Donald Trump’s aides have drawn up secret plans to oust the chairman of the Federal Reserve and allow the president to set interest rates, according to reports.
Allies are said to have drawn up a range of proposals for the way monetary policy could be run in a second Trump administration, including rolling back the independence of the central bank, which has been critical to the functioning of the economy and financial system in recent decades.
Supporters of the Republican candidate have compiled a 10-page document with a new vision for the running of the central bank and monetary policy, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Telegraph
An interesting thought experiment. If the Gvt retained that power here, would Sunak have resisted the urge to drop them by now?
Review and reform Carer's Allowance to increase support and reduce overpayments
We want a full review and reform of Carer’s Allowance to ensure that it works well at supporting unpaid carers, including raising the level and eligibility criteria for the benefit. We want systems to be modernised and urgent action from DWP to cap and prevent large overpayment debts for carers.
Signed. Sadly probably more impact petitioning ITV to make a drama about it than petitioning parliament directly.
Signed too.
Moi aussi.
Labour’s Timms was on R4 this morning being noticeably mealy mouthed about flexibility towards carers currently being penalised, no doubt crapping himself over any chink in the fiscal rectitude armour. Why can’t this lot for once show a bit of backbone when it comes to helping those at the bottom? As a benchmark Rishi’s own adviser resigned over the iniquitous treatment of carers.
Britain estimates 450,000 Russian troops killed or wounded - Britain estimates that 450,000 Russian military personnel have been killed or wounded and over 10,000 Russian armoured vehicles have been destroyed in Ukraine.
From Russia's perspective (on the Eastern front) WW2 levels of madness.
That's the big question: will Russia's experience be WW1 (utterly lost and regime changed), or WW2 (won at drastic cost)?
In both cases, and now, they are fighting by throwing incredible numbers of people at the battle. But in WW2, they had vast numbers of other nations fighting as well - most notably, Ukrainians.
Russian demographics were bad before they lost so many young men. Now it is becoming an unfolding catastrophe. The only thing they can cling onto is Donald Trump, and that is a pretty shoogly peg to hang your entire geopolitical strategy on.
The idea that they could now launch any successful attack on NATO anytime soon has fallen apart, and Russian soft power has collapsed around the world. Of course none of this stops Putin from being dangerous, but on current trajectories, victory seems a far distant prospect for the increasingly primitive Russian military machine.
The F-16s, ATACMS and lots more ammunition are all coming soon, and the respite this gives the ZSU could put Russia under serious pressure within quite a short period. If there is no prospect of the Trump/GOP coming to Putin´s rescue, a lot of people in and around the Kremlin are going to start to ask difficult questions. As long as NATO stays united and the USA stays onside, the chances of a Russian victory fade very rapidly.
I hate to say it, but comparatively Russian losses are anything but "vast".
In Putin's war on Ukraine we have 460k Russian casualties on Ukraine figures which are generally thought of as reliable (aiui including killed, prisoners, 'wounded so as not to return to battle') in 2 years 2 months. https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1784080858145505328
I don't like it. It's playground stuff. But fwiw I don't think Sunak's height (lack of) is what hurts him image-wise it's more the general lack of him. He really is very tiny.
Yes, I'm disappointed with Sunak for his timidity. To say he's not a strong leader would be a gross understatement. He is weak - so was Johnson, but weak in a different way.
This isn't anything to do with his height, of course. Inexperience probably has a lot to do with it.
Johnson was weak like a windsock, or perhaps more flatteringly a sailing boat, as he did occasionally try to influence his own course. He could be blown in any direction, some of them positive, many of them not.
Sunak isn't a windsock; he doesn't have that unpredictability. Sunak is weak like a pile of iron filings in the face of large magnets - these magnets being people and organisations with power and wealth. He appears to have no ambitions whatsoever for his time in office - even his much-vaunted smoking policy is a long term Department of Health ambition that successive PMs had shitcanned. That leaves chess boards and maths till 18. Otherwise, it's which potentate can I please today.
Truss has listened, and she has learned. She will rise again. And this time she will deliver. Mary Elizabeth, mother, queen, your time has come. And your time is now.
She is like the famous Victorian submarine - Resurgam.
Which, by the way, sunk, and is now a designated wreck.
Review and reform Carer's Allowance to increase support and reduce overpayments
We want a full review and reform of Carer’s Allowance to ensure that it works well at supporting unpaid carers, including raising the level and eligibility criteria for the benefit. We want systems to be modernised and urgent action from DWP to cap and prevent large overpayment debts for carers.
Signed. One of my neighbours is a carer who lives in terror of the DWP finding out she sells some craft type trinkets on Etsy to get enough money to actually pay the bills. Carers do a grindingly difficult job for a wretchedly small amount of money, they need support not threats and punishment. The inadequate benefits they receive should be a baseline, not a limit.
Review and reform Carer's Allowance to increase support and reduce overpayments
We want a full review and reform of Carer’s Allowance to ensure that it works well at supporting unpaid carers, including raising the level and eligibility criteria for the benefit. We want systems to be modernised and urgent action from DWP to cap and prevent large overpayment debts for carers.
Signed. Sadly probably more impact petitioning ITV to make a drama about it than petitioning parliament directly.
Signed too.
Moi aussi.
Labour’s Timms was on R4 this morning being noticeably mealy mouthed about flexibility towards carers currently being penalised, no doubt crapping himself over any chink in the fiscal rectitude armour. Why can’t this lot for once show a bit of backbone when it comes to helping those at the bottom? As a benchmark Rishi’s own adviser resigned over the iniquitous treatment of carers.
Carers are saving the state billions every year. Labour have to act on this.
The caption says it's in "Lower Belgrave Street in Victoria at the spot where a witness says the horses lost control", but I couldn't find a place in LBSt that looks like that - not even outside no.46 where Lord Lucan's nanny was murdered. Other sources give Belgrave Square.
The Independent coyly say the route they show is "estimated":
However the curved road the horses are galloping down in this news clip https://youtu.be/I6iKhXGDwjA?si=-sq43MKCJfRJerl0&t=2 is Aldwych, specifically at the point where Melbourne Place intersects Aldwych. The building with the flags on it is Melbourne House, Australian High Commission.
It is a relatively straight run from Knightsbridge to Aldwych where the runaway horses were filmed
@Donkeys, I'm going to have to give up on this I'm afraid. I've tried Knightsbridge, Piccadilly, Haymarket, The Strand and others. My best guess is immediately outside Hyde Park Barracks but as Google Maps has a blind spot there I cannot confirm. Apols, viewcode
Review and reform Carer's Allowance to increase support and reduce overpayments
We want a full review and reform of Carer’s Allowance to ensure that it works well at supporting unpaid carers, including raising the level and eligibility criteria for the benefit. We want systems to be modernised and urgent action from DWP to cap and prevent large overpayment debts for carers.
Signed. One of my neighbours is a carer who lives in terror of the DWP finding out she sells some craft type trinkets on Etsy to get enough money to actually pay the bills. Carers do a grindingly difficult job for a wretchedly small amount of money, they need support not threats and punishment. The inadequate benefits they receive should be a baseline, not a limit.
I do at least 20 hours a week as does Mrs Flatlander. She finds it difficult to combine with her self employment not least because it is pretty draining and she doesn't feel like sitting down at a desk afterwards. If she had to do a full week there's no way she'd get anything else done.
The amount is derisory in what it is supposed to cover but on the other hand I also find it a bit odd that the state "pays" people to look after their own family.
It is one of the reasons I'd go full UBI and abolish all the demeaning means testing, claim applications and withdrawal rate nonsense.
Donald Trump’s aides have drawn up secret plans to oust the chairman of the Federal Reserve and allow the president to set interest rates, according to reports.
Allies are said to have drawn up a range of proposals for the way monetary policy could be run in a second Trump administration, including rolling back the independence of the central bank, which has been critical to the functioning of the economy and financial system in recent decades.
Supporters of the Republican candidate have compiled a 10-page document with a new vision for the running of the central bank and monetary policy, according to the Wall Street Journal.
"The number of women choosing not to have children is growing and the global birth rate is plunging.
While their reasons vary from climate worries to financial concerns and health complications, those making the decision to be "child-free by choice" say societal acceptance is yet to come, often leaving them feeling ostracised.
The BBC spoke to members of Bristol Childfree Women, a social group with more than 500 members, set up by women and for women who have decided not to have children."
Review and reform Carer's Allowance to increase support and reduce overpayments
We want a full review and reform of Carer’s Allowance to ensure that it works well at supporting unpaid carers, including raising the level and eligibility criteria for the benefit. We want systems to be modernised and urgent action from DWP to cap and prevent large overpayment debts for carers.
Another miserable day dawns. It might get up to 12C if we’re lucky today. 10 tomorrow. Rain all afternoon and tomorrow morning. The joys of spring.
Perhaps this will help?
Wall-to-wall sunshine in the Crozon peninsula, Brittany. And warm
I’m having a cappuccino and the traditional Breton cake, the “koign amman”
Unlike the cider, and even the crepe, I can’t recommend the “koign amman”
It’s some pastry apparently dipped in thick liquid sugar then deep fried. Intensely sweet and cracks your teeth, just about tolerable if you dip it in your coffee. Maybe
Not sure that sounds like it will help you lose further weight!!
Another miserable day dawns. It might get up to 12C if we’re lucky today. 10 tomorrow. Rain all afternoon and tomorrow morning. The joys of spring.
Perhaps this will help?
Wall-to-wall sunshine in the Crozon peninsula, Brittany. And warm
I’m having a cappuccino and the traditional Breton cake, the “koign amman”
Unlike the cider, and even the crepe, I can’t recommend the “koign amman”
It’s some pastry apparently dipped in thick liquid sugar then deep fried. Intensely sweet and cracks your teeth, just about tolerable if you dip it in your coffee. Maybe
Not sure that sounds like it will help you lose further weight!!
Yes, I also thought that
My usual motto is "try everything twice - because if you didn't like it the first time, maybe you just got it wrong". Worked for me with heroin, hated it first time around, second Mmm
However I am going to make an exception for the "koign amman". That's it. Over
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
"Also in the campaign period at least 1 flight will take off for Rwanda, perhaps more with one on eve of polling. ....... The Rwanda flights will return Ref voters back to the Conservatives. You can say recent polling on Rwanda doesn’t suggest the Rwanda flights will generate a stampede of Ref back to Con, and I will laugh at you because that hypothetical polling is a poor predictive measure for how humans radically change their views once elections are called and Rwanda flights are happening."
I can see the headline: 50 Flown to Rwanda, 500 more come over the Channel
Which rather suggests that the the government don’t actually want ANY flights to take off. They want to replicate the anger around Brexit with the anger that the Rwanda plan is being thwarted by the blob, and used that as Johnson used Brexit. So arguably if you want the Tories to lose, and you are involved in refugee claims in court, don’t block the flights… As you have outlined, there will be far more coming than going.
Though some people (52%) actually thought that Brexit was a good idea, no one, well almost no one, thinks Rwanda is other than a very expensive gimmick.
There's a real fear it might work. Hence all the attacks on it by the UN, third sector and refugee charities. They are worried it will set a precedent.
This explains their confused attack lines: they seamlessly switch from its terrible to it will make no difference at all and back again.
Some of us simply find it an extraordinarily badly planned project with no realistic scope of working beyond a few hundred migrants a year. Horrendously expensive for the results.
It's Groundnut Scheme level thinking.
Once upon a time, Tories supported (a) prudence in public spending (b) the rule of law (UK) (c) the rule of law (international).
Nah, it's Guardianista virtue-signalling circle-jerk masturbation for social and professional acceptance reasons.
We all know this. So do you.
The Conservatives are languishing in the polls and to work out why, I think it’s valuable to examine Casino Royale’s post here.
First, CR argues by assertion, ‘it’s right because I say it’s right’. This echoes the Conservative government passing an act to say Rwanda is safe, irrespective of the facts.
Secondly, CR tries to link the debate to the culture wars by throwing in “virtue-signalling”. The Tories have repeatedly tried the same, but it’s not proven popular with the voters.
Thirdly, there’s no attempt at polite discourse here. It’s just straight to the insults, ‘owning the libs’. This is also failing to be attractive to the electorate.
What a lot of rubbish. I've said that (a) the visceral reaction to it is because the UN, charities and refugees themselves fear it might be effective and that (b) that's because they favour open borders and have a strange sense of cultural relativism.
