Ed M.
Major had a genuinely working class background and he was a pretty crap PM. I am more interested in what Starmer says and does than in his personal background.
I think Major has been a lot better than basically every Tory PM that has come since.
Major has remarkably improved as a PM since he stopped doing the job.
I think the same is true of Harold Wilson, but you are too young to remember him.
In US history, presidents who are/were rated better for their careers AFTER leaving office than while IN the White House;
> John Q Adams - mediocre POTUS defeated for reelection, but great US Representative > Ulysses S Grant (but only for writing his memoirs under pressure of terminal cancer) > William H Taft - mediocre POTUs defeated for reelection, but above-average Chief Justice > Herbert Hoover - failed POTUS defeated for reelection, but esteemed for contributions to government, diplomacy and international humanitarian relief afterward (as indeed before his presidency). > Harry S Truman - poll numbers abysmal when he left office, but steadily improved thereafter; personally recall by rockribbed GOP grandfather grudgingly praising HST circa 1964. > Richard M Nixon - special case, not that he became what you'd call popular or esteemed post-Watergate, just that he DID climb a wee bit out of the shaft he'd dug for himself. > Jimmy Carter - the prime example at the moment.
Presidents who did NOT get more popular after POTUS, at least during their remaining lifetime (an only including those who lived for some time after leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Ave):
> John Adams > Martin Van Buren > John Tyler > Millard Filmore > James Buchanan > Grover Cleveland > Gerald Ford > George Bush the Elder > Bill Clinton > George W Bush the Younger > Barack Obama
Bit early to tell for sure, but somehow doubt that Donald J Trump is gonna become a beloved elder whatever.
I think history is proving kinder to Gerald Ford and Bush Sr than people were at the time.
It's also remarkable how far Clinton's star has fallen. Perhaps he could be due for a little... resurrection?
Gerald Ford spent toooooo much of his post-Presidency playing golf and etc. in Palm Springs and etc. And NOT enough (or hardly any) in what might be called service to others, even broadly.
George Bush the Elder somewhat similar. In both cases, ex-POTUS was outshined in public esteem, during their lifetimes, by their former FLOTUS: Betty Ford and Barbara Bush.
As well documented by the 1988 election classic "What It Takes" - which I recommend every year or so to PB readers - Bush's problem was selling his carefully curated image of soundness to take over the Reagan party of deficit economics and culture wars, which did him no good.
Plenty of Democrats and Independents voted for Bush in 1988, along with most Republicans. As I remember all too well!
Think a large part of his problem getting re-elected, was indeed disaffection among GOP base and other conservatives.
However, this was amplified, indeed overshadowed, by voter perceptions of poor economy (which was actually improving) which affected not just rightwingers.
AND this was further exacerbated, by widely-shared view that George Bush the Elder really was NOT engaged with domestic issues, including economics, except as political soundbites. But was instead focused personally, professionally and presidentially on foreign affairs.
Speaking of foreign affairs, have always thought that one problem for Bush's reelection in 1992, was the very and signal success of his diplomacy and military coordination versus Iraq after Saddam invaded Kuwait. In particular, the shortness of actual warfare.
IF the conflict on the ground had drug out longer - even without an invasion of Iraq such as Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted then, and got a decade later - then in absence of sizable numbers of US casualties, the "rally around the flag" affect would have helped Bush retain goodly share of voters that he ended up losing to Perot, and Clinton.
I think SKS has something interesting about him that his detractors seem to have underestimated. He does have a genuinely working class background and can speak to it. There's something vaguely British aspirational about it, I agree he hasn't communicated it brilliantly.
I think most would conclude though that he has been an effective leader - and has grown into the role. I have a lot more confidence in him than I did Ed M.
Major had a genuinely working class background and he was a pretty crap PM. I am more interested in what Starmer says and does than in his personal background.
I think Major has been a lot better than basically every Tory PM that has come since.
Major has remarkably improved as a PM since he stopped doing the job.
I think the same is true of Harold Wilson, but you are too young to remember him.
In US history, presidents who are/were rated better for their careers AFTER leaving office than while IN the White House;
> John Q Adams - mediocre POTUS defeated for reelection, but great US Representative > Ulysses S Grant (but only for writing his memoirs under pressure of terminal cancer) > William H Taft - mediocre POTUs defeated for reelection, but above-average Chief Justice > Herbert Hoover - failed POTUS defeated for reelection, but esteemed for contributions to government, diplomacy and international humanitarian relief afterward (as indeed before his presidency). > Harry S Truman - poll numbers abysmal when he left office, but steadily improved thereafter; personally recall by rockribbed GOP grandfather grudgingly praising HST circa 1964. > Richard M Nixon - special case, not that he became what you'd call popular or esteemed post-Watergate, just that he DID climb a wee bit out of the shaft he'd dug for himself. > Jimmy Carter - the prime example at the moment.
Presidents who did NOT get more popular after POTUS, at least during their remaining lifetime (an only including those who lived for some time after leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Ave):
> John Adams > Martin Van Buren > John Tyler > Millard Filmore > James Buchanan > Grover Cleveland > Gerald Ford > George Bush the Elder > Bill Clinton > George W Bush the Younger > Barack Obama
Bit early to tell for sure, but somehow doubt that Donald J Trump is gonna become a beloved elder whatever.
