The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
The same fundamental problems will exist for Starmer as they do for the current government. Being braver might help, but these issues are immensely complex and are surrounded by marshy swamps filled with alligators.
My own view is that the best answers do not lie in ideology, but in cold, hard pragmatism. But that doesn't get the base of a political party excited.
Certainly didn’t get the current shower excited did it? They much preferred unicorns and magical thinking.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
Good morning
There is a very real possibility the present conservative party will be utterly humiliated on the 4th July and frankly they have nobody else to blame than themselves from the disaster of Truss (maybe the biggest gift to an opposition in recent history) to the internal factions openly attacking each other, and then Sunak upsetting their apple cart by calling (rightly) a snap election
I have no idea what happens to them next but Starmer as PM from 5th July will be the beginning of a very difficult political period but let's see just how he progresses as he will undoubtedly enjoy a honeymoon period
Jeremy Corbyn standing as an independent will hardly have any effect on Starmer
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
The same fundamental problems will exist for Starmer as they do for the current government. Being braver might help, but these issues are immensely complex and are surrounded by marshy swamps filled with alligators.
My own view is that the best answers do not lie in ideology, but in cold, hard pragmatism. But that doesn't get the base of a political party excited.
The only answer is for the country to pay for the infrastructure and public services we need.
In the short term that means higher taxation. Yes we can strive make public services more efficient, reduce welfare spend round the margins*, try to reduce tax avoidance but these all offer negligible gains. We have to pay our way and realise that better infrastructure and better public services leads to higher productivity and growth.
Whether Labour will be brave enough to tackle this I don't know.
(*Welfare could in fairness be cut but top of the list is the Triple Lock and that now seems to have achieved 'untouchable' status. We could also reduce disability benefits by tackling the causes: e.g. better mental health services; tougher action on junk food; legalising, regulating and taxing recreational drugs; etc.)
John Redwood is quitting Parliament, hopefully he gets to live long and prosper elsewhere.
They're going down like ninepins, perhaps a few more today because there's not much time to get new candidates before nominations close. It's actually a bit of a mess but I get the impression Rishi wasn't too fussed about this issue.
I don’t think it’s a huge problem, there’s no shortage of self-flagellatory activists and entitled SPADs who’ll be busily harnessing themselves into their parachutes.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
Good morning
There is a very real possibility the present conservative party will be utterly humiliated on the 4th July and frankly they have nobody else to blame than themselves from the disaster of Truss (maybe the biggest gift to an opposition in recent history) to the internal factions openly attacking each other, and then Sunak upsetting their apple cart by calling (rightly) a snap election
I have no idea what happens to them next but Starmer as PM from 5th July will be the beginning of a very difficult political period but let's see just how he progresses as he will undoubtedly enjoy a honeymoon period
Jeremy Corbyn standing as an independent will hardly have any effect on Starmer
All true Big_G. Corbyn kicked out of Labour is likely to have a positive effect on their chances overall, I'd say.
Redwood’s standing down statement is as terse and obnoxious as his political style
“I have other things I wish to do” #sniff
Nothing to do with the polls then…
In fairness he’s been an MP for 37 years and will be 73 by polling day. Not wanting to stand again is understandable, and he can be as peremptory as he likes.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
And it's been a British disease to favour spending now over investment for the future, basically forever.
The gerontocracy that follows from the current Conservative voters coalition really doesn't help. Not because all pensioners are selfish gits, but all the little biases against spending with a ten year payoff add up.
One of the reasons for thinking that Things Can Only Get (a little bit) Better is that Labour have a set of voters more likely to see themselves benefiting from longer term projects. As opposed to my declining father's line about how X (whether carpets or furniture or anything else) would see him out.
But even "it's hard to see how they can be as bad as this" is probably enough.
Labour's age cohort will want money now. Junior Doctors, Trade Unions pet projects. Infrastructure will go to the back of the queue as ever.
OT. What a journey ex Thatcherite Peter Oborne has been on. A remarkable piece of journalism from the West Bank where he has been embedded for the last month.
John Redwood is quitting Parliament, hopefully he gets to live long and prosper elsewhere.
They're going down like ninepins, perhaps a few more today because there's not much time to get new candidates before nominations close. It's actually a bit of a mess but I get the impression Rishi wasn't too fussed about this issue.
I don’t think it’s a huge problem, there’s no shortage of self-flagellatory activists and entitled SPADs who’ll be busily harnessing themselves into their parachutes.
And somewhere amongst them there's probably a future PM. (Unless the Tories really are in a death spiral, of course.)
My Party has made some policy announcements today. Green Party Policies.
• Renationalising our NHS • £70bn Wealth Tax • 500,000 Council Homes • £16 per hour min wage • Universal Basic Income • Rent Controls • Abolishing Tuition Fees • Recognition of Palestine • Free Secondary School Meals • Axe Two-Child Cap
Top Party and most people won't have a clue what they stand for.
This is a good illustration as to why whilst I like Greens in local power due to their detailed policies, nationally I think they can only be called loopy.
Add up the numbers on that.
The UBI and the £16 minimum wage are contradictory.
... Are they?
A UBI is independent of earnings, so you could still have a minimum wage for hours worked. You might be thinking of a minimum income guarantee, the value of which would be adjusted by individual earnings. But even that wouldn't be contradictory on a per hour basis - it's basically how UC works at the moment.
The whole idea of UBI is that you can get rid of minimum wages and tax credits. If everyone gets paid a £1500 a month, then working for £5 an hour becomes a viable option, rather than the company outsourcing the jobs to Asia.
That's what I used to think, but I wonder whether you'd want a minimum wage anyway, to encourage businesses to invest in productivity, rather than subsidising cheap labour.
It’s a complicated system with a lot of moving parts - perhaps the most obvious is that the machines that drive productivity are almost all imported.
His membership of Labour is automatically terminated
Starmer just gets luckier every day
He’s jibbering like he’s heard some bad news and is distracted on R4 at the moment under not immense pressure from Mishal Husain. Really unimpressive compared to PMQs performances where it’s scripted.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
The same fundamental problems will exist for Starmer as they do for the current government. Being braver might help, but these issues are immensely complex and are surrounded by marshy swamps filled with alligators.