Their real worry is that they know this offer might prove very popular with the voters, if it worked, and hence all the moves to strangle it at birth.
If you think the same tough choices don't await SKS in a few months time then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Can we pick this apart a little? "The UN, charities and refugees themselves fear it might be effective". Which bit of the UN, which charities etc? The UN very much wants to STOP mass refugee events and the crises they create. You suggest that they favour "open borders" the context of millions fleeing war and poverty and then ending up stuck in giant refugee camps being tended to by the UN. You think the UN actually want to be on the hook feeding millions of refugees? really?
The key to this is "if it worked" and as all the experts in every related field have pointed out - it can't work because structurally its bonkers.
You have linked the "deport them to Rwanda" policy as being opposed by a globalist cabal - the UN, charities, refugees - who apparently want refugees. So is their fear that every refugees globally might end up sent to Rwanda?
Lets just look at the asylum seekers in the UK. There's c. 100,000 already here, with more arriving every day in sizeable numbers. So call it 120,000 on the basis that "Rwanda works" and people stop arriving.
Rwanda can't take 120,000 We can't process 120,000 through the courts We can't intern 120,000 prior to them going to court We can't process the 120,000's applications due to a lack of money and resources in the Home Office We can't keep track of 120,000 after booking their arrival. We lose them.
So the rather basic problem with you/Leon endlessly championing the policy is that the policy was written in crayon to appeal to morons. You two aren't morons, yet suck it up like you are.
Why?
I can't remember who coined the term 'simplism', or applied it to political thinking, but there's a lot of it about.
Basically, any argument that boils down to They Should Just... is simplism. Especially when you don't specify who They are. Brexit ended up being about simplism- They Should Just give us the benefits of EU membership that we valued without the messy bits we disliked. They Should Just quarantine the vulnerable during the pandemic was another. Or, on the left, They Should Just get the rich to pay more tax. Or, in this case, They Should Just stop coming over here.
Trouble is, it's rarely as simple as Just Doing This. For taxes, it's totally fair to point out that if you overpluck the goose, it will fly away. That the nice bits about Europe depend on the messy plumbing. That the sausages are tasty but you don't want to see them being made.
I'm not going to blame voters for wanting a simpler world, or for voting for it. But it's blooming irresponsible for opinion formers or wannabe leaders to pretend they can deliver one.
I disagree with pretty much every bit of this post, and it's not surprising, because it goes to the heart of where I think we diverge politically. In almost all such cases, we are loftily informed that 'it isn't as simple as that' - but the simple solution under discussion is never tried.
Crime is a one example - simply make the consequences of doing crime a bit worse than the benefits of doing crime, and crime will fall. 'Oh that's far too simplistic' we're told - 'the reasons for crime are vastly complex, involving social issues, family breakdown, poverty, inequality etc., and we must reject 'simple solutions' and 'tackle those other issues''. So the simple solution is never applied. ..
The US laboratory has fairly clearly demonstrated that isn't true.
You don’t have to go all the way to the US. In the UK we’ve tried tougher sentencing multiple times. In fact one of the issues with our crime policy is it’s basically a sentencing policy. To my mind sentencing is too distant from the actual commission of the crime, too abstract.
I do think the stats show some fairly simple answers to vast swathes of crime. Tightening up security, making it harder to nick stuff, and ensuring criminals actually get caught by following up on reports, all shown time and time again to work. Why did everyone start stealing Land Rovers? Because their security was shit.
Deterrence roughly equals sanction multiplied by chance of being caught and punished. The size of the sanction barely matters if the chance of experiencing it is low.
But if you are unwilling or unable to pay to make the probability high, you have to make the consequences utterly horrific. And it still probably fails. So the death penalty is probably a mistake pragmatically (lower chance of juries convicting) and Rwanda is unlikely to deter in its current configuration. And cutting petty crime is going to cost you, in increased eyes on the streets.
And policy-wise, small scale, experiments that have been thought through in advance are great. Testing a hypothesis, if you like. But there's a gap between that and trying something because you want it to work and brushing aside objections because they come from the wrong people.
IIRC, for a while, under the Coalition, they blocked bail for people who had committed multiple offences while on bail. This caused a down tick in “minor” crime, since all the habituals were in the warehouse.
Britain estimates 450,000 Russian troops killed or wounded - Britain estimates that 450,000 Russian military personnel have been killed or wounded and over 10,000 Russian armoured vehicles have been destroyed in Ukraine.
From Russia's perspective (on the Eastern front) WW2 levels of madness.
That's the big question: will Russia's experience be WW1 (utterly lost and regime changed), or WW2 (won at drastic cost)?
In both cases, and now, they are fighting by throwing incredible numbers of people at the battle. But in WW2, they had vast numbers of other nations fighting as well - most notably, Ukrainians.
And American equipment.
Recently I've been watching some YouTube videos on this. AIUI, the current Russian view (shared by many historians) is that western aid to Russia had little effect on the war with Germany - they were going to win anyway. The majority of aid from the west came *after* the Battle of Kursk, as an example. But Stalin certainly did not seem to think so at the time, or for a while after the war was won.
In the end it's impossible to know, but i think I'm safe to say one thing: Russia *may* have won without that aid, but they would have lost millions more men, and had their economy wrecked even more, if they had not received it.
There was a lot of fighting to do after Kursk, and mobile offensives require lots of trucks.
US aid was particularly in things like aviation fuel, tyres, communications equipment and food rather than weapons.
The destruction and depletion of Russias heavy equipment and specialist troops is somewhat balanced by battle experience and familiarity with new ways of fighting. Overall though the Russian Army is a significantly less formidable force, and both Russian Navy and Airforce unable to control even the Ukranian waters and air.
While our own forces are not in great shape, the threat is substantially less too. An army that takes 6 months and tens of thousands of casualties taking a colliery in the Donbas is not really capable of getting to the Vistula let alone the Rhine, and they know it.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
UK worried for years about the destruction of the nation state, but believed that leaving the EU would cure that. Now we have left, we are discovering that it was only the foothills.
Review and reform Carer's Allowance to increase support and reduce overpayments
We want a full review and reform of Carer’s Allowance to ensure that it works well at supporting unpaid carers, including raising the level and eligibility criteria for the benefit. We want systems to be modernised and urgent action from DWP to cap and prevent large overpayment debts for carers.
Signed. One of my neighbours is a carer who lives in terror of the DWP finding out she sells some craft type trinkets on Etsy to get enough money to actually pay the bills. Carers do a grindingly difficult job for a wretchedly small amount of money, they need support not threats and punishment. The inadequate benefits they receive should be a baseline, not a limit.
I do at least 20 hours a week as does Mrs Flatlander. She finds it difficult to combine with her self employment not least because it is pretty draining and she doesn't feel like sitting down at a desk afterwards. If she had to do a full week there's no way she'd get anything else done.
The amount is derisory in what it is supposed to cover but on the other hand I also find it a bit odd that the state "pays" people to look after their own family.
It is one of the reasons I'd go full UBI and abolish all the demeaning means testing, claim applications and withdrawal rate nonsense.
The criteria are tough, including spending 35 hours a week on the role, which pretty much prevents full time normal employment, but do permit £150 worth of part-time or casual employment:
Am I eligible for Carer's Allowance? You could be eligible if you:
spend at least 35 hours a week caring for someone who's ill or has a disability (whether you live with them or not) care for someone who receives the higher-rate or middle-rate care component of Disability Living Allowance, either rate of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) daily living component, any rate of Attendance Allowance, or another relevant benefit don't earn more than £151 a week (after deductions) aren't in full-time education.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
Yes, and the American government will not be happy if we do try to tax Apple or Amazon for business done here, as President Trump intimated. On ownership, the United States uses spurious national security grounds to defend its own companies. We should do likewise. Instead, not only is everything up for sale, but we also pay the robber barons. We are proud of our government's digital infrastructure but it is all American-hosted. Our utilities are owned by foreigners, and often foreign governments to whom Jeremy Hunt writes regular subsidy cheques. We posted just a day or two back that Darktrace was the 20th major British firm sold this year, and April's not out yet.
15 seconds of the entire grid is something like 125 MWh, if you use 30GW as total grid demand. So it's more likely to be providing around 10MW for twelve hours or so.
We'd never need to power the entire grid from batteries, because we'd always have some nuclear, some hydro, even some wind, so it's a bit silly to measure it in those terms.
Britain estimates 450,000 Russian troops killed or wounded - Britain estimates that 450,000 Russian military personnel have been killed or wounded and over 10,000 Russian armoured vehicles have been destroyed in Ukraine.
From Russia's perspective (on the Eastern front) WW2 levels of madness.
That's the big question: will Russia's experience be WW1 (utterly lost and regime changed), or WW2 (won at drastic cost)?
In both cases, and now, they are fighting by throwing incredible numbers of people at the battle. But in WW2, they had vast numbers of other nations fighting as well - most notably, Ukrainians.
Russian demographics were bad before they lost so many young men. Now it is becoming an unfolding catastrophe. The only thing they can cling onto is Donald Trump, and that is a pretty shoogly peg to hang your entire geopolitical strategy on.
The idea that they could now launch any successful attack on NATO anytime soon has fallen apart, and Russian soft power has collapsed around the world. Of course none of this stops Putin from being dangerous, but on current trajectories, victory seems a far distant prospect for the increasingly primitive Russian military machine.
The F-16s, ATACMS and lots more ammunition are all coming soon, and the respite this gives the ZSU could put Russia under serious pressure within quite a short period. If there is no prospect of the Trump/GOP coming to Putin´s rescue, a lot of people in and around the Kremlin are going to start to ask difficult questions. As long as NATO stays united and the USA stays onside, the chances of a Russian victory fade very rapidly.
I hate to say it, but comparatively Russian losses are anything but "vast".
In Putin's war on Ukraine we have 460k Russian casualties on Ukraine figures which are generally thought of as reliable (aiui including killed, prisoners, 'wounded so as not to return to battle') in 2 years 2 months. https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1784080858145505328
Britain estimates 450,000 Russian troops killed or wounded - Britain estimates that 450,000 Russian military personnel have been killed or wounded and over 10,000 Russian armoured vehicles have been destroyed in Ukraine.
From Russia's perspective (on the Eastern front) WW2 levels of madness.
That's the big question: will Russia's experience be WW1 (utterly lost and regime changed), or WW2 (won at drastic cost)?
In both cases, and now, they are fighting by throwing incredible numbers of people at the battle. But in WW2, they had vast numbers of other nations fighting as well - most notably, Ukrainians.
And American equipment.
Recently I've been watching some YouTube videos on this. AIUI, the current Russian view (shared by many historians) is that western aid to Russia had little effect on the war with Germany - they were going to win anyway. The majority of aid from the west came *after* the Battle of Kursk, as an example. But Stalin certainly did not seem to think so at the time, or for a while after the war was won.
In the end it's impossible to know, but i think I'm safe to say one thing: Russia *may* have won without that aid, but they would have lost millions more men, and had their economy wrecked even more, if they had not received it.
There was a lot of fighting to do after Kursk, and mobile offensives require lots of trucks.
US aid was particularly in things like aviation fuel, tyres, communications equipment and food rather than weapons.
The destruction and depletion of Russias heavy equipment and specialist troops is somewhat balanced by battle experience and familiarity with new ways of fighting. Overall though the Russian Army is a significantly less formidable force, and both Russian Navy and Airforce unable to control even the Ukranian waters and air.
While our own forces are not in great shape, the threat is substantially less too. An army that takes 6 months and tens of thousands of casualties taking a colliery in the Donbas is not really capable of getting to the Vistula let alone the Rhine, and they know it.
That *assumes* that Putin will fight the same way, particularly if he wins. The physical fighting in Ukraine is just one aspect of this war; another is the 'political' war that is going on, with Russia interfering politically in many nations. We saw it do this in Ukraine pre-2014; in the USA now.
If Russia 'win', this will increase manyfold. Pro-Russian politicians in European countries will say that their countries need to shift from west to east, either to avoid a Russian punishment beating, or because the west cannot protect them. Then Russia will slowly subvert the politics, and society more. Troops garrisoned, etc, etc. Just as we saw post-1945.
Meanwhile, western appeasers and pro-Russian shits (the two groups being remarkably coincident) will shrug and suggest that perhaps those countries moving away from independence into the Russia sphere - a new USSR - is unavoidable and regretfully the 'best' thing.