I think history is proving kinder to Gerald Ford and Bush Sr than people were at the time.
It's also remarkable how far Clinton's star has fallen. Perhaps he could be due for a little... resurrection?
Gerald Ford spent toooooo much of his post-Presidency playing golf and etc. in Palm Springs and etc. And NOT enough (or hardly any) in what might be called service to others, even broadly.
George Bush the Elder somewhat similar. In both cases, ex-POTUS was outshined in public esteem, during their lifetimes, by their former FLOTUS: Betty Ford and Barbara Bush.
As well documented by the 1988 election classic "What It Takes" - which I recommend every year or so to PB readers - Bush's problem was selling his carefully curated image of soundness to take over the Reagan party of deficit economics and culture wars, which did him no good.
Plenty of Democrats and Independents voted for Bush in 1988, along with most Republicans. As I remember all too well!
Think a large part of his problem getting re-elected, was indeed disaffection among GOP base and other conservatives.
However, this was amplified, indeed overshadowed, by voter perceptions of poor economy (which was actually improving) which affected not just rightwingers.
AND this was further exacerbated, by widely-shared view that George Bush the Elder really was NOT engaged with domestic issues, including economics, except as political soundbites. But was instead focused personally, professionally and presidentially on foreign affairs.
Speaking of foreign affairs, have always thought that one problem for Bush's reelection in 1992, was the very and signal success of his diplomacy and military coordination versus Iraq after Saddam invaded Kuwait. In particular, the shortness of actual warfare.
IF the conflict on the ground had drug out longer - even without an invasion of Iraq such as Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted then, and got a decade later - then in absence of sizable numbers of US casualties, the "rally around the flag" affect would have helped Bush retain goodly share of voters that he ended up losing to Perot, and Clinton.
It also gave the impression that foreign policy and military interventions were easy.
In actual fact, the run up to the first gulf war was one of the most successful and integrated diplomatic campaigns in history. The way that every interest was carefully given it’s due was fascinating. Because Saddam was somewhat aligned to Russia, under Cold War unofficial rules, Gorbachev was given space to try a peace mission. Which Saddam relayed with insults. And so the Russian policy became “to hell with him”.
Most shops don't keep that kind of money on site for obvious reasons. There is presumably a protocol for unexpected big wins and of course you can take your winning ticket to any other shop in the chain so the protocol will be company-wide.
It’s difficult from the piece (which is the punter’s version of events, having sold his story to the DM) to understand the details of how this is actually supposed to work in practice. Presumably they’d give him credit on the spot if he wanted to keep gambling, but had a problem paying him out not just on the day of the win but the following day too, when it’s fair to assume they were expecting him. I’ll also assume that he wants to collect his winnings without identifying himself to the bookie, in a way that could lead to them restricting him in future.
I work primarily in B2B (have essentially done that in my career at various companies, primarily producing software for large corporate clients, focus now these days on SAAS. A lot of consultancies etc I have worked with and also have worked for Vodafone earlier in my career on VGE software
Thanks for expanding. Now can you do so in English?
I work with large companies to build websites that they access through Chrome
Actually round table of PB, what do you all do for work?
I am a software engineer.
I do as little as possible, whilst living off my vast (sic), wholly undeserved Civil Service pension, supplemented by my huge triple-locked state pension.
I am considering selling my ridiculously bourgeois house and saving money by not having one at all, using my free bus pass to live on the move; just checking that there are enough night buses to keep me going. I would then be able to pass on vast sums of money to my obnoxious children.
I work in town planning, have worked in both the public sector and the private sector.
Do you think there is a lot of room to make the system better (as I am sure you know I take a lot of interest in infrastructure for mobile phones and broadband) or does it work well as is?
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
We lost our on a contract to supply to a BEIS funded r and d project a couple of years back. The company that won the job absolutely rinsed the BEIS funded customer. So far as we could work out the main expenditure of the project was just going out in salaries to a bunch of jobs for the boys.
My strong suspicion is that all the costs are everything but the actual infrastructure. And a culture of layering* - where a contract is sub contracted repeatedly.
This was the case in the old style US space industry where costs and inflation were getting demented.
*yes I know what it implies
Here’s a good thread on how the planning system inflates costs, by a (former) road designed.
Planning paperwork needing a forklift to be moved is quite patently a broken system.
The system only serves those who have a vested interest in it.
The fundamental reason why planning is so complicated is the underlying law and government policy. Obviously there are vested interests but that is true of every industry. For a while the government wanted to make the underlying legal framework more simple but it had a change of heart after around 2017 and since then it has been just turning out more and more legislation and policy that just add more and more costs to every planning application. Leaving aside the question of roads and other infrastructure, a planning application for just one house can now require 10 or more different consultants reports.
I work primarily in B2B (have essentially done that in my career at various companies, primarily producing software for large corporate clients, focus now these days on SAAS. A lot of consultancies etc I have worked with and also have worked for Vodafone earlier in my career on VGE software
Thanks for expanding. Now can you do so in English?