My own view is that the best answers do not lie in ideology, but in cold, hard pragmatism. But that doesn't get the base of a political party excited.
The only answer is for the country to pay for the infrastructure and public services we need.
In the short term that means higher taxation. Yes we can strive make public services more efficient, reduce welfare spend round the margins*, try to reduce tax avoidance but these all offer negligible gains. We have to pay our way and realise that better infrastructure and better public services leads to higher productivity and growth.
Whether Labour will be brave enough to tackle this I don't know.
(*Welfare could in fairness be cut but top of the list is the Triple Lock and that now seems to have achieved 'untouchable' status. We could also reduce disability benefits by tackling the causes: e.g. better mental health services; tougher action on junk food; legalising, regulating and taxing recreational drugs; etc.)
PS I'd also make disability benefits taxable - that would be unpopular but fair.
Ken Loach and Mike Leigh have resigned as patrons of the Phoenix cinema in London in protest over the venue hosting an Israeli state-sponsored film festival.
The cinema – one of the UK’s oldest – is holding a private screening of Supernova: The Music Festival Massacre, as part of the international Seret film festival on Thursday night.
The documentary tells the story of the attack by Hamas on the Nova music festival on 7 October through survivor testimony.
This is another good illustration of why the conflict is utterly intractable. If those one one side are utterly unwilling to hear the stories of the other - or even determined to prevent them being told - there is no possibility of any settlement, ever.
This, of course, described both sides.
And it has been that way (with some few noble exceptions) with Israel/Palestine as long as I can remember.
Why the government must not be re-elected - part 382
"The government’s target to reduce unprecedented criminal court backlogs in England and Wales cannot be met, the national spending watchdog has concluded.The National Audit Office (NAO) says the delays are affecting victims and risking cases collapsing."
"Victims wait on average 22 months from an offence for a verdict in a Crown Court."
"The report reveals that the Criminal Justice Board, a body chaired by the justice secretary aimed at solving problems across the system, did not meet at all between July 2021 and July 2023. During that two-year period, there were four different justice secretaries"
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
The same fundamental problems will exist for Starmer as they do for the current government. Being braver might help, but these issues are immensely complex and are surrounded by marshy swamps filled with alligators.
My own view is that the best answers do not lie in ideology, but in cold, hard pragmatism. But that doesn't get the base of a political party excited.
The only answer is for the country to pay for the infrastructure and public services we need.
In the short term that means higher taxation. Yes we can strive make public services more efficient, reduce welfare spend round the margins*, try to reduce tax avoidance but these all offer negligible gains. We have to pay our way and realise that better infrastructure and better public services leads to higher productivity and growth.
Whether Labour will be brave enough to tackle this I don't know.
(*Welfare could in fairness be cut but top of the list is the Triple Lock and that now seems to have achieved 'untouchable' status. We could also reduce disability benefits by tackling the causes: e.g. better mental health services; tougher action on junk food; legalising, regulating and taxing recreational drugs; etc.)
PS I'd also make disability benefits taxable - that would be unpopular but fair.
I don't object to the principle, but in practice so many disabled people are desperately poor. You would need to at least increase payments by the amount you are taking from them in tax. Otherwise you get people into catastrophic poverty which means intervention from councils and the state, and that costs more.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
Good morning
There is a very real possibility the present conservative party will be utterly humiliated on the 4th July and frankly they have nobody else to blame than themselves from the disaster of Truss (maybe the biggest gift to an opposition in recent history) to the internal factions openly attacking each other, and then Sunak upsetting their apple cart by calling (rightly) a snap election
I have no idea what happens to them next but Starmer as PM from 5th July will be the beginning of a very difficult political period but let's see just how he progresses as he will undoubtedly enjoy a honeymoon period
Jeremy Corbyn standing as an independent will hardly have any effect on Starmer
I think humiliation is on the cards, but what kind of humiliation? Is it down to between 150-200 seats? or is it even coming third in seats with around 70, which really would feel less like a humiliation and more like an extinction level event.
The polls say the Tories will be battered, but could it be worse than that?
Why the government must not be re-elected - part 382
"The government’s target to reduce unprecedented criminal court backlogs in England and Wales cannot be met, the national spending watchdog has concluded.The National Audit Office (NAO) says the delays are affecting victims and risking cases collapsing."
"Victims wait on average 22 months from an offence for a verdict in a Crown Court."
"The report reveals that the Criminal Justice Board, a body chaired by the justice secretary aimed at solving problems across the system, did not meet at all between July 2021 and July 2023. During that two-year period, there were four different justice secretaries"
Ken Loach and Mike Leigh have resigned as patrons of the Phoenix cinema in London in protest over the venue hosting an Israeli state-sponsored film festival.
The cinema – one of the UK’s oldest – is holding a private screening of Supernova: The Music Festival Massacre, as part of the international Seret film festival on Thursday night.
The documentary tells the story of the attack by Hamas on the Nova music festival on 7 October through survivor testimony.
This is another good illustration of why the conflict is utterly intractable. If those one one side are utterly unwilling to hear the stories of the other - or even determined to prevent them being told - there is no possibility of any settlement, ever.
This, of course, described both sides.
And it has been that way (with some few noble exceptions) with Israel/Palestine as long as I can remember.
I used to think the same about Northern Ireland though.
Why the government must not be re-elected - part 382
"The government’s target to reduce unprecedented criminal court backlogs in England and Wales cannot be met, the national spending watchdog has concluded.The National Audit Office (NAO) says the delays are affecting victims and risking cases collapsing."
"Victims wait on average 22 months from an offence for a verdict in a Crown Court."