15 seconds of the entire grid is something like 125 MWh, if you use 30GW as total grid demand. So it's more likely to be providing around 10MW for twelve hours or so.
We'd never need to power the entire grid from batteries, because we'd always have some nuclear, some hydro, even some wind, so it's a bit silly to measure it in those terms.
What is Jeremy Hunt's game in the Bank of England reportedly 'selling at a loss'? Is he making the country take a hit artificially to make it seem that national debt is being reduced responsibly?
The former chancellor said quantitative easing, under which the Bank of England created £895bn of money to buy bonds, “was a necessary policy to get us out of the financial crash, and contributed to the fastest recovery of any G7 economy”.
He added that it was “not my responsibility” to oversee the present status of the scheme, which is costing the Exchequer tens of billions of pounds because of an agreement with the Bank that losses should be borne by the taxpayer.
The policy began in the financial crisis, holding down borrowing costs for the government, injecting liquidity into financial markets and, initially, making a profit for the Bank.
In 2012 Osborne transferred profits from the scheme to the Treasury, lowering the Exchequer’s borrowing requirements – but agreeing, as part of this deal, to also bear the weight of any losses in future.
However, higher interest rates and lower bond values mean the Bank is now losing money on the scheme.
As a result, in the past year the Treasury has transferred £44bn to the Bank to cover the losses. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) expects an overall net cost to the public purse of more than £100bn.
The Bank sells bonds to investors. They pay with cash. The Bank cancels the cash and the money supply shrinks. This puts downward pressure on inflation
(There is no fiscal impact - originally these bonds were bought with artificially created money - ie by inflating the money supply. All the fiscal transfers from the Treasury are an accounting adjustment that are adjusted out on the consolidation of the Bank’s accounts with the national accounts. Think of it like an intragroup transfer)
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
You’ve only just realised?
Economically, the UK has run itself as a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary since at least the 90s. Vast amounts of economic rent disappear into US hands. Half of the Premiership is owned by US interests. And so on. Each year the balance of trade remorselessly delivers more British wealth into foreign, chiefly U.S., hands. The FTSE is now a laughing stock. Nobody wants to list there anymore.
Leon’s late-life discovery and disparagement of the kouign-aman proves once again that the so called “Jay Rayner of Place” is no Jay Rayner, and doesn’t seem to know many Places.
Britain estimates 450,000 Russian troops killed or wounded - Britain estimates that 450,000 Russian military personnel have been killed or wounded and over 10,000 Russian armoured vehicles have been destroyed in Ukraine.
From Russia's perspective (on the Eastern front) WW2 levels of madness.
That's the big question: will Russia's experience be WW1 (utterly lost and regime changed), or WW2 (won at drastic cost)?
In both cases, and now, they are fighting by throwing incredible numbers of people at the battle. But in WW2, they had vast numbers of other nations fighting as well - most notably, Ukrainians.
Russian demographics were bad before they lost so many young men. Now it is becoming an unfolding catastrophe. The only thing they can cling onto is Donald Trump, and that is a pretty shoogly peg to hang your entire geopolitical strategy on.
The idea that they could now launch any successful attack on NATO anytime soon has fallen apart, and Russian soft power has collapsed around the world. Of course none of this stops Putin from being dangerous, but on current trajectories, victory seems a far distant prospect for the increasingly primitive Russian military machine.
The F-16s, ATACMS and lots more ammunition are all coming soon, and the respite this gives the ZSU could put Russia under serious pressure within quite a short period. If there is no prospect of the Trump/GOP coming to Putin´s rescue, a lot of people in and around the Kremlin are going to start to ask difficult questions. As long as NATO stays united and the USA stays onside, the chances of a Russian victory fade very rapidly.
I hate to say it, but comparatively Russian losses are anything but "vast".
In Putin's war on Ukraine we have 460k Russian casualties on Ukraine figures which are generally thought of as reliable (aiui including killed, prisoners, 'wounded so as not to return to battle') in 2 years 2 months. https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1784080858145505328
The population of the Soviet Union was 170m in 1939, and Russia was 145m in 2020.
Of course, demographics are different. I agree with your view, though.
Russia has fallen off a demographic cliff, since the 90s. The population is heavily biased to the elderly.
The days of having soldiers to burn are long gone.
And in WW2, the vast majority of Russia's population was agricultural. They had vast numbers of young men who they could send to the front - as long as they did not mind the rest starving. Which as recent events had shown, they did not. And was avoided to a certain extent anyway by lend-lease food.
Nowadays, they have only 6% working in agriculture. Two-thirds in services, and the rest in industry. Those two sectors are vital for modern economies, with skills that can take years to learn. Russia simply does not have the same pool of young, disposable men to send to the front - at least without further strangling their economy.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
You’ve only just realised?
Economically, the UK has run itself as a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary since at least the 90s. Vast amounts of economic rent disappear into US hands. Half of the Premiership is owned by US interests. And so on. Each year the balance of trade remorselessly delivers more British wealth into foreign, chiefly U.S., hands. The FTSE is now a laughing stock. Nobody wants to list there anymore.
If what was sold was sold at a fair price and the money returned to the UK economy as extra investment elsewhere that wouldn't be so bad.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be what happens.
There are several inter-related issues, but one is that British institutional investors refuse to invest in British business to a degree seemingly unparalleled in a modern economy.
Surely the humane thing would be to hold both elections on the same day. That way we can give the useless corrupt incompetent government a good kicking. And the same again north/south of the wall.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
Yes, and the American government will not be happy if we do try to tax Apple or Amazon for business done here, as President Trump intimated. On ownership, the United States uses spurious national security grounds to defend its own companies. We should do likewise. Instead, not only is everything up for sale, but we also pay the robber barons. We are proud of our government's digital infrastructure but it is all American-hosted. Our utilities are owned by foreigners, and often foreign governments to whom Jeremy Hunt writes regular subsidy cheques. We posted just a day or two back that Darktrace was the 20th major British firm sold this year, and April's not out yet.
It's a gravy train. As the podcast reveals, all recent PMs worked for US corporates, before and after their tenures. Starmer's lot are no different. The much-vaunted 'NHS reform' that is inexplicably being touted by Labour will be politicans selling it off to US corporates and getting rich in so doing.
Some time ago I suggested a new app 'Populi' - allowing private individuals to donate a pound to a politician of their choice for specific actions taken by that politician. I feel that's what's needed. A grassroots movement that can prevent politicians getting (literal) dollar signs and contributing to the great British car-boot sale.
Donald Trump’s aides have drawn up secret plans to oust the chairman of the Federal Reserve and allow the president to set interest rates, according to reports.
Allies are said to have drawn up a range of proposals for the way monetary policy could be run in a second Trump administration, including rolling back the independence of the central bank, which has been critical to the functioning of the economy and financial system in recent decades.
Supporters of the Republican candidate have compiled a 10-page document with a new vision for the running of the central bank and monetary policy, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Telegraph
That would be quite a good policy.
Surely only if coupled with the appointment of Liz Truss as US Treasury Secretary?
Surely the humane thing would be to hold both elections on the same day. That way we can give the useless corrupt incompetent government a good kicking. And the same again north/south of the wall.
He should cut and run - the Tories need a new leader for the GE, and the country needs an actual alternative to Starmer, not a Starmer tribute act.
Letter to the mayor from Adrian "my door is open" Mole:
"Dear First Minister,
The Bute House Agreement is over; Scotland deserves and demands a re-set.
I am open to talking to anyone across this chamber who will prioritise progress on what we were elected to deliver for our constituents and Scotland.
Independence for Scotland, protecting the dignity, safety and rights of women and children, and providing a competent government for our people and businesses across Scotland remains my priorities.
My door is open to discussing the progress of my proposed Scottish Parliament Powers Referendum Bill.
The opportunity to write a new chapter for Scotland is in our hands.
Yours sincerely,
Ash Regan, MSP Edinburgh Eastern.”
She seems completely out of her depth. This is assuming that "re-set" isn't an innuendo intended to connote "reset", but I doubt it is, given the Molian character of the rest of the text.
There are several inter-related issues, but one is that British institutional investors refuse to invest in British business to a degree seemingly unparalleled in a modern economy.
As long as the UK government insists on kicking the UK economy in the nuts my pension will remain invested elsewhere. Blaming UK investors for UK plc under-performance is a bit rich: UK plc underperforms because a) UK management is appalling and b) the UK government persistently refuses to invest in national UK infrastructure at every level.
The UK government apparently doesn’t believe in the future of the UK economy enough to actually invest in infrastructure anywhere except London (and even then the Treasury had to be dragged kicking & screaming), so why should anyone else?
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
Pillar One will ensure a fairer distribution of profits and taxing rights among countries with respect to the largest MNEs, including digital companies. It would re-allocate some taxing rights over MNEs from their home countries to the markets where they have business activities and earn profits, regardless of whether firms there have a physical presence there. Under Pillar One, taxing rights on more than USD 125 billion of profit are expected to be reallocated to market jurisdictions each year.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
Yes, and the American government will not be happy if we do try to tax Apple or Amazon for business done here, as President Trump intimated. On ownership, the United States uses spurious national security grounds to defend its own companies. We should do likewise. Instead, not only is everything up for sale, but we also pay the robber barons. We are proud of our government's digital infrastructure but it is all American-hosted. Our utilities are owned by foreigners, and often foreign governments to whom Jeremy Hunt writes regular subsidy cheques. We posted just a day or two back that Darktrace was the 20th major British firm sold this year, and April's not out yet.
It's a gravy train. As the podcast reveals, all recent PMs worked for US corporates, before and after their tenures. Starmer's lot are no different. The much-vaunted 'NHS reform' that is inexplicably being touted by Labour will be politicans selling it off to US corporates and getting rich in so doing.
Some time ago I suggested a new app 'Populi' - allowing private individuals to donate a pound to a politician of their choice for specific actions taken by that politician. I feel that's what's needed. A grassroots movement that can prevent politicians getting (literal) dollar signs and contributing to the great British car-boot sale.
The Sun would encourage its readers to denote their £1 to whoever had the biggest tits. A specific action might be [Enough. Ed.]
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
You’ve only just realised?
Economically, the UK has run itself as a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary since at least the 90s. Vast amounts of economic rent disappear into US hands. Half of the Premiership is owned by US interests. And so on. Each year the balance of trade remorselessly delivers more British wealth into foreign, chiefly U.S., hands. The FTSE is now a laughing stock. Nobody wants to list there anymore.
Not at all, I've been saying the same things here for years, but it's handy to have it crystalised here. Also, my objections to US dominance are often on matters of political influence, and they are usually as popular as a cup of cold sick here, because they are perceived as an attack on 'PB morale'. This is the other side of that coin, and is presented cogently by three men with no track record of antipathy to the US.
There are several inter-related issues, but one is that British institutional investors refuse to invest in British business to a degree seemingly unparalleled in a modern economy.
As long as the UK government insists on kicking the UK economy in the nuts my pension will remain invested elsewhere. Blaming UK investors for UK plc under-performance is a bit rich: UK plc underperforms because a) UK management is appalling and b) the UK government persistently refuses to invest in national UK infrastructure at every level.
The UK government apparently doesn’t believe in the future of the UK economy enough to actually invest in infrastructure anywhere except London (and even then the Treasury had to be dragged kicking & screaming), so why should anyone else?
I agree that the UK government - raddled for years with Treasury brain - adds insult to injury by refusing to invest in the British economy itself.
That’s definitely one of the reasons why British investors (reductively, pension funds) won’t invest in British stocks. But I don’t think it’s the only reason.
By the way, why do you think British management is poor? This seems to be accepted as one of the issues behind poor productivity, but I haven’t seen a good reason cited.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
Yes, and the American government will not be happy if we do try to tax Apple or Amazon for business done here, as President Trump intimated. On ownership, the United States uses spurious national security grounds to defend its own companies. We should do likewise. Instead, not only is everything up for sale, but we also pay the robber barons. We are proud of our government's digital infrastructure but it is all American-hosted. Our utilities are owned by foreigners, and often foreign governments to whom Jeremy Hunt writes regular subsidy cheques. We posted just a day or two back that Darktrace was the 20th major British firm sold this year, and April's not out yet.