I work with large companies to build websites that they access through Chrome
But Trump’s mugshot is excellent. I would guess that he had a duplicate setup to run tests on. His makeup is exactly suited to the light and camera. His hair is teased differently than normal to provide some overhang. The jaw-jut and downward tilt of the head hide his jowls. Combine those affects with his slight turn to the left (notice that his is the only photo in which you cannot clearly see both ears) and it gives his pose a vague sense of motion, as though he is moving forward...
I think SKS has something interesting about him that his detractors seem to have underestimated. He does have a genuinely working class background and can speak to it. There's something vaguely British aspirational about it, I agree he hasn't communicated it brilliantly.
I think most would conclude though that he has been an effective leader - and has grown into the role. I have a lot more confidence in him than I did Ed M.
Major had a genuinely working class background and he was a pretty crap PM. I am more interested in what Starmer says and does than in his personal background.
I think Major has been a lot better than basically every Tory PM that has come since.
Major has remarkably improved as a PM since he stopped doing the job.
I think the same is true of Harold Wilson, but you are too young to remember him.
In US history, presidents who are/were rated better for their careers AFTER leaving office than while IN the White House;
> John Q Adams - mediocre POTUS defeated for reelection, but great US Representative > Ulysses S Grant (but only for writing his memoirs under pressure of terminal cancer) > William H Taft - mediocre POTUs defeated for reelection, but above-average Chief Justice > Herbert Hoover - failed POTUS defeated for reelection, but esteemed for contributions to government, diplomacy and international humanitarian relief afterward (as indeed before his presidency). > Harry S Truman - poll numbers abysmal when he left office, but steadily improved thereafter; personally recall by rockribbed GOP grandfather grudgingly praising HST circa 1964. > Richard M Nixon - special case, not that he became what you'd call popular or esteemed post-Watergate, just that he DID climb a wee bit out of the shaft he'd dug for himself. > Jimmy Carter - the prime example at the moment.
Presidents who did NOT get more popular after POTUS, at least during their remaining lifetime (an only including those who lived for some time after leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Ave):
> John Adams > Martin Van Buren > John Tyler > Millard Filmore > James Buchanan > Grover Cleveland > Gerald Ford > George Bush the Elder > Bill Clinton > George W Bush the Younger > Barack Obama
Bit early to tell for sure, but somehow doubt that Donald J Trump is gonna become a beloved elder whatever.
I think history is proving kinder to Gerald Ford and Bush Sr than people were at the time.
It's also remarkable how far Clinton's star has fallen. Perhaps he could be due for a little... resurrection?
Gerald Ford spent toooooo much of his post-Presidency playing golf and etc. in Palm Springs and etc. And NOT enough (or hardly any) in what might be called service to others, even broadly.
George Bush the Elder somewhat similar. In both cases, ex-POTUS was outshined in public esteem, during their lifetimes, by their former FLOTUS: Betty Ford and Barbara Bush.
As well documented by the 1988 election classic "What It Takes" - which I recommend every year or so to PB readers - Bush's problem was selling his carefully curated image of soundness to take over the Reagan party of deficit economics and culture wars, which did him no good.
Plenty of Democrats and Independents voted for Bush in 1988, along with most Republicans. As I remember all too well!
Think a large part of his problem getting re-elected, was indeed disaffection among GOP base and other conservatives.
However, this was amplified, indeed overshadowed, by voter perceptions of poor economy (which was actually improving) which affected not just rightwingers.
AND this was further exacerbated, by widely-shared view that George Bush the Elder really was NOT engaged with domestic issues, including economics, except as political soundbites. But was instead focused personally, professionally and presidentially on foreign affairs.
Speaking of foreign affairs, have always thought that one problem for Bush's reelection in 1992, was the very and signal success of his diplomacy and military coordination versus Iraq after Saddam invaded Kuwait. In particular, the shortness of actual warfare.
IF the conflict on the ground had drug out longer - even without an invasion of Iraq such as Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted then, and got a decade later - then in absence of sizable numbers of US casualties, the "rally around the flag" affect would have helped Bush retain goodly share of voters that he ended up losing to Perot, and Clinton.
It also gave the impression that foreign policy and military interventions were easy.
In actual fact, the run up to the first gulf war was one of the most successful and integrated diplomatic campaigns in history. The way that every interest was carefully given it’s due was fascinating. Because Saddam was somewhat aligned to Russia, under Cold War unofficial rules, Gorbachev was given space to try a peace mission. Which Saddam relayed with insults. And so the Russian policy became “to hell with him”.
Yes.
In USA, opposition, including by me in very minor capacity, was predicated on belief that military intervention then, would result in the kind of freaking quagmire, which we got later, when the NeoCons of Cheney-Bush administration granted their own wish after 9/11.
Actually round table of PB, what do you all do for work?
I am a software engineer.
I have recently taken up flint knapping, as there was a vacancy.
I’ve recently taken up travel journalism, as there was a vacancy.
A train and a plane tomorrow! Krakow > Warsaw > Dubai.
Watch out for a tail of lookalike Sandpits who will start to follow you round the world, Willian Wilson style.
Unlike the last failure of a “travel journalist” who was here, I’ve actually got the train ticket in my hand. I won’t be getting the six hour slow train because of some random f-up, I’m on the 2h30 express, and have paid £50 for a first class ticket.
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
We lost our on a contract to supply to a BEIS funded r and d project a couple of years back. The company that won the job absolutely rinsed the BEIS funded customer. So far as we could work out the main expenditure of the project was just going out in salaries to a bunch of jobs for the boys.