"The report reveals that the Criminal Justice Board, a body chaired by the justice secretary aimed at solving problems across the system, did not meet at all between July 2021 and July 2023. During that two-year period, there were four different justice secretaries"
Why the government must not be re-elected - part 382
"The government’s target to reduce unprecedented criminal court backlogs in England and Wales cannot be met, the national spending watchdog has concluded.The National Audit Office (NAO) says the delays are affecting victims and risking cases collapsing."
"Victims wait on average 22 months from an offence for a verdict in a Crown Court."
"The report reveals that the Criminal Justice Board, a body chaired by the justice secretary aimed at solving problems across the system, did not meet at all between July 2021 and July 2023. During that two-year period, there were four different justice secretaries"
This is shambolic and pathetic, no hyperbole involved.
And hows that going to change under Starmer ?
From what I have seen he is more interested in details and getting things done than grabbing short term news headlines. Some find that boring or lacking in charisma. I quite liked John Major so no issue with that for me.
Why the government must not be re-elected - part 382
"The government’s target to reduce unprecedented criminal court backlogs in England and Wales cannot be met, the national spending watchdog has concluded.The National Audit Office (NAO) says the delays are affecting victims and risking cases collapsing."
"Victims wait on average 22 months from an offence for a verdict in a Crown Court."
"The report reveals that the Criminal Justice Board, a body chaired by the justice secretary aimed at solving problems across the system, did not meet at all between July 2021 and July 2023. During that two-year period, there were four different justice secretaries"
Sunak had the advantage over everyone else of knowing that he was calling the election, so you might think he would have been a bit better prepared for doing so
Like making sure he had candidates in every seat, for example...
NEW
Conservative HQ have emailed asking for candidates in almost 100 seats
When candidates ask when the deadline is, they have been told it’s 48 hours, according to 2 I’ve spoken to
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
Good morning
There is a very real possibility the present conservative party will be utterly humiliated on the 4th July and frankly they have nobody else to blame than themselves from the disaster of Truss (maybe the biggest gift to an opposition in recent history) to the internal factions openly attacking each other, and then Sunak upsetting their apple cart by calling (rightly) a snap election
I have no idea what happens to them next but Starmer as PM from 5th July will be the beginning of a very difficult political period but let's see just how he progresses as he will undoubtedly enjoy a honeymoon period
Jeremy Corbyn standing as an independent will hardly have any effect on Starmer
If you see Truss as the nexus of the problem (and I don't: all of this stems from Boris) then the people you need to focus on are those in the Badenoch camp. After the 4th ballot in the leadership contest, when Badenoch was eliminated, Truss was third. But Truss picked up double the number of Badenoch supporters that Mordaunt did, catapulting her into 2nd.
And, of course, the membership chose Truss. Perhaps for reasons that Jolyon Maugham was right about?
That faction that backed Badenoch, nutters like Anderson, Fletcher, and Bradley, they're a problem.
Plus, of course, all those who were Truss true believers.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
Good morning
There is a very real possibility the present conservative party will be utterly humiliated on the 4th July and frankly they have nobody else to blame than themselves from the disaster of Truss (maybe the biggest gift to an opposition in recent history) to the internal factions openly attacking each other, and then Sunak upsetting their apple cart by calling (rightly) a snap election
I have no idea what happens to them next but Starmer as PM from 5th July will be the beginning of a very difficult political period but let's see just how he progresses as he will undoubtedly enjoy a honeymoon period
Jeremy Corbyn standing as an independent will hardly have any effect on Starmer
I think humiliation is on the cards, but what kind of humiliation? Is it down to between 150-200 seats? or is it even coming third in seats with around 70, which really would feel less like a humiliation and more like an extinction level event.
The polls say the Tories will be battered, but could it be worse than that?
There polls were worse for the Tories at this stage in 1997 and they recovered a bit. That could be because of polling methodology issues at that time but assuming not, and using 1997 as a precedent 150-200 seats would seem likely.
A lot can happen during the campaign though, in either direction.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
The same fundamental problems will exist for Starmer as they do for the current government. Being braver might help, but these issues are immensely complex and are surrounded by marshy swamps filled with alligators.
My own view is that the best answers do not lie in ideology, but in cold, hard pragmatism. But that doesn't get the base of a political party excited.
The only answer is for the country to pay for the infrastructure and public services we need.
In the short term that means higher taxation. Yes we can strive make public services more efficient, reduce welfare spend round the margins*, try to reduce tax avoidance but these all offer negligible gains. We have to pay our way and realise that better infrastructure and better public services leads to higher productivity and growth.
Whether Labour will be brave enough to tackle this I don't know.
(*Welfare could in fairness be cut but top of the list is the Triple Lock and that now seems to have achieved 'untouchable' status. We could also reduce disability benefits by tackling the causes: e.g. better mental health services; tougher action on junk food; legalising, regulating and taxing recreational drugs; etc.)
PS I'd also make disability benefits taxable - that would be unpopular but fair.
I don't object to the principle, but in practice so many disabled people are desperately poor. You would need to at least increase payments by the amount you are taking from them in tax. Otherwise you get people into catastrophic poverty which means intervention from councils and the state, and that costs more.
PIP is not means-tested, so anyone can get it whatever their income. I'm not saying that most people don't deserve it or need it, but I imagine that at the margins there are a lot of people who don't
Why the government must not be re-elected - part 382
"The government’s target to reduce unprecedented criminal court backlogs in England and Wales cannot be met, the national spending watchdog has concluded.The National Audit Office (NAO) says the delays are affecting victims and risking cases collapsing."
"Victims wait on average 22 months from an offence for a verdict in a Crown Court."
"The report reveals that the Criminal Justice Board, a body chaired by the justice secretary aimed at solving problems across the system, did not meet at all between July 2021 and July 2023. During that two-year period, there were four different justice secretaries"
Why the government must not be re-elected - part 382
"The government’s target to reduce unprecedented criminal court backlogs in England and Wales cannot be met, the national spending watchdog has concluded.The National Audit Office (NAO) says the delays are affecting victims and risking cases collapsing."
"Victims wait on average 22 months from an offence for a verdict in a Crown Court."