It's a gravy train. As the podcast reveals, all recent PMs worked for US corporates, before and after their tenures. Starmer's lot are no different. The much-vaunted 'NHS reform' that is inexplicably being touted by Labour will be politicans selling it off to US corporates and getting rich in so doing.
Some time ago I suggested a new app 'Populi' - allowing private individuals to donate a pound to a politician of their choice for specific actions taken by that politician. I feel that's what's needed. A grassroots movement that can prevent politicians getting (literal) dollar signs and contributing to the great British car-boot sale.
The Sun would encourage its readers to denote their £1 to whoever had the biggest tits. A specific action might be [Enough. Ed.]
The app would be have an api link to 'they work for you' or similar, so you can donate someone a pound for voting against (or for) something, or making some other political intervention. You could give a pound to a politician for having big tits, but that would be your choice. One individual would be limited to a pound a month (or similar) per politico.
Britain estimates 450,000 Russian troops killed or wounded - Britain estimates that 450,000 Russian military personnel have been killed or wounded and over 10,000 Russian armoured vehicles have been destroyed in Ukraine.
From Russia's perspective (on the Eastern front) WW2 levels of madness.
That's the big question: will Russia's experience be WW1 (utterly lost and regime changed), or WW2 (won at drastic cost)?
In both cases, and now, they are fighting by throwing incredible numbers of people at the battle. But in WW2, they had vast numbers of other nations fighting as well - most notably, Ukrainians.
Russian demographics were bad before they lost so many young men. Now it is becoming an unfolding catastrophe. The only thing they can cling onto is Donald Trump, and that is a pretty shoogly peg to hang your entire geopolitical strategy on.
The idea that they could now launch any successful attack on NATO anytime soon has fallen apart, and Russian soft power has collapsed around the world. Of course none of this stops Putin from being dangerous, but on current trajectories, victory seems a far distant prospect for the increasingly primitive Russian military machine.
The F-16s, ATACMS and lots more ammunition are all coming soon, and the respite this gives the ZSU could put Russia under serious pressure within quite a short period. If there is no prospect of the Trump/GOP coming to Putin´s rescue, a lot of people in and around the Kremlin are going to start to ask difficult questions. As long as NATO stays united and the USA stays onside, the chances of a Russian victory fade very rapidly.
I'd like to believe it, but I think such pieces now are largely for our own feel-good. And it's interesting that they're written largely as Trump orientated rather than Putin orientated, which is palpably absurd.
Russia has huge reserves of manpower and plenty of countries still willing to buy its vaat reservoirs of raw materials and minerals: it could go on for a very long time, if it chose to do so.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
Pillar One will ensure a fairer distribution of profits and taxing rights among countries with respect to the largest MNEs, including digital companies. It would re-allocate some taxing rights over MNEs from their home countries to the markets where they have business activities and earn profits, regardless of whether firms there have a physical presence there. Under Pillar One, taxing rights on more than USD 125 billion of profit are expected to be reallocated to market jurisdictions each year.
That's unnecessary; we can tax the turnover of these companies legally now, and should do.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
You’ve only just realised?
Economically, the UK has run itself as a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary since at least the 90s. Vast amounts of economic rent disappear into US hands. Half of the Premiership is owned by US interests. And so on. Each year the balance of trade remorselessly delivers more British wealth into foreign, chiefly U.S., hands. The FTSE is now a laughing stock. Nobody wants to list there anymore.
Not at all, I've been saying the same things here for years, but it's handy to have it crystalised here. Also, my objections to US dominance are often on matters of political influence, and they are usually as popular as a cup of cold sick here, because they are perceived as an attack on 'PB morale'. This is the other side of that coin, and is presented cogently by three men with no track record of antipathy to the US.
Maybe you have, but you’re also a big Truss fan. Yet she would simply exacerbate this problem. Indeed she would refuse to recognise it as a problem.
Letter to the mayor from Adrian "my door is open" Mole:
"Dear First Minister,
The Bute House Agreement is over; Scotland deserves and demands a re-set.
I am open to talking to anyone across this chamber who will prioritise progress on what we were elected to deliver for our constituents and Scotland.
Independence for Scotland, protecting the dignity, safety and rights of women and children, and providing a competent government for our people and businesses across Scotland remains my priorities.
My door is open to discussing the progress of my proposed Scottish Parliament Powers Referendum Bill.
The opportunity to write a new chapter for Scotland is in our hands.
Yours sincerely,
Ash Regan, MSP Edinburgh Eastern.”
She seems completely out of her depth. This is assuming that "re-set" isn't an innuendo intended to connote "reset", but I doubt it is, given the Molian character of the rest of the text.
Is it bad (or good) that I now think in centimetres for height (I'm trying to shake off imperial in almost everything now - thinking in kg for weight....)?
It's bad. It's unpatriotic, collaborationist and, essentially, a form of treason.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
Pillar One will ensure a fairer distribution of profits and taxing rights among countries with respect to the largest MNEs, including digital companies. It would re-allocate some taxing rights over MNEs from their home countries to the markets where they have business activities and earn profits, regardless of whether firms there have a physical presence there. Under Pillar One, taxing rights on more than USD 125 billion of profit are expected to be reallocated to market jurisdictions each year.
Pillar one ain’t happening.
We’ll see a proliferation of DSTs and equivalent though. Nightmare.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
You’ve only just realised?
Economically, the UK has run itself as a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary since at least the 90s. Vast amounts of economic rent disappear into US hands. Half of the Premiership is owned by US interests. And so on. Each year the balance of trade remorselessly delivers more British wealth into foreign, chiefly U.S., hands. The FTSE is now a laughing stock. Nobody wants to list there anymore.
If what was sold was sold at a fair price and the money returned to the UK economy as extra investment elsewhere that wouldn't be so bad.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be what happens.
The second bit is what bothers me. It's really not obvious where the cash generated by the UK selling stuff off has gone, in the sense of "that thing there X, it was paid for by privatising Y." And can't shake the fear that it funded sustainably low taxes which in turn enabled house price inflation.
And that road has run out of tarmac, and we can't afford to fix what's there.
Letter to the mayor from Adrian "my door is open" Mole:
"Dear First Minister,
The Bute House Agreement is over; Scotland deserves and demands a re-set.
I am open to talking to anyone across this chamber who will prioritise progress on what we were elected to deliver for our constituents and Scotland.
Independence for Scotland, protecting the dignity, safety and rights of women and children, and providing a competent government for our people and businesses across Scotland remains my priorities.
My door is open to discussing the progress of my proposed Scottish Parliament Powers Referendum Bill.
The opportunity to write a new chapter for Scotland is in our hands.
Yours sincerely,
Ash Regan, MSP Edinburgh Eastern.”
She seems completely out of her depth. This is assuming that "re-set" isn't an innuendo intended to connote "reset", but I doubt it is, given the Molian character of the rest of the text.
I think it's unlikely that Yousaf wants to have a discussion with her door.
The USA invests 2% of its income in defence, and by doing so, it maintains open global trade routes. The UK relies on global trade more than continental Europeans, so strategically the two nations are intertwined more than with France.
Apparently both of the following things are bad: British investors invest overseas, and overseas investors invest in Britain. Nobody has explained why this two-way flow of funds is worse than having domestic investors own only domestic businesses.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
You’ve only just realised?
Economically, the UK has run itself as a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary since at least the 90s. Vast amounts of economic rent disappear into US hands. Half of the Premiership is owned by US interests. And so on. Each year the balance of trade remorselessly delivers more British wealth into foreign, chiefly U.S., hands. The FTSE is now a laughing stock. Nobody wants to list there anymore.
Not at all, I've been saying the same things here for years, but it's handy to have it crystalised here. Also, my objections to US dominance are often on matters of political influence, and they are usually as popular as a cup of cold sick here, because they are perceived as an attack on 'PB morale'. This is the other side of that coin, and is presented cogently by three men with no track record of antipathy to the US.
Maybe you have, but you’re also a big Truss fan. Yet she would simply exacerbate this problem. Indeed she would refuse to recognise it as a problem.
I disagree. A lot of Truss's reforms were aimed at helping UK companies to grow faster, and producing more food and particularly energy at home, which would have displaced imports and improved the balance of payments.
She is a doctinaire free marketeer, but I disagreed with the podcast contributor here who blamed the takeover issue on UK power-brokers being addicted to Hayek. They certainly don't show much of their free market predelictions in any other decisions they make. I think it's simple US-subservience. And whatever else Truss was or wasn't, she was actually the least US-subservient PM we've had, probably since Thatcher.
*Edit - it should also go without saying that I don't swallow the gospel of Truss wholesale - I tend to defend her a lot here because of the degree to which I feel she's attacked unfairly.
Britain estimates 450,000 Russian troops killed or wounded - Britain estimates that 450,000 Russian military personnel have been killed or wounded and over 10,000 Russian armoured vehicles have been destroyed in Ukraine.
From Russia's perspective (on the Eastern front) WW2 levels of madness.
That's the big question: will Russia's experience be WW1 (utterly lost and regime changed), or WW2 (won at drastic cost)?
In both cases, and now, they are fighting by throwing incredible numbers of people at the battle. But in WW2, they had vast numbers of other nations fighting as well - most notably, Ukrainians.
Russian demographics were bad before they lost so many young men. Now it is becoming an unfolding catastrophe. The only thing they can cling onto is Donald Trump, and that is a pretty shoogly peg to hang your entire geopolitical strategy on.
The idea that they could now launch any successful attack on NATO anytime soon has fallen apart, and Russian soft power has collapsed around the world. Of course none of this stops Putin from being dangerous, but on current trajectories, victory seems a far distant prospect for the increasingly primitive Russian military machine.
The F-16s, ATACMS and lots more ammunition are all coming soon, and the respite this gives the ZSU could put Russia under serious pressure within quite a short period. If there is no prospect of the Trump/GOP coming to Putin´s rescue, a lot of people in and around the Kremlin are going to start to ask difficult questions. As long as NATO stays united and the USA stays onside, the chances of a Russian victory fade very rapidly.
I'd like to believe it, but I think such pieces now are largely for our own feel-good. And it's interesting that they're written largely as Trump orientated rather than Putin orientated, which is palpably absurd.
Russia has huge reserves of manpower and plenty of countries still willing to buy its vaat reservoirs of raw materials and minerals: it could go on for a very long time, if it chose to do so.
If you look at the rate at which the stockpiles artillery and armoured vehicles are vanishing from the Russian storage bases… yes, they stepped up the refurbishment programs, but primary production is still low.
It defends the harbour of Brest. It is so called because the Spaniards tried to attack here - against temporarily-Protestant France. Remarkably the English sent men to successfully help the French
How many times do we have to save France before they show some gratitude??
The amount is derisory in what it is supposed to cover but on the other hand I also find it a bit odd that the state "pays" people to look after their own family.
They only pay if you are caring for someone at least 35 hours per week - enough that you can't possibly also hold down a full-time job. On a per-hour basis carers get paid substantially less than the minimum wage, particularly when most full-time carers are going to be doing more than 35 hours, and that's before deductions made by the DWP if the carer has anything but negligible savings.
The current system traps people in a terrible situation. What the government pays them is not enough to live on, but the DWP will punish them quite harshly if they find the time and energy to do more than trivial part-time work on top of caring.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
We would rather sell the family silver than live within our means.
If its a choice of having foreign ownership of British business or going without a foreign holiday most people will chose to have the foreign holiday.
Why should that be a choice? As a nation we are utterly unique in our wholesale failure to understand the link between making and selling stuff to the world, and having money. We detest the idea of 'buying British' as a whiffy Farage-esque notion, in a way that would baffle a French or German person.
There are several inter-related issues, but one is that British institutional investors refuse to invest in British business to a degree seemingly unparalleled in a modern economy.
As long as the UK government insists on kicking the UK economy in the nuts my pension will remain invested elsewhere. Blaming UK investors for UK plc under-performance is a bit rich: UK plc underperforms because a) UK management is appalling and b) the UK government persistently refuses to invest in national UK infrastructure at every level.
The UK government apparently doesn’t believe in the future of the UK economy enough to actually invest in infrastructure anywhere except London (and even then the Treasury had to be dragged kicking & screaming), so why should anyone else?
I agree that the UK government - raddled for years with Treasury brain - adds insult to injury by refusing to invest in the British economy itself.
That’s definitely one of the reasons why British investors (reductively, pension funds) won’t invest in British stocks. But I don’t think it’s the only reason.