My strong suspicion is that all the costs are everything but the actual infrastructure. And a culture of layering* - where a contract is sub contracted repeatedly.
This was the case in the old style US space industry where costs and inflation were getting demented.
*yes I know what it implies
Here’s a good thread on how the planning system inflates costs, by a (former) road designed.
I think SKS has something interesting about him that his detractors seem to have underestimated. He does have a genuinely working class background and can speak to it. There's something vaguely British aspirational about it, I agree he hasn't communicated it brilliantly.
I think most would conclude though that he has been an effective leader - and has grown into the role. I have a lot more confidence in him than I did Ed M.
Major had a genuinely working class background and he was a pretty crap PM. I am more interested in what Starmer says and does than in his personal background.
I think Major has been a lot better than basically every Tory PM that has come since.
Major has remarkably improved as a PM since he stopped doing the job.
I think the same is true of Harold Wilson, but you are too young to remember him.
In US history, presidents who are/were rated better for their careers AFTER leaving office than while IN the White House;
> John Q Adams - mediocre POTUS defeated for reelection, but great US Representative > Ulysses S Grant (but only for writing his memoirs under pressure of terminal cancer) > William H Taft - mediocre POTUs defeated for reelection, but above-average Chief Justice > Herbert Hoover - failed POTUS defeated for reelection, but esteemed for contributions to government, diplomacy and international humanitarian relief afterward (as indeed before his presidency). > Harry S Truman - poll numbers abysmal when he left office, but steadily improved thereafter; personally recall by rockribbed GOP grandfather grudgingly praising HST circa 1964. > Richard M Nixon - special case, not that he became what you'd call popular or esteemed post-Watergate, just that he DID climb a wee bit out of the shaft he'd dug for himself. > Jimmy Carter - the prime example at the moment.
Presidents who did NOT get more popular after POTUS, at least during their remaining lifetime (an only including those who lived for some time after leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Ave):
> John Adams > Martin Van Buren > John Tyler > Millard Filmore > James Buchanan > Grover Cleveland > Gerald Ford > George Bush the Elder > Bill Clinton > George W Bush the Younger > Barack Obama
Bit early to tell for sure, but somehow doubt that Donald J Trump is gonna become a beloved elder whatever.
I think history may be kinder to W than while he was in office.
In office W was despised by lots across the spectrum and in part because of what followed next from the GOP he looks incredibly moderate in comparison.
That 42% approval rating he's getting today is far, far higher than the low 30s approval rating he was scoring throughout 2008.
W's record will be judged at least in part on how he behaved at the end of his presidency. The kindness and thought he extended to the Obama's as they were taking over really did strike a chord with many, not least because it was Michelle Obama who was so vocal about it.
Indeed, that's an excellent point.
I recently re-watched Boston Legal (controversially Shatner's greatest TV show in my view) which was largely written against W and politics of the day. Its still funny, but quite dated now that the news has moved on. However it is amusing to think after what's come since how things that could generate such heat and anger 15 years ago seem almost quaint after the outrages of what we've seen since like 6 January.
I think a few things really annoyed people about Bush-Cheney. 2000 was won from second-place on the order of the Republican Supreme Court (fair enough it may have been, but that's how it happened). In 2003 they lied about WMD to roll out the first ground war of the online era. 2004 was won more cleanly by demonising gays and pushing marriage bans. Finally, at the point where most presidencies' heat dies down and they move into legacy mode, they had to bail out a financial sector after years of pumping the bubble. That's politics, of course! But you see why people thought they took the late-decadence of Clinton and made it a theme.
Actually round table of PB, what do you all do for work?
I am a software engineer.
I have recently taken up flint knapping, as there was a vacancy.
I’ve recently taken up travel journalism, as there was a vacancy.
A train and a plane tomorrow! Krakow > Warsaw > Dubai.
Watch out for a tail of lookalike Sandpits who will start to follow you round the world, Willian Wilson style.
Unlike the last failure of a “travel journalist” who was here, I’ve actually got the train ticket in my hand. I won’t be getting the six hour slow train because of some random f-up, I’m on the 2h30 express, and have paid £50 for a first class ticket.
Far be it from me to give advice, but I think you should carve out your own niche in your new role. I couldn't help noticing that earlier you posted photos of beer on tables. That's too derivative and, if I may say so, passé.
Looks like the main reason we can't get anything done here is a mahoosive circus consisting of pressure groups, NIMBYs, lawyers and consultants around JR of big projects leading to ridiculously costly and untimely proposals
I work in town planning, have worked in both the public sector and the private sector.
Do you think there is a lot of room to make the system better (as I am sure you know I take a lot of interest in infrastructure for mobile phones and broadband) or does it work well as is?
I think that it can be made better and could reel off a list of minor changes that would have immediate effect. I would work with the legal infrastructure that is there not create something totally new. The whole thing at the moment is a mess but people understand it and the show stays on the road. I think politically it is just too hard to fundamentally reform it because there are so many dependencies that aren't always obvious. You would need a lot of commitment and probably a two term government.
More seriously, a long, long time ago I was a software engineer, then I got into tech transfer from universities, then project management and then by all sorts of twists I ended up as a tech author and editor.