"The report reveals that the Criminal Justice Board, a body chaired by the justice secretary aimed at solving problems across the system, did not meet at all between July 2021 and July 2023. During that two-year period, there were four different justice secretaries"
This is shambolic and pathetic, no hyperbole involved.
And hows that going to change under Starmer ?
Higher taxes - more spending.
well at least youre honest about it. However theres also the issue that he will be using the same system, same civil servants same courts and nothing in the courts system is efficient it's like the NHS you can feed the beast cash but not see much in return.
And then if youre taxing more is this your priority ? Why not pay doctors more, or compensate SPMs or build some houses ? The CJBs only advantage is SKS is a lawyer and might look after his mates.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
And it's been a British disease to favour spending now over investment for the future, basically forever.
The gerontocracy that follows from the current Conservative voters coalition really doesn't help. Not because all pensioners are selfish gits, but all the little biases against spending with a ten year payoff add up.
One of the reasons for thinking that Things Can Only Get (a little bit) Better is that Labour have a set of voters more likely to see themselves benefiting from longer term projects. As opposed to my declining father's line about how X (whether carpets or furniture or anything else) would see him out.
But even "it's hard to see how they can be as bad as this" is probably enough.
Labour's age cohort will want money now. Junior Doctors, Trade Unions pet projects. Infrastructure will go to the back of the queue as ever.
Labour's age cohort = 18-24, and 25-49, and 50-65. Everyone of working age.
His membership of Labour is automatically terminated
Great shame. A politician who actually gave a damn. Watch the Peter Oborne piece and you see why politicians like Cleverly are no better than Paula Vennells
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
Good morning
There is a very real possibility the present conservative party will be utterly humiliated on the 4th July and frankly they have nobody else to blame than themselves from the disaster of Truss (maybe the biggest gift to an opposition in recent history) to the internal factions openly attacking each other, and then Sunak upsetting their apple cart by calling (rightly) a snap election
I have no idea what happens to them next but Starmer as PM from 5th July will be the beginning of a very difficult political period but let's see just how he progresses as he will undoubtedly enjoy a honeymoon period
Jeremy Corbyn standing as an independent will hardly have any effect on Starmer
I think humiliation is on the cards, but what kind of humiliation? Is it down to between 150-200 seats? or is it even coming third in seats with around 70, which really would feel less like a humiliation and more like an extinction level event.
The polls say the Tories will be battered, but could it be worse than that?
This is the big question. My head says no at the moment, but it is very febrile.
The reason I think no is their performance at the locals. It showed a complete shellacking was coming, but not an utter collapse.
I think in the end there will be enough of the client vote persuaded to turn out to get them where they need to be to keep some of the more traditionally Tory seats. I am also not entirely convinced that the Lib Dem’s will be able to seize the moment as much as they did in 1997.
In the end an emphasis on tax bombshells, IHT, the VAT on schools policy will probably give them enough to get them to 150 at least.
BUT - the reason I am uncertain is because there is still a very febrile feeling in the polls and so far in the campaign, and Rishi is moving out of the blocks in a very low gear. If the campaign really continues to be that much of a damp squib and the Tories mess it up so bad that they dilute their core messaging, then it starts to become possible.
I really find it so difficult to predict, this one.
His membership of Labour is automatically terminated
Great shame. A politician who actually gave a damn. Watch the Peter Oborne piece and you realise quite why politicians like Cleverly are no better than Paula Vennells
Corbyn was probably a decent local MP. He probably will be again. He will remain in his happy place irrespective of who wins the election, back on the Opposition benches.
Incidentally, there are constituency markets for a whole bunch of constituencies up on Bet365. I have had a few nibbles on SLAB and also on the Tories on the IOW East.
More to look through over the weekend.
You still have an account on bet365 that can bet more than 1p? In my experience if you vaguely look like you know what you are doing you are restricted to piddly bets in no time.on bet365.
The consensus on Betfair forums seems to be that Bet365 are the best bookmaker, and also the slowest to ban or restrict punters.
I don't know what they are smoking. Within the professional betting community I know, Bet365 are known as the absolute worst for restricting an account that looks like it might be run by somebody who isn't a total moron.
The slowest to ban are none of the known names like Bet365 or Ladbrokes etc, its the "sharp" bookies like Pinnacle.
I bet almost exclusively on football and politics, and have accounts with Betfair, Smarkets, Bet365, Ladbrokes, Paddypower, Skybet, and William Hill. The only one to ever limit me to tiny stakes has been PP.
Well I answer is quite obvious. Betting on football is a massive mugs game, the market is super efficient if you want to get any real money on. Tony Bloom is widely regarded as one of the top football bettors in the world, employs a huge team of math / comp sci PhDs to model the games, and only able to beat specifically Asian Handicap market for an ROI of < 2%.
I won about £8 000 from Ladbrokes when Leicester won the PL in 2016, including £1 ew at 3000/1. They didn't put any restrictions on my account. More recently my football bets just about break even. I make a modest surplus on political bets (up £130 on date of GE for example, as I had bought Q3 anticipating a Sept GE, though lost £35 on the monthly markets)
I don't bet big stakes though. Perhaps £10 most weeks on the footy and £500+ on UK elections, so maybe fly under their radar as too small to bother with.
Nobody flies under the radar these days, every account is tracked and labelled. But as you say if you are only betting £10 total a week, that is probably the level they would restrict anyway. The big Leicester win will have been seen as just hitting the lottery, and they probably hope you dump it back over time.
PP did restrict my account, to the point that I barely use it. I think this was because of doing well on Constituency markets, particularly Scottish ones, in 2015.
Looking at Bet365 markets by Contituency they have Labour odds on in far too many. Is Reigate or IoW East really right when Lab is favourite?
Bet365 do seem a good company to me, as ethical as bookies get (not a very high bar) as they pay their CEO a salary, so she pays proper tax, don't operate FOBT as no retail shops and are a big employer in Stoke. Their football odds are good, and their app works smoothly and loads quickly. I have had no problems with them.