By the way, why do you think British management is poor? This seems to be accepted as one of the issues behind poor productivity, but I haven’t seen a good reason cited.
This might just be another name for the question, but what is it about British conditions that doesn't incentivise better management?
One (predictable) guess is the rentier economy we currently have. Why bother going to the trouble of being a good manager when you can make so much so easily by buying a house and renting it out?
I wonder also if the steepness of the UK's reward gradient doesn't help. To get the mega rewards, you need to be good and lucky; being good isn't enough. Perhaps something less vertiginous is better for rewarding mass-market good.
(And perhaps linked to those two, not enough people who are both the owners and the managers.)
"Also in the campaign period at least 1 flight will take off for Rwanda, perhaps more with one on eve of polling. ....... The Rwanda flights will return Ref voters back to the Conservatives. You can say recent polling on Rwanda doesn’t suggest the Rwanda flights will generate a stampede of Ref back to Con, and I will laugh at you because that hypothetical polling is a poor predictive measure for how humans radically change their views once elections are called and Rwanda flights are happening."
I can see the headline: 50 Flown to Rwanda, 500 more come over the Channel
Which rather suggests that the the government don’t actually want ANY flights to take off. They want to replicate the anger around Brexit with the anger that the Rwanda plan is being thwarted by the blob, and used that as Johnson used Brexit. So arguably if you want the Tories to lose, and you are involved in refugee claims in court, don’t block the flights… As you have outlined, there will be far more coming than going.
Though some people (52%) actually thought that Brexit was a good idea, no one, well almost no one, thinks Rwanda is other than a very expensive gimmick.
There's a real fear it might work. Hence all the attacks on it by the UN, third sector and refugee charities. They are worried it will set a precedent.
This explains their confused attack lines: they seamlessly switch from its terrible to it will make no difference at all and back again.
Some of us simply find it an extraordinarily badly planned project with no realistic scope of working beyond a few hundred migrants a year. Horrendously expensive for the results.
It's Groundnut Scheme level thinking.
Once upon a time, Tories supported (a) prudence in public spending (b) the rule of law (UK) (c) the rule of law (international).
Nah, it's Guardianista virtue-signalling circle-jerk masturbation for social and professional acceptance reasons.
We all know this. So do you.
The Conservatives are languishing in the polls and to work out why, I think it’s valuable to examine Casino Royale’s post here.
First, CR argues by assertion, ‘it’s right because I say it’s right’. This echoes the Conservative government passing an act to say Rwanda is safe, irrespective of the facts.
Secondly, CR tries to link the debate to the culture wars by throwing in “virtue-signalling”. The Tories have repeatedly tried the same, but it’s not proven popular with the voters.
Thirdly, there’s no attempt at polite discourse here. It’s just straight to the insults, ‘owning the libs’. This is also failing to be attractive to the electorate.
What a lot of rubbish. I've said that (a) the visceral reaction to it is because the UN, charities and refugees themselves fear it might be effective and that (b) that's because they favour open borders and have a strange sense of cultural relativism.
Their real worry is that they know this offer might prove very popular with the voters, if it worked, and hence all the moves to strangle it at birth.
If you think the same tough choices don't await SKS in a few months time then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Can we pick this apart a little? "The UN, charities and refugees themselves fear it might be effective". Which bit of the UN, which charities etc? The UN very much wants to STOP mass refugee events and the crises they create. You suggest that they favour "open borders" the context of millions fleeing war and poverty and then ending up stuck in giant refugee camps being tended to by the UN. You think the UN actually want to be on the hook feeding millions of refugees? really?
The key to this is "if it worked" and as all the experts in every related field have pointed out - it can't work because structurally its bonkers.
You have linked the "deport them to Rwanda" policy as being opposed by a globalist cabal - the UN, charities, refugees - who apparently want refugees. So is their fear that every refugees globally might end up sent to Rwanda?
Lets just look at the asylum seekers in the UK. There's c. 100,000 already here, with more arriving every day in sizeable numbers. So call it 120,000 on the basis that "Rwanda works" and people stop arriving.
Rwanda can't take 120,000 We can't process 120,000 through the courts We can't intern 120,000 prior to them going to court We can't process the 120,000's applications due to a lack of money and resources in the Home Office We can't keep track of 120,000 after booking their arrival. We lose them.
So the rather basic problem with you/Leon endlessly championing the policy is that the policy was written in crayon to appeal to morons. You two aren't morons, yet suck it up like you are.
Why?
I can't remember who coined the term 'simplism', or applied it to political thinking, but there's a lot of it about.
Basically, any argument that boils down to They Should Just... is simplism. Especially when you don't specify who They are. Brexit ended up being about simplism- They Should Just give us the benefits of EU membership that we valued without the messy bits we disliked. They Should Just quarantine the vulnerable during the pandemic was another. Or, on the left, They Should Just get the rich to pay more tax. Or, in this case, They Should Just stop coming over here.
Trouble is, it's rarely as simple as Just Doing This. For taxes, it's totally fair to point out that if you overpluck the goose, it will fly away. That the nice bits about Europe depend on the messy plumbing. That the sausages are tasty but you don't want to see them being made.
I'm not going to blame voters for wanting a simpler world, or for voting for it. But it's blooming irresponsible for opinion formers or wannabe leaders to pretend they can deliver one.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
In my experience those who work in the private sector are more likely to see opportunities, whereas those in the public sector are more likely to see risks. It makes sense, given taking a job in the private sector is inherently riskier, but generally better rewarded.
It is one of the main reasons why I abhor the growth of the role of the state. It tallies with a growth of risk aversion, stagnation and, ironically, the general enshittification (thanks @viewcode) of the common weal.
Lots of those who work for the state will opine about difficulties, or overemphasise the compilications.
Isn't that mostly because they do different things. Put me in charge of making widgets at a better price than my competitors (or distributing or advertising them) I'll take plenty of chances. Put me in charge of the NHS cancer budget, prison reform, or defence procurement and I'll end up more cautious, rightly so imo.
Interesting therefore that when private sector principles are thrown out of the window and private sector operators are provided with the powers of the state and significant leeway, in times of war or pestilence (COVID, for example), huge strides seem to be made.....
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
You’ve only just realised?
Economically, the UK has run itself as a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary since at least the 90s. Vast amounts of economic rent disappear into US hands. Half of the Premiership is owned by US interests. And so on. Each year the balance of trade remorselessly delivers more British wealth into foreign, chiefly U.S., hands. The FTSE is now a laughing stock. Nobody wants to list there anymore.
Not at all, I've been saying the same things here for years, but it's handy to have it crystalised here. Also, my objections to US dominance are often on matters of political influence, and they are usually as popular as a cup of cold sick here, because they are perceived as an attack on 'PB morale'. This is the other side of that coin, and is presented cogently by three men with no track record of antipathy to the US.
Maybe you have, but you’re also a big Truss fan. Yet she would simply exacerbate this problem. Indeed she would refuse to recognise it as a problem.
I'm genuinely trying to think if there's anything more niche than being a big fan of Liz Truss. It's like someone stating they're a big fan of the Beverly Sisters. You can see that, logically, it might be possible, but the how and the why are just completely disorientating.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
UK worried for years about the destruction of the nation state, but believed that leaving the EU would cure that. Now we have left, we are discovering that it was only the foothills.
Leaving the EU has made it worse, since it's depressed the value of UK assets, making them more attractive targets, and deprived UK firms of a large domestic market, making it harder for them to grow and meaning that they are much more likely to be swallowed up by large US firms than the other way round. I think the UK economy is an awkward size - too small to have a large competitive home market with a diversified set of firms, but too large to be nimble and specialise in a few niche areas. I do wonder sometimes if we shouldn't consider becoming part of the US, if we're unwilling to be part of the EU. On our own I suspect we are going to grow ever poorer and more irrelevant to the global economy. I spent a week in DC and NYC last week attending the IMF's Spring Meetings and ancillary events and the only time the UK was mentioned was a few derisory comments about the Truss episode.
Trouble is I’m wearing a stupid puffer gilet. Which idiot invented this things? Not only do I look like a wanker hedge funding dick, if I take it off it’s too light to swing casually over my back, hooked on my finger, like a proper jacket
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
UK worried for years about the destruction of the nation state, but believed that leaving the EU would cure that. Now we have left, we are discovering that it was only the foothills.
Leaving the EU has made it worse, since it's depressed the value of UK assets, making them more attractive targets, and deprived UK firms of a large domestic market, making it harder for them to grow and meaning that they are much more likely to be swallowed up by large US firms than the other way round. I think the UK economy is an awkward size - too small to have a large competitive home market with a diversified set of firms, but too large to be nimble and specialise in a few niche areas. I do wonder sometimes if we shouldn't consider becoming part of the US, if we're unwilling to be part of the EU. On our own I suspect we are going to grow ever poorer and more irrelevant to the global economy. I spent a week in DC and NYC last week attending the IMF's Spring Meetings and ancillary events and the only time the UK was mentioned was a few derisory comments about the Truss episode.
Err, we're the sixth biggest economy in the world. I think that is a pretty large domestic market....
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
We would rather sell the family silver than live within our means.
If its a choice of having foreign ownership of British business or going without a foreign holiday most people will chose to have the foreign holiday.
Why should that be a choice? As a nation we are utterly unique in our wholesale failure to understand the link between making and selling stuff to the world, and having money. We detest the idea of 'buying British' as a whiffy Farage-esque notion, in a way that would baffle a French or German person.
Making stuff is something proles in dark satanic mills do.
And so deserve to pay extra taxes.
Proper people aspire to be property owners living off their rental and interest income.
There's likely a thesis on the malign effects that Jane Austen and William Blake have had on current British economy and society.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
UK worried for years about the destruction of the nation state, but believed that leaving the EU would cure that. Now we have left, we are discovering that it was only the foothills.
Leaving the EU has made it worse, since it's depressed the value of UK assets, making them more attractive targets, and deprived UK firms of a large domestic market, making it harder for them to grow and meaning that they are much more likely to be swallowed up by large US firms than the other way round. I think the UK economy is an awkward size - too small to have a large competitive home market with a diversified set of firms, but too large to be nimble and specialise in a few niche areas. I do wonder sometimes if we shouldn't consider becoming part of the US, if we're unwilling to be part of the EU. On our own I suspect we are going to grow ever poorer and more irrelevant to the global economy. I spent a week in DC and NYC last week attending the IMF's Spring Meetings and ancillary events and the only time the UK was mentioned was a few derisory comments about the Truss episode.
Err, we're the sixth biggest economy in the world. I think that is a pretty large domestic market....
Not really. There are essentially three large economies in the world - the US, China and the EU single market (and the last is incomplete, putting Europe at a disadvantage). The UK is what economists class a small open economy.
Trouble is I’m wearing a stupid puffer gilet. Which idiot invented this things? Not only do I look like a wanker hedge funding dick, if I take it off it’s too light to swing casually over my back, hooked on my finger, like a proper jacket
I just have to hold it. FFS
"I toured forgotten Brittany looking like a hedge fund wank dick" is a great title for the piece.
There are several inter-related issues, but one is that British institutional investors refuse to invest in British business to a degree seemingly unparalleled in a modern economy.
As long as the UK government insists on kicking the UK economy in the nuts my pension will remain invested elsewhere. Blaming UK investors for UK plc under-performance is a bit rich: UK plc underperforms because a) UK management is appalling and b) the UK government persistently refuses to invest in national UK infrastructure at every level.
The UK government apparently doesn’t believe in the future of the UK economy enough to actually invest in infrastructure anywhere except London (and even then the Treasury had to be dragged kicking & screaming), so why should anyone else?
I agree that the UK government - raddled for years with Treasury brain - adds insult to injury by refusing to invest in the British economy itself.
That’s definitely one of the reasons why British investors (reductively, pension funds) won’t invest in British stocks. But I don’t think it’s the only reason.
By the way, why do you think British management is poor? This seems to be accepted as one of the issues behind poor productivity, but I haven’t seen a good reason cited.
This might just be another name for the question, but what is it about British conditions that doesn't incentivise better management?
One (predictable) guess is the rentier economy we currently have. Why bother going to the trouble of being a good manager when you can make so much so easily by buying a house and renting it out?
I wonder also if the steepness of the UK's reward gradient doesn't help. To get the mega rewards, you need to be good and lucky; being good isn't enough. Perhaps something less vertiginous is better for rewarding mass-market good.