Why is Trump so popular? We have seen this building for a few decades, a weaponised culture war where the Dem elite and GOP elite battle for supremacy in keeping a population largely dumb and angry to win their votes.
Both sides portray the other side as evil. Bill Clinton was almost the anti-Christ for the right, W Bush the same for the left. Trump is just this weapons-grade stupidity turned up to 11. I know that Don't Look Up wound some people up, but it was a good pastiche for today's politics.
Trump is a mobster, and a particularly inept one. But all the people who are anti-crime are pro-Trump. They want him to mob them because it makes the other side angry and that must mean he is good.
There seem to be tens of millions of people intent on removing their own rights. Of turning women - themselves, their wives, their daughters - into chattel. I don't get it.
It's more of a negative reason, why Trump is so popular. All previous Republican leaders/candidates were totally out of touch with ordinary GOP voters, like Mitt Romney for instance.
You really can't say that about Ronald Reagan. And I say that as one who never voted for him, or liked him when he was an active politico, first as Governor of California, then as President.
Nor about Gerald Ford. Or, in his own wacky way, George W. Bush the Younger, at least compared to Poppy.
Interesting (to me anyway) that the two most connected candidates running for the 2024 Republican nomination, are both from same state and general GOP milieu: Nikki Haley and Tim Scott.
Which for some reason reminds me of . . . wait for it . . . Rishi Sunak.
Who for some other reason reminds yours truly of . . . Mitt Romney . . .
Gerald Ford was establishment and a moderate, W Bush was born into and raised in the establishment.
Even Trump was born into money. Indeed the only Republican candidates who appealed to the populist right and weren't born into the elite were Reagan and Goldwater. Trump talks the populist talk but he wouldn't invite most of his own voters to cocktails at Trump Tower let alone have them stay over at Mar a Lago
Actually round table of PB, what do you all do for work?
I am a software engineer.
I have recently taken up flint knapping, as there was a vacancy.
I’ve recently taken up travel journalism, as there was a vacancy.
A train and a plane tomorrow! Krakow > Warsaw > Dubai.
Watch out for a tail of lookalike Sandpits who will start to follow you round the world, Willian Wilson style.
Unlike the last failure of a “travel journalist” who was here, I’ve actually got the train ticket in my hand. I won’t be getting the six hour slow train because of some random f-up, I’m on the 2h30 express, and have paid £50 for a first class ticket.
Far be it from me to give advice, but I think you should carve out your own niche in your new role. I couldn't help noticing that earlier you posted photos of beer on tables. That's too derivative and, if I may say so, passé.
You’ll see photos of beer on train tables tomorrow, if the wifi on the train holds up!
On Monday I go back to the day job, as the IT manager for a local company in the sandpit.
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
We lost our on a contract to supply to a BEIS funded r and d project a couple of years back. The company that won the job absolutely rinsed the BEIS funded customer. So far as we could work out the main expenditure of the project was just going out in salaries to a bunch of jobs for the boys.
My strong suspicion is that all the costs are everything but the actual infrastructure. And a culture of layering* - where a contract is sub contracted repeatedly.
This was the case in the old style US space industry where costs and inflation were getting demented.
*yes I know what it implies
Here’s a good thread on how the planning system inflates costs, by a (former) road designed.
The buses etc stay downstairs. The new surface is pedestrianised/cycling. The driving shops will need rebuilding a bit, so you enter through what were the upper floors…
I think Truss was and is a nutter. But she was right about one thing: Britain needs growth.
It is precisely because we don’t have growth, and an ageing demographic, that our taxes are rising - via bracket creep - from the low 30s % of GDP where Britain has traditionally been - to the high 30s - ie “German levels”.
Albeit without the commensurate quality of public services.
People say, wrongly, that Truss’s position on growth is just a truism. Well no, not quite. There’s actually very little consensus behind “growth” in modern day Britain.
Voters - and most commentators - are more motivated by small boats, nimbyism, the NHS, and the cost of living. Fair enough, but they fail to realise that without growth, most of these problems get worse.
What kind of growth? Labour supply or productivity?
Both?
We need GDP growth per capita. We need to stop talking about GDP without the denominator.
Labour supply going up so long as construction matches, with sufficient proportionate new roads, new houses, new schools, hospitals etc to match population growth is absolutely fine, but we've not had that.
Labour supply going up, but GDP per capita going down, and no investment, is not a success even if it records GDP going up.
The only way GDP capita can fall when the labour supply is increasing is if the number of dependents increases by a larger percentage.
So, in almost all cases, boosting the labour supply will see GDP per capita increase.
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
We lost our on a contract to supply to a BEIS funded r and d project a couple of years back. The company that won the job absolutely rinsed the BEIS funded customer. So far as we could work out the main expenditure of the project was just going out in salaries to a bunch of jobs for the boys.
My strong suspicion is that all the costs are everything but the actual infrastructure. And a culture of layering* - where a contract is sub contracted repeatedly.
This was the case in the old style US space industry where costs and inflation were getting demented.
*yes I know what it implies
Here’s a good thread on how the planning system inflates costs, by a (former) road designed.