That massive salary for Coates doesn't come from UK punters, they operate a very dodgy business facilitating Chinese gamblers. It makes up a huge proportion of their income and why they are doing much better than the other UK betting groups.
Now this isn't as dodgy as those gambling sites you have never heard of on the front of EPL team shirts, and if you visit them they don't want your business. That is total different orders of magnitude dodgy, with organised criminals, slave labour, the whole 9 yards.
As I said, an "ethical bookie" is a very low bar!
Coates does pay UK tax at 45% on the vast majority of her 9 figure salary, and also a lot on her dividends, at least I think so. Far better than some CEOs with their offshore or other dodgy creative accounting.
There are worse bookies.
She’s a good egg for taking her money as salary, when there’s plenty of ways she could take that much money in a way that attracts a lot less tax.
Reminiscent of the Johnson vs Livingstone mayoral race in London, where it came out that Boris was working self-employed rather than through a company, and paying way more tax than any advisor would have him pay.
Ken Loach and Mike Leigh have resigned as patrons of the Phoenix cinema in London in protest over the venue hosting an Israeli state-sponsored film festival.
The cinema – one of the UK’s oldest – is holding a private screening of Supernova: The Music Festival Massacre, as part of the international Seret film festival on Thursday night.
The documentary tells the story of the attack by Hamas on the Nova music festival on 7 October through survivor testimony.
This is another good illustration of why the conflict is utterly intractable. If those one one side are utterly unwilling to hear the stories of the other - or even determined to prevent them being told - there is no possibility of any settlement, ever.
This, of course, described both sides.
And it has been that way (with some few noble exceptions) with Israel/Palestine as long as I can remember.
I used to think the same about Northern Ireland though.
Despite its ghastliness NI is simple compared with Israel/Palestine and area. In NI there was, and is, an intractable disagreement about nationhood, identity and political authority.
In Israel/Palestine there is disagreement about to which groups the land as a whole belongs to, not only WRT political authority but as to who shall be allowed to live in it.
In RoI/NI there are sufficient good people on all sides to identify a central core of opinion which can make progress.
In Israel/Palestine no such large group of 'good people on all sides' can yet be identified. Events of the last year have demolished any faint hope for now.
Incidentally, there are constituency markets for a whole bunch of constituencies up on Bet365. I have had a few nibbles on SLAB and also on the Tories on the IOW East.
More to look through over the weekend.
You still have an account on bet365 that can bet more than 1p? In my experience if you vaguely look like you know what you are doing you are restricted to piddly bets in no time.on bet365.
The consensus on Betfair forums seems to be that Bet365 are the best bookmaker, and also the slowest to ban or restrict punters.
I don't know what they are smoking. Within the professional betting community I know, Bet365 are known as the absolute worst for restricting an account that looks like it might be run by somebody who isn't a total moron.
The slowest to ban are none of the known names like Bet365 or Ladbrokes etc, its the "sharp" bookies like Pinnacle.
I bet almost exclusively on football and politics, and have accounts with Betfair, Smarkets, Bet365, Ladbrokes, Paddypower, Skybet, and William Hill. The only one to ever limit me to tiny stakes has been PP.
Well I answer is quite obvious. Betting on football is a massive mugs game, the market is super efficient if you want to get any real money on. Tony Bloom is widely regarded as one of the top football bettors in the world, employs a huge team of math / comp sci PhDs to model the games, and only able to beat specifically Asian Handicap market for an ROI of < 2%.
I won about £8 000 from Ladbrokes when Leicester won the PL in 2016, including £1 ew at 3000/1. They didn't put any restrictions on my account. More recently my football bets just about break even. I make a modest surplus on political bets (up £130 on date of GE for example, as I had bought Q3 anticipating a Sept GE, though lost £35 on the monthly markets)
I don't bet big stakes though. Perhaps £10 most weeks on the footy and £500+ on UK elections, so maybe fly under their radar as too small to bother with.
Nobody flies under the radar these days, every account is tracked and labelled. But as you say if you are only betting £10 total a week, that is probably the level they would restrict anyway. The big Leicester win will have been seen as just hitting the lottery, and they probably hope you dump it back over time.
PP did restrict my account, to the point that I barely use it. I think this was because of doing well on Constituency markets, particularly Scottish ones, in 2015.
Looking at Bet365 markets by Contituency they have Labour odds on in far too many. Is Reigate or IoW East really right when Lab is favourite?
Bet365 do seem a good company to me, as ethical as bookies get (not a very high bar) as they pay their CEO a salary, so she pays proper tax, don't operate FOBT as no retail shops and are a big employer in Stoke. Their football odds are good, and their app works smoothly and loads quickly. I have had no problems with them.
That massive salary for Coates doesn't come from UK punters, they operate a very dodgy business facilitating Chinese gamblers. It makes up a huge proportion of their income and why they are doing much better than the other UK betting groups.
Now this isn't as dodgy as those gambling sites you have never heard of on the front of EPL team shirts, and if you visit them they don't want your business. That is total different orders of magnitude dodgy, with organised criminals, slave labour, the whole 9 yards.
As I said, an "ethical bookie" is a very low bar!
Coates does pay UK tax at 45% on the vast majority of her 9 figure salary, and also a lot on her dividends, at least I think so. Far better than some CEOs with their offshore or other dodgy creative accounting.
There are worse bookies.
Bet365's advantages include, imo, the best website which is fast, easy to navigate, and not forever trying to tempt you to try their casino games, and no shops. Their prices are generally good but together with their BOG offer, is not as good as they used to be, but generally among the best in the village.
Take this election. Bet365 has prices on most if not all constituencies already. Ladbrokes has 40. Hills has none that I can find. Skybet has 16. Betfair Exchange 50.
Ken Loach and Mike Leigh have resigned as patrons of the Phoenix cinema in London in protest over the venue hosting an Israeli state-sponsored film festival.
The cinema – one of the UK’s oldest – is holding a private screening of Supernova: The Music Festival Massacre, as part of the international Seret film festival on Thursday night.
The documentary tells the story of the attack by Hamas on the Nova music festival on 7 October through survivor testimony.