(And perhaps linked to those two, not enough people who are both the owners and the managers.)
Poor management has been a problem in the UK economy since at least the 19th century. One issue is the failure of firms' founders to surrender control to professional managers. Another is small firm size. Another is a low propensity to export - since firms who export tend to become better run. I wonder too whether the City might tend to siphon off talent that in other economies would end up in non financial corporates. And our hierarchical class ridden society perhaps prevents us adopting the flatter organisational structures that seem to work well elsewhere (although perhaps I am making the common mistake of blaming things I don't like here).
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
UK worried for years about the destruction of the nation state, but believed that leaving the EU would cure that. Now we have left, we are discovering that it was only the foothills.
Leaving the EU has made it worse, since it's depressed the value of UK assets, making them more attractive targets, and deprived UK firms of a large domestic market, making it harder for them to grow and meaning that they are much more likely to be swallowed up by large US firms than the other way round. I think the UK economy is an awkward size - too small to have a large competitive home market with a diversified set of firms, but too large to be nimble and specialise in a few niche areas. I do wonder sometimes if we shouldn't consider becoming part of the US, if we're unwilling to be part of the EU. On our own I suspect we are going to grow ever poorer and more irrelevant to the global economy. I spent a week in DC and NYC last week attending the IMF's Spring Meetings and ancillary events and the only time the UK was mentioned was a few derisory comments about the Truss episode.
Err, we're the sixth biggest economy in the world. I think that is a pretty large domestic market....
Not really. There are essentially three large economies in the world - the US, China and the EU single market (and the last is incomplete, putting Europe at a disadvantage). The UK is what economists class a small open economy.
UK is quite unique.
If one looks outside the three (or two-and-a-half) big blocs, it is structurally v different from commodity-led countries (Canada, Australia, NZ), and from the export-led development economies (Korea, Taiwan).
"Also in the campaign period at least 1 flight will take off for Rwanda, perhaps more with one on eve of polling. ....... The Rwanda flights will return Ref voters back to the Conservatives. You can say recent polling on Rwanda doesn’t suggest the Rwanda flights will generate a stampede of Ref back to Con, and I will laugh at you because that hypothetical polling is a poor predictive measure for how humans radically change their views once elections are called and Rwanda flights are happening."
I can see the headline: 50 Flown to Rwanda, 500 more come over the Channel
Which rather suggests that the the government don’t actually want ANY flights to take off. They want to replicate the anger around Brexit with the anger that the Rwanda plan is being thwarted by the blob, and used that as Johnson used Brexit. So arguably if you want the Tories to lose, and you are involved in refugee claims in court, don’t block the flights… As you have outlined, there will be far more coming than going.
Though some people (52%) actually thought that Brexit was a good idea, no one, well almost no one, thinks Rwanda is other than a very expensive gimmick.
There's a real fear it might work. Hence all the attacks on it by the UN, third sector and refugee charities. They are worried it will set a precedent.
This explains their confused attack lines: they seamlessly switch from its terrible to it will make no difference at all and back again.
Some of us simply find it an extraordinarily badly planned project with no realistic scope of working beyond a few hundred migrants a year. Horrendously expensive for the results.
It's Groundnut Scheme level thinking.
Once upon a time, Tories supported (a) prudence in public spending (b) the rule of law (UK) (c) the rule of law (international).
Nah, it's Guardianista virtue-signalling circle-jerk masturbation for social and professional acceptance reasons.
We all know this. So do you.
The Conservatives are languishing in the polls and to work out why, I think it’s valuable to examine Casino Royale’s post here.
First, CR argues by assertion, ‘it’s right because I say it’s right’. This echoes the Conservative government passing an act to say Rwanda is safe, irrespective of the facts.
Secondly, CR tries to link the debate to the culture wars by throwing in “virtue-signalling”. The Tories have repeatedly tried the same, but it’s not proven popular with the voters.
Thirdly, there’s no attempt at polite discourse here. It’s just straight to the insults, ‘owning the libs’. This is also failing to be attractive to the electorate.
What a lot of rubbish. I've said that (a) the visceral reaction to it is because the UN, charities and refugees themselves fear it might be effective and that (b) that's because they favour open borders and have a strange sense of cultural relativism.
Their real worry is that they know this offer might prove very popular with the voters, if it worked, and hence all the moves to strangle it at birth.
If you think the same tough choices don't await SKS in a few months time then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Can we pick this apart a little? "The UN, charities and refugees themselves fear it might be effective". Which bit of the UN, which charities etc? The UN very much wants to STOP mass refugee events and the crises they create. You suggest that they favour "open borders" the context of millions fleeing war and poverty and then ending up stuck in giant refugee camps being tended to by the UN. You think the UN actually want to be on the hook feeding millions of refugees? really?
The key to this is "if it worked" and as all the experts in every related field have pointed out - it can't work because structurally its bonkers.
You have linked the "deport them to Rwanda" policy as being opposed by a globalist cabal - the UN, charities, refugees - who apparently want refugees. So is their fear that every refugees globally might end up sent to Rwanda?
Lets just look at the asylum seekers in the UK. There's c. 100,000 already here, with more arriving every day in sizeable numbers. So call it 120,000 on the basis that "Rwanda works" and people stop arriving.
Rwanda can't take 120,000 We can't process 120,000 through the courts We can't intern 120,000 prior to them going to court We can't process the 120,000's applications due to a lack of money and resources in the Home Office We can't keep track of 120,000 after booking their arrival. We lose them.
So the rather basic problem with you/Leon endlessly championing the policy is that the policy was written in crayon to appeal to morons. You two aren't morons, yet suck it up like you are.
Why?
I can't remember who coined the term 'simplism', or applied it to political thinking, but there's a lot of it about.
Basically, any argument that boils down to They Should Just... is simplism. Especially when you don't specify who They are. Brexit ended up being about simplism- They Should Just give us the benefits of EU membership that we valued without the messy bits we disliked. They Should Just quarantine the vulnerable during the pandemic was another. Or, on the left, They Should Just get the rich to pay more tax. Or, in this case, They Should Just stop coming over here.
Trouble is, it's rarely as simple as Just Doing This. For taxes, it's totally fair to point out that if you overpluck the goose, it will fly away. That the nice bits about Europe depend on the messy plumbing. That the sausages are tasty but you don't want to see them being made.
I'm not going to blame voters for wanting a simpler world, or for voting for it. But it's blooming irresponsible for opinion formers or wannabe leaders to pretend they can deliver one.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
In my experience those who work in the private sector are more likely to see opportunities, whereas those in the public sector are more likely to see risks. It makes sense, given taking a job in the private sector is inherently riskier, but generally better rewarded.
It is one of the main reasons why I abhor the growth of the role of the state. It tallies with a growth of risk aversion, stagnation and, ironically, the general enshittification (thanks @viewcode) of the common weal.
Lots of those who work for the state will opine about difficulties, or overemphasise the compilications.
Isn't that mostly because they do different things. Put me in charge of making widgets at a better price than my competitors (or distributing or advertising them) I'll take plenty of chances. Put me in charge of the NHS cancer budget, prison reform, or defence procurement and I'll end up more cautious, rightly so imo.
Interesting therefore that when private sector principles are thrown out of the window and private sector operators are provided with the powers of the state and significant leeway, in times of war or pestilence (COVID, for example), huge strides seem to be made.....
Covid proved what the British state is still capable of, had it the imagination and willpower.
Haven't they decided they'll probably divert it to Germany instead?
I was wondering about the energy loss from a cable over such a long distance.
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
Letter to the mayor from Adrian "my door is open" Mole:
"Dear First Minister,
The Bute House Agreement is over; Scotland deserves and demands a re-set.
I am open to talking to anyone across this chamber who will prioritise progress on what we were elected to deliver for our constituents and Scotland.
Independence for Scotland, protecting the dignity, safety and rights of women and children, and providing a competent government for our people and businesses across Scotland remains my priorities.
My door is open to discussing the progress of my proposed Scottish Parliament Powers Referendum Bill.
The opportunity to write a new chapter for Scotland is in our hands.
Yours sincerely,
Ash Regan, MSP Edinburgh Eastern.”
She seems completely out of her depth. This is assuming that "re-set" isn't an innuendo intended to connote "reset", but I doubt it is, given the Molian character of the rest of the text.
I think it's unlikely that Yousaf wants to have a discussion with her door.
One of the few chances he'd have to come out on top after a discussion though.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
UK worried for years about the destruction of the nation state, but believed that leaving the EU would cure that. Now we have left, we are discovering that it was only the foothills.
Leaving the EU has made it worse, since it's depressed the value of UK assets, making them more attractive targets, and deprived UK firms of a large domestic market, making it harder for them to grow and meaning that they are much more likely to be swallowed up by large US firms than the other way round. I think the UK economy is an awkward size - too small to have a large competitive home market with a diversified set of firms, but too large to be nimble and specialise in a few niche areas. I do wonder sometimes if we shouldn't consider becoming part of the US, if we're unwilling to be part of the EU. On our own I suspect we are going to grow ever poorer and more irrelevant to the global economy. I spent a week in DC and NYC last week attending the IMF's Spring Meetings and ancillary events and the only time the UK was mentioned was a few derisory comments about the Truss episode.
Err, we're the sixth biggest economy in the world. I think that is a pretty large domestic market....
Not really. There are essentially three large economies in the world - the US, China and the EU single market (and the last is incomplete, putting Europe at a disadvantage). The UK is what economists class a small open economy.
Your economic analysis is that of a 15 year old. South Korea is not dissimilar to us. Birthrate aside it does pretty bloody well. It is also a major wielder of soft power through its mighty creative industries - like us. No one says South Korea MUST join China
Britain is beating a new path. This may well become irrelevant and overwhelmed by the revolution of AI (where we are, btw, doing better than the absurd EU) but there is no reason we must fail because “we are the wrong size”. It’s asinine
We have Brexited. It’s now up to us for good or ill. That’s the point of Brexit. What is Brexit? It is Brexit
There are several inter-related issues, but one is that British institutional investors refuse to invest in British business to a degree seemingly unparalleled in a modern economy.
As long as the UK government insists on kicking the UK economy in the nuts my pension will remain invested elsewhere. Blaming UK investors for UK plc under-performance is a bit rich: UK plc underperforms because a) UK management is appalling and b) the UK government persistently refuses to invest in national UK infrastructure at every level.
The UK government apparently doesn’t believe in the future of the UK economy enough to actually invest in infrastructure anywhere except London (and even then the Treasury had to be dragged kicking & screaming), so why should anyone else?
I agree that the UK government - raddled for years with Treasury brain - adds insult to injury by refusing to invest in the British economy itself.
That’s definitely one of the reasons why British investors (reductively, pension funds) won’t invest in British stocks. But I don’t think it’s the only reason.
By the way, why do you think British management is poor? This seems to be accepted as one of the issues behind poor productivity, but I haven’t seen a good reason cited.
This might just be another name for the question, but what is it about British conditions that doesn't incentivise better management?
One (predictable) guess is the rentier economy we currently have. Why bother going to the trouble of being a good manager when you can make so much so easily by buying a house and renting it out?
I wonder also if the steepness of the UK's reward gradient doesn't help. To get the mega rewards, you need to be good and lucky; being good isn't enough. Perhaps something less vertiginous is better for rewarding mass-market good.
(And perhaps linked to those two, not enough people who are both the owners and the managers.)
Poor management has been a problem in the UK economy since at least the 19th century. One issue is the failure of firms' founders to surrender control to professional managers. Another is small firm size. Another is a low propensity to export - since firms who export tend to become better run. I wonder too whether the City might tend to siphon off talent that in other economies would end up in non financial corporates. And our hierarchical class ridden society perhaps prevents us adopting the flatter organisational structures that seem to work well elsewhere (although perhaps I am making the common mistake of blaming things I don't like here).
Are UK organisational structures unduly hierarchical? I don’t believe so. In fact, one of the great appeals of British (or maybe London?) jobs to Europeans was the relative promise of quicker career progression and mobility.
International surveys agree that British management is relatively poorer. But I do wonder whether this actually is a proxy for or somehow masks other institutional issues like access to capital and the dominance of the City (a kind of Dutch disease).
Haven't they decided they'll probably divert it to Germany instead?
I was wondering about the energy loss from a cable over such a long distance.