The buses etc stay downstairs. The new surface is pedestrianised/cycling. The driving shops will need rebuilding a bit, so you enter through what were the upper floors…
You could have a half-way house version of that where you construct a continuous walkway a couple of storeys up but don't enclose the street level.
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
We lost our on a contract to supply to a BEIS funded r and d project a couple of years back. The company that won the job absolutely rinsed the BEIS funded customer. So far as we could work out the main expenditure of the project was just going out in salaries to a bunch of jobs for the boys.
My strong suspicion is that all the costs are everything but the actual infrastructure. And a culture of layering* - where a contract is sub contracted repeatedly.
This was the case in the old style US space industry where costs and inflation were getting demented.
*yes I know what it implies
Here’s a good thread on how the planning system inflates costs, by a (former) road designed.
The buses etc stay downstairs. The new surface is pedestrianised/cycling. The driving shops will need rebuilding a bit, so you enter through what were the upper floors…
You could have a half-way house version of that where you construct a continuous walkway a couple of storeys up but don't enclose the street level.
Why is Trump so popular? We have seen this building for a few decades, a weaponised culture war where the Dem elite and GOP elite battle for supremacy in keeping a population largely dumb and angry to win their votes.
Both sides portray the other side as evil. Bill Clinton was almost the anti-Christ for the right, W Bush the same for the left. Trump is just this weapons-grade stupidity turned up to 11. I know that Don't Look Up wound some people up, but it was a good pastiche for today's politics.
Trump is a mobster, and a particularly inept one. But all the people who are anti-crime are pro-Trump. They want him to mob them because it makes the other side angry and that must mean he is good.
There seem to be tens of millions of people intent on removing their own rights. Of turning women - themselves, their wives, their daughters - into chattel. I don't get it.
It's more of a negative reason, why Trump is so popular. All previous Republican leaders/candidates were totally out of touch with ordinary GOP voters, like Mitt Romney for instance.
You really can't say that about Ronald Reagan. And I say that as one who never voted for him, or liked him when he was an active politico, first as Governor of California, then as President.
Nor about Gerald Ford. Or, in his own wacky way, George W. Bush the Younger, at least compared to Poppy.
Interesting (to me anyway) that the two most connected candidates running for the 2024 Republican nomination, are both from same state and general GOP milieu: Nikki Haley and Tim Scott.
Which for some reason reminds me of . . . wait for it . . . Rishi Sunak.
Who for some other reason reminds yours truly of . . . Mitt Romney . . .
Gerald Ford was establishment and a moderate, W Bush was born into and raised in the establishment.
Even Trump was born into money. Indeed the only Republican candidates who appealed to the populist right and weren't born into the elite were Reagan and Goldwater. Trump talks the populist talk but he wouldn't invite most of his own voters to cocktails at Trump Tower let alone have them stay over at Mar a Lago
Richard Nixon wasn't born into a wealthy family.
And the Goldwaters owned the largest department store (I'm pretty sure) in Arizona.
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
We lost our on a contract to supply to a BEIS funded r and d project a couple of years back. The company that won the job absolutely rinsed the BEIS funded customer. So far as we could work out the main expenditure of the project was just going out in salaries to a bunch of jobs for the boys.
My strong suspicion is that all the costs are everything but the actual infrastructure. And a culture of layering* - where a contract is sub contracted repeatedly.
This was the case in the old style US space industry where costs and inflation were getting demented.
*yes I know what it implies
Here’s a good thread on how the planning system inflates costs, by a (former) road designed.
The buses etc stay downstairs. The new surface is pedestrianised/cycling. The driving shops will need rebuilding a bit, so you enter through what were the upper floors…
You could have a half-way house version of that where you construct a continuous walkway a couple of storeys up but don't enclose the street level.
Which has killed everything at street level in central Calgary. So you have a wasteland of streets, unrelieved even by shops. The resulting vibe is very Omni Consumer Products.
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
We lost our on a contract to supply to a BEIS funded r and d project a couple of years back. The company that won the job absolutely rinsed the BEIS funded customer. So far as we could work out the main expenditure of the project was just going out in salaries to a bunch of jobs for the boys.
My strong suspicion is that all the costs are everything but the actual infrastructure. And a culture of layering* - where a contract is sub contracted repeatedly.
This was the case in the old style US space industry where costs and inflation were getting demented.
*yes I know what it implies
Here’s a good thread on how the planning system inflates costs, by a (former) road designed.
The buses etc stay downstairs. The new surface is pedestrianised/cycling. The driving shops will need rebuilding a bit, so you enter through what were the upper floors…
You could have a half-way house version of that where you construct a continuous walkway a couple of storeys up but don't enclose the street level.
Which has killed everything at street level in central Calgary. So you have a wasteland of streets, unrelieved even by shops. The resulting vibe is very Omni Consumer Products.
I was thinking more like parts of the Las Vegas strip.
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
We lost our on a contract to supply to a BEIS funded r and d project a couple of years back. The company that won the job absolutely rinsed the BEIS funded customer. So far as we could work out the main expenditure of the project was just going out in salaries to a bunch of jobs for the boys.
My strong suspicion is that all the costs are everything but the actual infrastructure. And a culture of layering* - where a contract is sub contracted repeatedly.
This was the case in the old style US space industry where costs and inflation were getting demented.
*yes I know what it implies
Here’s a good thread on how the planning system inflates costs, by a (former) road designed.