This is another good illustration of why the conflict is utterly intractable. If those one one side are utterly unwilling to hear the stories of the other - or even determined to prevent them being told - there is no possibility of any settlement, ever.
This, of course, described both sides.
And it has been that way (with some few noble exceptions) with Israel/Palestine as long as I can remember.
I used to think the same about Northern Ireland though.
There's no external influence as deeply involved as was the UK mainland government, though. And there wasn't the same existential threat in NI from several ideologically committed near neighbours.
That the casualties of the last few months exceed those in NI over thirty years, by an order of magnitude, partly illustrates the difference.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
Good morning
There is a very real possibility the present conservative party will be utterly humiliated on the 4th July and frankly they have nobody else to blame than themselves from the disaster of Truss (maybe the biggest gift to an opposition in recent history) to the internal factions openly attacking each other, and then Sunak upsetting their apple cart by calling (rightly) a snap election
I have no idea what happens to them next but Starmer as PM from 5th July will be the beginning of a very difficult political period but let's see just how he progresses as he will undoubtedly enjoy a honeymoon period
Jeremy Corbyn standing as an independent will hardly have any effect on Starmer
I think humiliation is on the cards, but what kind of humiliation? Is it down to between 150-200 seats? or is it even coming third in seats with around 70, which really would feel less like a humiliation and more like an extinction level event.
The polls say the Tories will be battered, but could it be worse than that?
This is the big question. My head says no at the moment, but it is very febrile.
The reason I think no is their performance at the locals. It showed a complete shellacking was coming, but not an utter collapse.
I think in the end there will be enough of the client vote persuaded to turn out to get them where they need to be to keep some of the more traditionally Tory seats. I am also not entirely convinced that the Lib Dem’s will be able to seize the moment as much as they did in 1997.
In the end an emphasis on tax bombshells, IHT, the VAT on schools policy will probably give them enough to get them to 150 at least.
BUT - the reason I am uncertain is because there is still a very febrile feeling in the polls and so far in the campaign, and Rishi is moving out of the blocks in a very low gear. If the campaign really continues to be that much of a damp squib and the Tories mess it up so bad that they dilute their core messaging, then it starts to become possible.
I really find it so difficult to predict, this one.
I’m not sure the LibDems seized the moment in 1997 so much as rode the tide. Similar conditions for this election but with the electorate in some of their core targets even more mutinous than in 1997. That bodes well, for me.
I think the Tory vote will hold up in the Midlands and that is what will save them from obliteration. Watch areas with sizeable Hindu and maybe to a lesser extent Sikh populations. They could buck trends.
His membership of Labour is automatically terminated
Great shame. A politician who actually gave a damn. Watch the Peter Oborne piece and you realise quite why politicians like Cleverly are no better than Paula Vennells
Corbyn was probably a decent local MP. He probably will be again. He will remain in his happy place irrespective of who wins the election, back on the Opposition benches.
That is true.
I'm truly surprised he's done this, I thought that despite never being beholden to the whip he was so personally invested as Labour that even with Keir edging him out he'd take the retirement and just bask in the support of many in the party regardless.
He'll still have his rallies and fans, but he's given such a win to the anti Corbyn faction, his allies who remain will be even bigger pariahs.
I’m not sure Gordon Brown was this affable and natural when in government. It’s a pity had he been more engaging he would have been heaps more effective and may have had longer at the top.
His membership of Labour is automatically terminated
Great shame. A politician who actually gave a damn. Watch the Peter Oborne piece and you realise quite why politicians like Cleverly are no better than Paula Vennells
Corbyn was probably a decent local MP. He probably will be again. He will remain in his happy place irrespective of who wins the election, back on the Opposition benches.
That is true.
I'm truly surprised he's done this, I thought that despite never being beholden to the whip he was so personally invested as Labour that even with Keir edging him out he'd take the retirement and just bask in the support of many in the party regardless.
He'll still have his rallies and fans, but he's given such a win to the anti Corbyn faction, his allies who remain will be even bigger pariahs.
He always struck me as the sort who would make a fine constituency MP, or perhaps even better an outstanding Councillor. But Party Leader? How can a serial offender instil discipline?
Decent guy, overpromoted.
And now to the PO Inquiry, and the parade of overpromoted shits.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
The same fundamental problems will exist for Starmer as they do for the current government. Being braver might help, but these issues are immensely complex and are surrounded by marshy swamps filled with alligators.
My own view is that the best answers do not lie in ideology, but in cold, hard pragmatism. But that doesn't get the base of a political party excited.
The only answer is for the country to pay for the infrastructure and public services we need.
In the short term that means higher taxation. Yes we can strive make public services more efficient, reduce welfare spend round the margins*, try to reduce tax avoidance but these all offer negligible gains. We have to pay our way and realise that better infrastructure and better public services leads to higher productivity and growth.
Whether Labour will be brave enough to tackle this I don't know.
(*Welfare could in fairness be cut but top of the list is the Triple Lock and that now seems to have achieved 'untouchable' status. We could also reduce disability benefits by tackling the causes: e.g. better mental health services; tougher action on junk food; legalising, regulating and taxing recreational drugs; etc.)
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
The same fundamental problems will exist for Starmer as they do for the current government. Being braver might help, but these issues are immensely complex and are surrounded by marshy swamps filled with alligators.
My own view is that the best answers do not lie in ideology, but in cold, hard pragmatism. But that doesn't get the base of a political party excited.
Certainly didn’t get the current shower excited did it? They much preferred unicorns and magical thinking.
The current lot are not pragmatists IMV. They're far too ideological - or in thrall of ideologicals - for my liking.
My Party has made some policy announcements today. Green Party Policies.
• Renationalising our NHS • £70bn Wealth Tax • 500,000 Council Homes • £16 per hour min wage • Universal Basic Income • Rent Controls • Abolishing Tuition Fees • Recognition of Palestine • Free Secondary School Meals • Axe Two-Child Cap
Top Party and most people won't have a clue what they stand for.