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
Much depends on the system: HVDC is 'standard' for transmission in the UK. HVDC (direct current) is better for long distances, but less used..
Further to recent PBversations.. While wearing Crocs no less.
Have you read it? Coz I have it on good authority that you cannot comment on something unless you've read it. By someone who, the next day, commented repeatedly on something he admitted to not reading.
(I stick by my position that Ulysses is not worth reading. That tweet just reinforces that view...)
On Topic - Yours truly is NOT surprised at poll findings that the Great British Public regards "short jokes" as unacceptable to some degree. Especially women. Personally concur, though I'm neither a UKer nor a female by any description however (ahem) broad.
That said, reckon it would be best for Rishi Sunak IF he himself took some advantage of his "stature gap". In same way that the late, great Jackie Gleason built his acting career on the ample foundation of HIS excess avoirdupois.
For example in his classic TV show "The Honeymooners", and in his brilliant movie roles in "The Hustler" (as Minnesota Fats) and in "Smokey and the Bandit) (as Sheriff Buford T. Justice).
Further to recent PBversations.. While wearing Crocs no less.
Have you read it? Coz I have it on good authority that you cannot comment on something unless you've read it. By someone who, the next day, commented repeatedly on something he admitted to not reading.
(I stick by my position that Ulysses is not worth reading. That tweet just reinforces that view...)
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
UK worried for years about the destruction of the nation state, but believed that leaving the EU would cure that. Now we have left, we are discovering that it was only the foothills.
Leaving the EU has made it worse, since it's depressed the value of UK assets, making them more attractive targets, and deprived UK firms of a large domestic market, making it harder for them to grow and meaning that they are much more likely to be swallowed up by large US firms than the other way round. I think the UK economy is an awkward size - too small to have a large competitive home market with a diversified set of firms, but too large to be nimble and specialise in a few niche areas. I do wonder sometimes if we shouldn't consider becoming part of the US, if we're unwilling to be part of the EU. On our own I suspect we are going to grow ever poorer and more irrelevant to the global economy. I spent a week in DC and NYC last week attending the IMF's Spring Meetings and ancillary events and the only time the UK was mentioned was a few derisory comments about the Truss episode.
Err, we're the sixth biggest economy in the world. I think that is a pretty large domestic market....
Not really. There are essentially three large economies in the world - the US, China and the EU single market (and the last is incomplete, putting Europe at a disadvantage). The UK is what economists class a small open economy.
Your economic analysis is that of a 15 year old. South Korea is not dissimilar to us. Birthrate aside it does pretty bloody well. It is also a major wielder of soft power through its mighty creative industries - like us. No one says South Korea MUST join China
Britain is beating a new path. This may well become irrelevant and overwhelmed by the revolution of AI (where we are, btw, doing better than the absurd EU) but there is no reason we must fail because “we are the wrong size”. It’s asinine
We have Brexited. It’s now up to us for good or ill. That’s the point of Brexit. What is Brexit? It is Brexit
Lol I'm not sure I'll be taking economics lessons from someone who whose idea of insightful analysis is "what is Brexit? It is Brexit". That's hardly the Wealth of Nations. Clearly we have a number of advantages as an economy - the English language, our legal system, a convenient time zone, strength in creative and cultural industries. That might be enough if we were a small economy, but we have 65mn-odd people and I don't think our economic base is large and diversified enough to deliver prosperity for all of them right now.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
UK worried for years about the destruction of the nation state, but believed that leaving the EU would cure that. Now we have left, we are discovering that it was only the foothills.
Leaving the EU has made it worse, since it's depressed the value of UK assets, making them more attractive targets, and deprived UK firms of a large domestic market, making it harder for them to grow and meaning that they are much more likely to be swallowed up by large US firms than the other way round. I think the UK economy is an awkward size - too small to have a large competitive home market with a diversified set of firms, but too large to be nimble and specialise in a few niche areas. I do wonder sometimes if we shouldn't consider becoming part of the US, if we're unwilling to be part of the EU. On our own I suspect we are going to grow ever poorer and more irrelevant to the global economy. I spent a week in DC and NYC last week attending the IMF's Spring Meetings and ancillary events and the only time the UK was mentioned was a few derisory comments about the Truss episode.
Err, we're the sixth biggest economy in the world. I think that is a pretty large domestic market....
Not really. There are essentially three large economies in the world - the US, China and the EU single market (and the last is incomplete, putting Europe at a disadvantage). The UK is what economists class a small open economy.
Your economic analysis is that of a 15 year old. South Korea is not dissimilar to us. Birthrate aside it does pretty bloody well. It is also a major wielder of soft power through its mighty creative industries - like us. No one says South Korea MUST join China
Britain is beating a new path. This may well become irrelevant and overwhelmed by the revolution of AI (where we are, btw, doing better than the absurd EU) but there is no reason we must fail because “we are the wrong size”. It’s asinine
We have Brexited. It’s now up to us for good or ill. That’s the point of Brexit. What is Brexit? It is Brexit
Okay, but OLB's point is that the UK economy is "small" in the sense of being a price-taker in the international market. The thing is, this concept of smallness (i.e. UK GDP compared to global GDP) is irrelevant in actual specific markets. For example, the UK is not small in the global market for university level education in the English language, where it is almost as effective a price-setter as the US. Or consider the oil and gas markets - even China is a price-taker there. Whether it is useful to categorize whole economies as "large" (i.e. US, China, Europe) or "small" (every other country) is open to debate, and I suspect just a symptom of hand-waving.
There are several inter-related issues, but one is that British institutional investors refuse to invest in British business to a degree seemingly unparalleled in a modern economy.
As long as the UK government insists on kicking the UK economy in the nuts my pension will remain invested elsewhere. Blaming UK investors for UK plc under-performance is a bit rich: UK plc underperforms because a) UK management is appalling and b) the UK government persistently refuses to invest in national UK infrastructure at every level.
The UK government apparently doesn’t believe in the future of the UK economy enough to actually invest in infrastructure anywhere except London (and even then the Treasury had to be dragged kicking & screaming), so why should anyone else?
I agree that the UK government - raddled for years with Treasury brain - adds insult to injury by refusing to invest in the British economy itself.
That’s definitely one of the reasons why British investors (reductively, pension funds) won’t invest in British stocks. But I don’t think it’s the only reason.
By the way, why do you think British management is poor? This seems to be accepted as one of the issues behind poor productivity, but I haven’t seen a good reason cited.
This might just be another name for the question, but what is it about British conditions that doesn't incentivise better management?
One (predictable) guess is the rentier economy we currently have. Why bother going to the trouble of being a good manager when you can make so much so easily by buying a house and renting it out?
I wonder also if the steepness of the UK's reward gradient doesn't help. To get the mega rewards, you need to be good and lucky; being good isn't enough. Perhaps something less vertiginous is better for rewarding mass-market good.
(And perhaps linked to those two, not enough people who are both the owners and the managers.)
Poor management has been a problem in the UK economy since at least the 19th century. One issue is the failure of firms' founders to surrender control to professional managers. Another is small firm size. Another is a low propensity to export - since firms who export tend to become better run. I wonder too whether the City might tend to siphon off talent that in other economies would end up in non financial corporates. And our hierarchical class ridden society perhaps prevents us adopting the flatter organisational structures that seem to work well elsewhere (although perhaps I am making the common mistake of blaming things I don't like here).
Are UK organisational structures unduly hierarchical? I don’t believe so. In fact, one of the great appeals of British (or maybe London?) jobs to Europeans was the relative promise of quicker career progression and mobility.
International surveys agree that British management is relatively poorer. But I do wonder whether this actually is a proxy for or somehow masks other institutional issues like access to capital and the dominance of the City (a kind of Dutch disease).
I think "poor British management" is a myth that is hard to banish, which has its origins many decades ago, but for which evidence is rarely cited. Since the UK's long-run growth path has been similar to that of other rich countries in western Europe, that stands as a serious challenge to the idea it's better in France or Germany.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
UK worried for years about the destruction of the nation state, but believed that leaving the EU would cure that. Now we have left, we are discovering that it was only the foothills.
Leaving the EU has made it worse, since it's depressed the value of UK assets, making them more attractive targets, and deprived UK firms of a large domestic market, making it harder for them to grow and meaning that they are much more likely to be swallowed up by large US firms than the other way round. I think the UK economy is an awkward size - too small to have a large competitive home market with a diversified set of firms, but too large to be nimble and specialise in a few niche areas. I do wonder sometimes if we shouldn't consider becoming part of the US, if we're unwilling to be part of the EU. On our own I suspect we are going to grow ever poorer and more irrelevant to the global economy. I spent a week in DC and NYC last week attending the IMF's Spring Meetings and ancillary events and the only time the UK was mentioned was a few derisory comments about the Truss episode.
Err, we're the sixth biggest economy in the world. I think that is a pretty large domestic market....
Not really. There are essentially three large economies in the world - the US, China and the EU single market (and the last is incomplete, putting Europe at a disadvantage). The UK is what economists class a small open economy.
Your economic analysis is that of a 15 year old. South Korea is not dissimilar to us. Birthrate aside it does pretty bloody well. It is also a major wielder of soft power through its mighty creative industries - like us. No one says South Korea MUST join China
Britain is beating a new path. This may well become irrelevant and overwhelmed by the revolution of AI (where we are, btw, doing better than the absurd EU) but there is no reason we must fail because “we are the wrong size”. It’s asinine
We have Brexited. It’s now up to us for good or ill. That’s the point of Brexit. What is Brexit? It is Brexit
Lol I'm not sure I'll be taking economics lessons from someone who whose idea of insightful analysis is "what is Brexit? It is Brexit". That's hardly the Wealth of Nations. Clearly we have a number of advantages as an economy - the English language, our legal system, a convenient time zone, strength in creative and cultural industries. That might be enough if we were a small economy, but we have 65mn-odd people and I don't think our economic base is large and diversified enough to deliver prosperity for all of them right now.
I’m not sure our legal system is as highly thought of as it once was. Willing to be convinced I’m wrong; indeed I hope I can be.
Is it bad (or good) that I now think in centimetres for height (I'm trying to shake off imperial in almost everything now - thinking in kg for weight....)?
It's bad. It's unpatriotic, collaborationist and, essentially, a form of treason.
You should feel thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
I think: Weight Kilos Height Inches except mountains - metres Distance miles Length inches Speed miles per hour Petrol litres Mpg miles per gallon
There are several inter-related issues, but one is that British institutional investors refuse to invest in British business to a degree seemingly unparalleled in a modern economy.
As long as the UK government insists on kicking the UK economy in the nuts my pension will remain invested elsewhere. Blaming UK investors for UK plc under-performance is a bit rich: UK plc underperforms because a) UK management is appalling and b) the UK government persistently refuses to invest in national UK infrastructure at every level.
The UK government apparently doesn’t believe in the future of the UK economy enough to actually invest in infrastructure anywhere except London (and even then the Treasury had to be dragged kicking & screaming), so why should anyone else?
I agree that the UK government - raddled for years with Treasury brain - adds insult to injury by refusing to invest in the British economy itself.
That’s definitely one of the reasons why British investors (reductively, pension funds) won’t invest in British stocks. But I don’t think it’s the only reason.
By the way, why do you think British management is poor? This seems to be accepted as one of the issues behind poor productivity, but I haven’t seen a good reason cited.
This might just be another name for the question, but what is it about British conditions that doesn't incentivise better management?
One (predictable) guess is the rentier economy we currently have. Why bother going to the trouble of being a good manager when you can make so much so easily by buying a house and renting it out?
I wonder also if the steepness of the UK's reward gradient doesn't help. To get the mega rewards, you need to be good and lucky; being good isn't enough. Perhaps something less vertiginous is better for rewarding mass-market good.
(And perhaps linked to those two, not enough people who are both the owners and the managers.)
Poor management has been a problem in the UK economy since at least the 19th century. One issue is the failure of firms' founders to surrender control to professional managers. Another is small firm size. Another is a low propensity to export - since firms who export tend to become better run. I wonder too whether the City might tend to siphon off talent that in other economies would end up in non financial corporates. And our hierarchical class ridden society perhaps prevents us adopting the flatter organisational structures that seem to work well elsewhere (although perhaps I am making the common mistake of blaming things I don't like here).