The buses etc stay downstairs. The new surface is pedestrianised/cycling. The driving shops will need rebuilding a bit, so you enter through what were the upper floors…
You could have a half-way house version of that where you construct a continuous walkway a couple of storeys up but don't enclose the street level.
Which has killed everything at street level in central Calgary. So you have a wasteland of streets, unrelieved even by shops. The resulting vibe is very Omni Consumer Products.
I was thinking more like parts of the Las Vegas strip.
I can’t help feeling that Calgary and Las Vegas are not really the peak of human centric town planning…
But Trump’s mugshot is excellent. I would guess that he had a duplicate setup to run tests on. His makeup is exactly suited to the light and camera. His hair is teased differently than normal to provide some overhang. The jaw-jut and downward tilt of the head hide his jowls. Combine those affects with his slight turn to the left (notice that his is the only photo in which you cannot clearly see both ears) and it gives his pose a vague sense of motion, as though he is moving forward...
Newspapers used to have decent fact checkers who wouldn't allow total nonsense to be printed. I don't know what happened to them.
They've got a base.
This crap sells papers.
Expect more confected graphs in the FT showing the UK is shit/bottom of everything, and be suspicious accordingly.
Untrue. We already established we lead the world in infrastructure construction … costs.
You know nothing about infrastructure so you're totally unqualified to comment on it.
I have spent my whole live working in the sector.
Er, the very reason we can't take you on faith is that you are in the infrastructure industry and benefit from it.
You'd say just the same if a schoolteacher told you to piss off when you queried educational practice.
There is serious prima facie evidence that there is something very wrong with UK infrastructure and the prices charged. What the reasons are is a very good question, but it's not one going to be answered by simply telling people they are too stupid and naive and unknowledgeable.
He’s a total bristler.
He’s the internet meme of a finger poised between two red buttons. One says, “more infra is good” The other says, “people calling for more/better infra are woke”.
We lost our on a contract to supply to a BEIS funded r and d project a couple of years back. The company that won the job absolutely rinsed the BEIS funded customer. So far as we could work out the main expenditure of the project was just going out in salaries to a bunch of jobs for the boys.
My strong suspicion is that all the costs are everything but the actual infrastructure. And a culture of layering* - where a contract is sub contracted repeatedly.
This was the case in the old style US space industry where costs and inflation were getting demented.
*yes I know what it implies
Here’s a good thread on how the planning system inflates costs, by a (former) road designed.
The buses etc stay downstairs. The new surface is pedestrianised/cycling. The driving shops will need rebuilding a bit, so you enter through what were the upper floors…
You could have a half-way house version of that where you construct a continuous walkway a couple of storeys up but don't enclose the street level.
Which has killed everything at street level in central Calgary. So you have a wasteland of streets, unrelieved even by shops. The resulting vibe is very Omni Consumer Products.
I was thinking more like parts of the Las Vegas strip.
I can’t help feeling that Calgary and Las Vegas are not really the peak of human centric town planning…
Meanwhile...
The Silicon Valley Elite Who Want to Build a City From Scratch
"The company’s ambitions expand on the 2017 pitch: Take an arid patch of brown hills cut by a two-lane highway between suburbs and rural land, and convert into it into a community with tens of thousands of residents, clean energy, public transportation and dense urban life.
The company’s investors, whose identities have not been previously reported, are a who’s who of Silicon Valley"
But Trump’s mugshot is excellent. I would guess that he had a duplicate setup to run tests on. His makeup is exactly suited to the light and camera. His hair is teased differently than normal to provide some overhang. The jaw-jut and downward tilt of the head hide his jowls. Combine those affects with his slight turn to the left (notice that his is the only photo in which you cannot clearly see both ears) and it gives his pose a vague sense of motion, as though he is moving forward...
I have more than one job. Sometimes one is paid, sometimes the other, rarely all, although there was a time when two of them were simultaneously, which was nice. At the moment one of them has "statistician" in the title.
But Trump’s mugshot is excellent. I would guess that he had a duplicate setup to run tests on. His makeup is exactly suited to the light and camera. His hair is teased differently than normal to provide some overhang. The jaw-jut and downward tilt of the head hide his jowls. Combine those affects with his slight turn to the left (notice that his is the only photo in which you cannot clearly see both ears) and it gives his pose a vague sense of motion, as though he is moving forward...
SCRIPT: DOLLY OUT AS THE THEME FROM "UNBREAKABLE" PLAYS. VOICEOVER "THEY THINK THEY'VE WON, BUT THIS IS NOT THE END. THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING" SMASH CUT TO BLACK.
Comments
In office W was despised by lots across the spectrum and in part because of what followed next from the GOP he looks incredibly moderate in comparison.
In a recent survey by YouGov they found that W is more popular than Trump, and the third most popular Republican behind the constitutionally-ineligible Schwarzenegger and Ben Carson: https://today.yougov.com/ratings/politics/popularity/Republicans/all
That 42% approval rating he's getting today is far, far higher than the low 30s approval rating he was scoring throughout 2008.
Labour supply going up so long as construction matches, with sufficient proportionate new roads, new houses, new schools, hospitals etc to match population growth is absolutely fine, but we've not had that.