This is a good illustration as to why whilst I like Greens in local power due to their detailed policies, nationally I think they can only be called loopy.
Add up the numbers on that.
The UBI and the £16 minimum wage are contradictory.
... Are they?
A UBI is independent of earnings, so you could still have a minimum wage for hours worked. You might be thinking of a minimum income guarantee, the value of which would be adjusted by individual earnings. But even that wouldn't be contradictory on a per hour basis - it's basically how UC works at the moment.
The whole idea of UBI is that you can get rid of minimum wages and tax credits. If everyone gets paid a £1500 a month, then working for £5 an hour becomes a viable option, rather than the company outsourcing the jobs to Asia.
A UBI plus a minimum wage is perfectly possible.
At the level of suggested, it would simply make the majority of jobs in the country uneconomic.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
Good morning
There is a very real possibility the present conservative party will be utterly humiliated on the 4th July and frankly they have nobody else to blame than themselves from the disaster of Truss (maybe the biggest gift to an opposition in recent history) to the internal factions openly attacking each other, and then Sunak upsetting their apple cart by calling (rightly) a snap election
I have no idea what happens to them next but Starmer as PM from 5th July will be the beginning of a very difficult political period but let's see just how he progresses as he will undoubtedly enjoy a honeymoon period
Jeremy Corbyn standing as an independent will hardly have any effect on Starmer
I think humiliation is on the cards, but what kind of humiliation? Is it down to between 150-200 seats? or is it even coming third in seats with around 70, which really would feel less like a humiliation and more like an extinction level event.
The polls say the Tories will be battered, but could it be worse than that?
This is the big question. My head says no at the moment, but it is very febrile.
The reason I think no is their performance at the locals. It showed a complete shellacking was coming, but not an utter collapse.
I think in the end there will be enough of the client vote persuaded to turn out to get them where they need to be to keep some of the more traditionally Tory seats. I am also not entirely convinced that the Lib Dem’s will be able to seize the moment as much as they did in 1997.
In the end an emphasis on tax bombshells, IHT, the VAT on schools policy will probably give them enough to get them to 150 at least.
BUT - the reason I am uncertain is because there is still a very febrile feeling in the polls and so far in the campaign, and Rishi is moving out of the blocks in a very low gear. If the campaign really continues to be that much of a damp squib and the Tories mess it up so bad that they dilute their core messaging, then it starts to become possible.
I really find it so difficult to predict, this one.
I tend to agree with you. I was thinking that the Tories get a spanking, and probably a worse one than in 1997, yet somehow the state of things seems so defeated already. The soaking in Downing Street, the rush for the exit of so many Tory MPs, it just feels like there so much worse is to come and the Tories know it. I am wondering if I misread the locals and that the voters gave Tory councillors more of the benefit of the doubt than they intend to give the government. In which case the locals are not the floor I thought they were, but in fact more like the ceiling.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
The same fundamental problems will exist for Starmer as they do for the current government. Being braver might help, but these issues are immensely complex and are surrounded by marshy swamps filled with alligators.
My own view is that the best answers do not lie in ideology, but in cold, hard pragmatism. But that doesn't get the base of a political party excited.
The only answer is for the country to pay for the infrastructure and public services we need.
In the short term that means higher taxation. Yes we can strive make public services more efficient, reduce welfare spend round the margins*, try to reduce tax avoidance but these all offer negligible gains. We have to pay our way and realise that better infrastructure and better public services leads to higher productivity and growth.
Whether Labour will be brave enough to tackle this I don't know.
(*Welfare could in fairness be cut but top of the list is the Triple Lock and that now seems to have achieved 'untouchable' status. We could also reduce disability benefits by tackling the causes: e.g. better mental health services; tougher action on junk food; legalising, regulating and taxing recreational drugs; etc.)
PS I'd also make disability benefits taxable - that would be unpopular but fair.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
Good morning
There is a very real possibility the present conservative party will be utterly humiliated on the 4th July and frankly they have nobody else to blame than themselves from the disaster of Truss (maybe the biggest gift to an opposition in recent history) to the internal factions openly attacking each other, and then Sunak upsetting their apple cart by calling (rightly) a snap election
I have no idea what happens to them next but Starmer as PM from 5th July will be the beginning of a very difficult political period but let's see just how he progresses as he will undoubtedly enjoy a honeymoon period
Jeremy Corbyn standing as an independent will hardly have any effect on Starmer
I think humiliation is on the cards, but what kind of humiliation? Is it down to between 150-200 seats? or is it even coming third in seats with around 70, which really would feel less like a humiliation and more like an extinction level event.
The polls say the Tories will be battered, but could it be worse than that?
This is the big question. My head says no at the moment, but it is very febrile.
The reason I think no is their performance at the locals. It showed a complete shellacking was coming, but not an utter collapse.
I think in the end there will be enough of the client vote persuaded to turn out to get them where they need to be to keep some of the more traditionally Tory seats. I am also not entirely convinced that the Lib Dem’s will be able to seize the moment as much as they did in 1997.
In the end an emphasis on tax bombshells, IHT, the VAT on schools policy will probably give them enough to get them to 150 at least.
BUT - the reason I am uncertain is because there is still a very febrile feeling in the polls and so far in the campaign, and Rishi is moving out of the blocks in a very low gear. If the campaign really continues to be that much of a damp squib and the Tories mess it up so bad that they dilute their core messaging, then it starts to become possible.
I really find it so difficult to predict, this one.
I’m not sure the LibDems seized the moment in 1997 so much as rode the tide. Similar conditions for this election but with the electorate in some of their core targets even more mutinous than in 1997. That bodes well, for me.
I think the Tory vote will hold up in the Midlands and that is what will save them from obliteration. Watch areas with sizeable Hindu and maybe to a lesser extent Sikh populations. They could buck trends.
Are there many Tory seats in the Midlands with sizeable Hindu or Sikh populations?
I can't comment on Brum or Coventry etc, but if we assume Hindus and Sikhs are mainly in cities (a fair assumption imo), Nottingham, Derby and Leicester only have one Tory MP out of 8 total - that's Amanda Solloway.