Are UK organisational structures unduly hierarchical? I don’t believe so. In fact, one of the great appeals of British (or maybe London?) jobs to Europeans was the relative promise of quicker career progression and mobility.
International surveys agree that British management is relatively poorer. But I do wonder whether this actually is a proxy for or somehow masks other institutional issues like access to capital and the dominance of the City (a kind of Dutch disease).
I think "poor British management" is a myth that is hard to banish, which has its origins many decades ago, but for which evidence is rarely cited. Since the UK's long-run growth path has been similar to that of other rich countries in western Europe, that stands as a serious challenge to the idea it's better in France or Germany.
Watch The Hotel Inspector or one of Gordon Ramsey's shows and you see the British management of family-run SMEs in action. It is not a pretty sight.
Comments
Labour’s Timms was on R4 this morning being noticeably mealy mouthed about flexibility towards carers currently being penalised, no doubt crapping himself over any chink in the fiscal rectitude armour. Why can’t this lot for once show a bit of backbone when it comes to helping those at the bottom? As a benchmark Rishi’s own adviser resigned over the iniquitous treatment of carers.
In Putin's war on Ukraine we have 460k Russian casualties on Ukraine figures which are generally thought of as reliable (aiui including killed, prisoners, 'wounded so as not to return to battle') in 2 years 2 months.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1784080858145505328
In the Winter War vs Finland it was 320->380k in 3 months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
The population of the Soviet Union was 170m in 1939, and Russia was 145m in 2020.
Of course, demographics are different. I agree with your view, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurgam
Salah, Nunez and him to go, whilst they might still be worth a few quid?
The amount is derisory in what it is supposed to cover but on the other hand I also find it a bit odd that the state "pays" people to look after their own family.
It is one of the reasons I'd go full UBI and abolish all the demeaning means testing, claim applications and withdrawal rate nonsense.
While their reasons vary from climate worries to financial concerns and health complications, those making the decision to be "child-free by choice" say societal acceptance is yet to come, often leaving them feeling ostracised.
The BBC spoke to members of Bristol Childfree Women, a social group with more than 500 members, set up by women and for women who have decided not to have children."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72pnllv8nko
https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/does-america-run-britain/
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
We deserve better.
US aid was particularly in things like aviation fuel, tyres, communications equipment and food rather than weapons.
The destruction and depletion of Russias heavy equipment and specialist troops is somewhat balanced by battle experience and familiarity with new ways of fighting. Overall though the Russian Army is a significantly less formidable force, and both Russian Navy and Airforce unable to control even the Ukranian waters and air.
While our own forces are not in great shape, the threat is substantially less too. An army that takes 6 months and tens of thousands of casualties taking a colliery in the Donbas is not really capable of getting to the Vistula let alone the Rhine, and they know it.
Similar systems have paid for themselves in months of operation in Australia.
£75 million in the context of grid scale power is peanuts.
Am I eligible for Carer's Allowance?
You could be eligible if you:
spend at least 35 hours a week caring for someone who's ill or has a disability (whether you live with them or not)
care for someone who receives the higher-rate or middle-rate care component of Disability Living Allowance, either rate of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) daily living component, any rate of Attendance Allowance, or another relevant benefit
don't earn more than £151 a week (after deductions)
aren't in full-time education.
https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/money-legal/benefits-entitlements/carers-allowance/
The days of having soldiers to burn are long gone.
If Russia 'win', this will increase manyfold. Pro-Russian politicians in European countries will say that their countries need to shift from west to east, either to avoid a Russian punishment beating, or because the west cannot protect them. Then Russia will slowly subvert the politics, and society more. Troops garrisoned, etc, etc. Just as we saw post-1945.
Meanwhile, western appeasers and pro-Russian shits (the two groups being remarkably coincident) will shrug and suggest that perhaps those countries moving away from independence into the Russia sphere - a new USSR - is unavoidable and regretfully the 'best' thing.
Because they are shits.
https://www.sserenewables.com/hydro/coire-glas/
Drowning some interesting upland habitat in the process (and scarring yet another hill).
https://archive.ph/K1yKN
It’s monetary intervention.
The Bank sells bonds to investors. They pay with cash. The Bank cancels the cash and the money supply shrinks. This puts downward pressure on inflation
(There is no fiscal impact - originally these bonds were bought with artificially created money - ie by inflating the money supply. All the fiscal transfers from the Treasury are an accounting adjustment that are adjusted out on the consolidation of the Bank’s accounts with the national accounts. Think of it like an intragroup transfer)
Economically, the UK has run itself as a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary since at least the 90s. Vast amounts of economic rent disappear into US hands. Half of the Premiership is owned by US interests. And so on. Each year the balance of trade remorselessly delivers more British wealth into foreign, chiefly U.S., hands. The FTSE is now a laughing stock. Nobody wants to list there anymore.
Nowadays, they have only 6% working in agriculture. Two-thirds in services, and the rest in industry. Those two sectors are vital for modern economies, with skills that can take years to learn. Russia simply does not have the same pool of young, disposable men to send to the front - at least without further strangling their economy.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be what happens.
See the chart in this thread…
https://x.com/frencheconomics/status/1784132940181430578?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg
Yousless - writing to all opposition parties pleading to find common ground ahead of the no confidence votes. Not ruling out an election
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/humza-yousaf-invites-other-scottish-parties-to-talks-to-find-common-ground-snp
Sunak - Sebastian Fox tells colleagues they should give the PM "space" ahead of the growing rumours that the boss will cut and run
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/let-rishi-sunak-get-on-with-the-job-says-grant-shapps
Surely the humane thing would be to hold both elections on the same day. That way we can give the useless corrupt incompetent government a good kicking. And the same again north/south of the wall.
Some time ago I suggested a new app 'Populi' - allowing private individuals to donate a pound to a politician of their choice for specific actions taken by that politician. I feel that's what's needed. A grassroots movement that can prevent politicians getting (literal) dollar signs and contributing to the great British car-boot sale.
(Rolls eyes.)
"Dear First Minister,
The Bute House Agreement is over; Scotland deserves and demands a re-set.
I am open to talking to anyone across this chamber who will prioritise progress on what we were elected to deliver for our constituents and Scotland.
Independence for Scotland, protecting the dignity, safety and rights of women and children, and providing a competent government for our people and businesses across Scotland remains my priorities.
My door is open to discussing the progress of my proposed Scottish Parliament Powers Referendum Bill.
The opportunity to write a new chapter for Scotland is in our hands.
Yours sincerely,
Ash Regan, MSP Edinburgh Eastern.”
She seems completely out of her depth. This is assuming that "re-set" isn't an innuendo intended to connote "reset", but I doubt it is, given the Molian character of the rest of the text.
The UK government apparently doesn’t believe in the future of the UK economy enough to actually invest in infrastructure anywhere except London (and even then the Treasury had to be dragged kicking & screaming), so why should anyone else?
https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-actions/action1/
Pillar One will ensure a fairer distribution of profits and taxing rights among countries with respect to the largest MNEs, including digital companies. It would re-allocate some taxing rights over MNEs from their home countries to the markets where they have business activities and earn profits, regardless of whether firms there have a physical presence there. Under Pillar One, taxing rights on more than USD 125 billion of profit are expected to be reallocated to market jurisdictions each year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilona_Staller
That’s definitely one of the reasons why British investors (reductively, pension funds) won’t invest in British stocks. But I don’t think it’s the only reason.
By the way, why do you think British management is poor? This seems to be accepted as one of the issues behind poor productivity, but I haven’t seen a good reason cited.
Russia has huge reserves of manpower and plenty of countries still willing to buy its vaat reservoirs of raw materials and minerals: it could go on for a very long time, if it chose to do so.
Yet she would simply exacerbate this problem. Indeed she would refuse to recognise it as a problem.
You should feel thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
We’ll see a proliferation of DSTs and equivalent though. Nightmare.
And that road has run out of tarmac, and we can't afford to fix what's there.
Apparently both of the following things are bad: British investors invest overseas, and overseas investors invest in Britain. Nobody has explained why this two-way flow of funds is worse than having domestic investors own only domestic businesses.
If its a choice of having foreign ownership of British business or going without a foreign holiday most people will chose to have the foreign holiday.
She is a doctinaire free marketeer, but I disagreed with the podcast contributor here who blamed the takeover issue on UK power-brokers being addicted to Hayek. They certainly don't show much of their free market predelictions in any other decisions they make. I think it's simple US-subservience. And whatever else Truss was or wasn't, she was actually the least US-subservient PM we've had, probably since Thatcher.
*Edit - it should also go without saying that I don't swallow the gospel of Truss wholesale - I tend to defend her a lot here because of the degree to which I feel she's attacked unfairly.
By comparison, this is expected to cost £22 billion but will provide 8% of the UK’s power supply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlinks_Morocco–UK_Power_Project
It defends the harbour of Brest. It is so called because the Spaniards tried to attack here - against temporarily-Protestant France. Remarkably the English sent men to successfully help the French
How many times do we have to save France before they show some gratitude??
The current system traps people in a terrible situation. What the government pays them is not enough to live on, but the DWP will punish them quite harshly if they find the time and energy to do more than trivial part-time work on top of caring.
One (predictable) guess is the rentier economy we currently have. Why bother going to the trouble of being a good manager when you can make so much so easily by buying a house and renting it out?
I wonder also if the steepness of the UK's reward gradient doesn't help. To get the mega rewards, you need to be good and lucky; being good isn't enough. Perhaps something less vertiginous is better for rewarding mass-market good.
(And perhaps linked to those two, not enough people who are both the owners and the managers.)
I think the UK economy is an awkward size - too small to have a large competitive home market with a diversified set of firms, but too large to be nimble and specialise in a few niche areas. I do wonder sometimes if we shouldn't consider becoming part of the US, if we're unwilling to be part of the EU. On our own I suspect we are going to grow ever poorer and more irrelevant to the global economy. I spent a week in DC and NYC last week attending the IMF's Spring Meetings and ancillary events and the only time the UK was mentioned was a few derisory comments about the Truss episode.
Trouble is I’m wearing a stupid puffer gilet. Which idiot invented this things? Not only do I look like a wanker hedge funding dick, if I take it off it’s too light to swing casually over my back, hooked on my finger, like a proper jacket
I just have to hold it. FFS
And so deserve to pay extra taxes.
Proper people aspire to be property owners living off their rental and interest income.
There's likely a thesis on the malign effects that Jane Austen and William Blake have had on current British economy and society.
While wearing Crocs no less.
Donald Trump 50.1
Joe Biden 49.9
It's neck and neck with ≈ six months to go.
If one looks outside the three (or two-and-a-half) big blocs, it is structurally v different from commodity-led countries (Canada, Australia, NZ), and from the export-led development economies (Korea, Taiwan).
Japan? Israel?
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
Britain is beating a new path. This may well become irrelevant and overwhelmed by the revolution of AI (where we are, btw, doing better than the absurd EU) but there is no reason we must fail because “we are the wrong size”. It’s asinine
We have Brexited. It’s now up to us for good or ill. That’s the point of Brexit. What is Brexit? It is Brexit
I don’t believe so. In fact, one of the great appeals of British (or maybe London?) jobs to Europeans was the relative promise of quicker career progression and mobility.
International surveys agree that British management is relatively poorer. But I do wonder whether this actually is a proxy for or somehow masks other institutional issues like access to capital and the dominance of the City (a kind of Dutch disease).
https://x.com/paulhutcheon/status/1784221966116725124
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
(I stick by my position that Ulysses is not worth reading. That tweet just reinforces that view...)
That said, reckon it would be best for Rishi Sunak IF he himself took some advantage of his "stature gap". In same way that the late, great Jackie Gleason built his acting career on the ample foundation of HIS excess avoirdupois.
For example in his classic TV show "The Honeymooners", and in his brilliant movie roles in "The Hustler" (as Minnesota Fats) and in "Smokey and the Bandit) (as Sheriff Buford T. Justice).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Gleason
Just sayin'.
Clearly we have a number of advantages as an economy - the English language, our legal system, a convenient time zone, strength in creative and cultural industries. That might be enough if we were a small economy, but we have 65mn-odd people and I don't think our economic base is large and diversified enough to deliver prosperity for all of them right now.
That has a much higher per KW value.
Weight Kilos
Height Inches except mountains - metres
Distance miles
Length inches
Speed miles per hour
Petrol litres
Mpg miles per gallon
I've very mixed up. Thanks you Maggie.