Labour supply going up, but GDP per capita going down, and no investment, is not a success even if it records GDP going up.
Actually round table of PB, what do you all do for work?
I am a software engineer.
Remind me to ask your permission before commenting.
Perhaps you’ll adopt a similar restraint on any other area in which you haven’t spent your whole life working ?
Consultant Geologist and Archaeologist. Main income stream is oil and gas but also do site investigation work, geophysical surveying, rescue and research archaeology and specialist rock and soil analysis, particularly with regard to palaeo-environment modelling.
Wm Hill called police after customer won big, and the shops didn’t have enough cash on site to pay him out. £12k.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12446083/Moment-betting-shop-staff-call-police-successful-punter-not-cash-pay-12-000-winnings.html
Prefer not to elaborate further as I’d like to stay anonymous. I already feel I give too much away!
This was the case in the old style US space industry where costs and inflation were getting demented.
*yes I know what it implies
Some traditional FE teaching
Some teacher training
Some creating/editing content for online providers.
With your choice of therapeutic NZ fish oil OR luxurious (and edible!) kiwi paste.
I recently re-watched Boston Legal (controversially Shatner's greatest TV show in my view) which was largely written against W and politics of the day. Its still funny, but quite dated now that the news has moved on. However it is amusing to think after what's come since how things that could generate such heat and anger 15 years ago seem almost quaint after the outrages of what we've seen since like 6 January.
My job is actually quite dull and bureaucratic at present.
https://x.com/michaeldnes1/status/1630578526293204993?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg
I work primarily in B2B (have essentially done that in my career at various companies, primarily producing software for large corporate clients, focus now these days on SAAS. A lot of consultancies etc I have worked with and also have worked for Vodafone earlier in my career on VGE software
Planning paperwork needing a forklift to be moved is quite patently a broken system.
The system only serves those who have a vested interest in it.
Now can you do so in English?
Think a large part of his problem getting re-elected, was indeed disaffection among GOP base and other conservatives.
However, this was amplified, indeed overshadowed, by voter perceptions of poor economy (which was actually improving) which affected not just rightwingers.
AND this was further exacerbated, by widely-shared view that George Bush the Elder really was NOT engaged with domestic issues, including economics, except as political soundbites. But was instead focused personally, professionally and presidentially on foreign affairs.
Speaking of foreign affairs, have always thought that one problem for Bush's reelection in 1992, was the very and signal success of his diplomacy and military coordination versus Iraq after Saddam invaded Kuwait. In particular, the shortness of actual warfare.
IF the conflict on the ground had drug out longer - even without an invasion of Iraq such as Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted then, and got a decade later - then in absence of sizable numbers of US casualties, the "rally around the flag" affect would have helped Bush retain goodly share of voters that he ended up losing to Perot, and Clinton.
For example, calculating optimal number of digits for left-handed bowlers facing sticky wickets.
My own uneducated guess being, somewhere approaching twenty, including both hands and feet for balance.
In actual fact, the run up to the first gulf war was one of the most successful and integrated diplomatic campaigns in history. The way that every interest was carefully given it’s due was fascinating. Because Saddam was somewhat aligned to Russia, under Cold War unofficial rules, Gorbachev was given space to try a peace mission. Which Saddam relayed with insults. And so the Russian policy became “to hell with him”.
A train and a plane tomorrow! Krakow > Warsaw > Dubai.
I have a serious professional interest in OR. Mainly for the comedy of organisations.
I am considering selling my ridiculously bourgeois house and saving money by not having one at all, using my free bus pass to live on the move; just checking that there are enough night buses to keep me going. I would then be able to pass on vast sums of money to my obnoxious children.
And, to confound it all, I still vote Labour.
Only Fans . . . For the Blind!
We underestimate Trump at our peril.
https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/mugged-by-demagoguery?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
In USA, opposition, including by me in very minor capacity, was predicated on belief that military intervention then, would result in the kind of freaking quagmire, which we got later, when the NeoCons of Cheney-Bush administration granted their own wish after 9/11.
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/londons-lost-ringways
"A man, a plan, a canal - Panama!"
Point Break (1991) is just starting on BBC1. Worth watching?
Or rather, Suez you!
Either way, hopeful of tapping into SOME source of fiscal rehabilitation!
On Monday I go back to the day job, as the IT manager for a local company in the sandpit.
Raise it.
Build a new surface a couple of stories up.
The buses etc stay downstairs. The new surface is pedestrianised/cycling. The driving shops will need rebuilding a bit, so you enter through what were the upper floors…
So, in almost all cases, boosting the labour supply will see GDP per capita increase.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago
(Come to think of it - looks like Trump copied your mugshot pose, Doctor. Who would have thought it, eh?)
Which has killed everything at street level in central Calgary. So you have a wasteland of streets, unrelieved even by shops. The resulting vibe is very Omni Consumer Products.
The Silicon Valley Elite Who Want to Build a City From Scratch
"The company’s ambitions expand on the 2017 pitch: Take an arid patch of brown hills cut by a two-lane highway between suburbs and rural land, and convert into it into a community with tens of thousands of residents, clean energy, public transportation and dense urban life.
The company’s investors, whose identities have not been previously reported, are a who’s who of Silicon Valley"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/25/business/land-purchases-solano-county.html