By the way, y’all know my views about what’s coming but I had another shambolic train journey yesterday. Usual saga. Train pulls out of Exeter on time but then halts and before you know it we’re already ten minutes late. Guard announces that ‘we will make up the time on the journey’. Everyone just laughs. Train falls further and further behind until, at Salisbury, it’s cancelled altogether.
The trains are scruffy as hell with no sign of investment. The loos are disgusting. They withdrew all refreshments during lockdown and didn’t return them - you can go 4 hours in hot weather but 'nor any drop to drink.’
And at every single station they blast a full volume message about ‘uniformed and non-uniformed staff patrol our trains. Failure to buy a valid ticket could result in an instant £100 fine and prosecution.’ Followed by an institutional protection message: ‘any abusive behaviour towards a member of of our staff will not be tolerated and will be reported to British Transport Police.’ So you can’t even point out, politely, that their service is shit.
So it’s another Delay Repay claim. Several trains down and several trains up either side of my one were also cancelled.
SWR are a godawful mess. Like so much of our railway network. Like so much of our country.
The trains bear the name and livery of their former operator: SWR. In reality the franchise was abolished in 2020 and SWR now take a small margin to operationally do exactly what the government tell them.
The challenge that Labour have isn't that they need to "nationalise" these operators. They're almost entirely run out of the DfT. Their challenge is how to remove the dead hand of the state and free GBR to be state owned but commercially operated like all of the successful "private" operators we have had over the last few decades - SNCF, DB, NS, FS etc
There's also the question of what caused the delays. Was it a failure on SWR's part (say, another train of theirs broken down further along the line), or a failure by Network Rail or a.n.other.
I hope to God, when they 'renationalise' the railways, they don't get rid of delay attribution. It's vital to a well-functioning network. (AIUI BR was starting to implement it in the 1980s, as computerisation started to allow it.)
From a passenger perspective it doesn't matter what causes the delay. They are late, and whether the train broke down / the crew were missing / the rails buckled / signals failed they still get compensation.
That system needs to stay. "delay attribution" relates to the internal payments due to either operator or infrastructure owner depending on what went wrong. Which involves a vast array of contracts which means contract managers and lawyers and costs. I'd do away with that in a heartbeat - won't affect passengers getting their money back.
Trouble is, without delay attribution, what incentive is there to ensure that your slightly dodgy freight train doesn't break own across the station throat at New Street, or that your signalling repairs don't overrun and cause chaos at rush hour?
If a delay to a passenger train just means the operating company takes a hit regardless of fault, all the incentives get messed up. Rather like democracy, delay attribution its the worst system out there, apart from all the others that have been tried.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
The same fundamental problems will exist for Starmer as they do for the current government. Being braver might help, but these issues are immensely complex and are surrounded by marshy swamps filled with alligators.
My own view is that the best answers do not lie in ideology, but in cold, hard pragmatism. But that doesn't get the base of a political party excited.
The only answer is for the country to pay for the infrastructure and public services we need.
In the short term that means higher taxation. Yes we can strive make public services more efficient, reduce welfare spend round the margins*, try to reduce tax avoidance but these all offer negligible gains. We have to pay our way and realise that better infrastructure and better public services leads to higher productivity and growth.
Whether Labour will be brave enough to tackle this I don't know.
(*Welfare could in fairness be cut but top of the list is the Triple Lock and that now seems to have achieved 'untouchable' status. We could also reduce disability benefits by tackling the causes: e.g. better mental health services; tougher action on junk food; legalising, regulating and taxing recreational drugs; etc.)
PS I'd also make disability benefits taxable - that would be unpopular but fair.
Child Benefit too, presumably?
Something else that needs thinking about. Doing things costs money.
If building a small plank bridge is going to cost £250K, then we *can't* have lots of small plank bridges.
A little while back, there was a discussion, here, of the theft of artefacts at the British Museum. A number of people seemed appalled by the suggestion of doing a "quick and dirt" catalogue.
I've actually volunteered in the past doing this at a smaller museum. A relative is digitising some private archives with an iPhone, currently.
The thing is, that either we learn to cut our cloth from the fabric we have, or we will be naked.
Saying "We can't possibly have a library catalogue without a new Norman Foster inspired building, a chief executive and consultants to setup up the Herman Miller chairs for the Senior Management Team" means we can't have a catalogue.
The essential point is one that I totally agree with @Sandpit about, even if we can argue the toss about specifics:
You need to believe that infrastructure matters for a nation's productivity and wellbeing.
I frankly find it astounding that anyone can find that contentious. There is no denying that we are seriously short of cash and living substantially beyond our means but if the cost of the NI cut was HS2 it was absolutely not a price worth paying. The focus on keeping consumption and current spending going at the price of long term investment is probably our greatest economic failing because it drives so many others such as low productivity and growth.
Not sure I see many signs of this improving under Labour but its a large black mark against the current government.
There are some very consistent polls pointing towards a Labour supermajority. "Won't happen" seems to be the consensus, but what if it does?
The British problem is that we lost track of strategic objectives in the 1970s. It takes a government with vision and absolute freedom to act to do transformative things. Thatcher had both. Blair had the majority and delivered so much detail, but was missing the transformative mission.
Starmer? His missions suggest he gets it. But in practice I would be astonished if they set out to actually transform the country in the way we need. Sadly.
The same fundamental problems will exist for Starmer as they do for the current government. Being braver might help, but these issues are immensely complex and are surrounded by marshy swamps filled with alligators.
My own view is that the best answers do not lie in ideology, but in cold, hard pragmatism. But that doesn't get the base of a political party excited.
The only answer is for the country to pay for the infrastructure and public services we need.
In the short term that means higher taxation. Yes we can strive make public services more efficient, reduce welfare spend round the margins*, try to reduce tax avoidance but these all offer negligible gains. We have to pay our way and realise that better infrastructure and better public services leads to higher productivity and growth.
Whether Labour will be brave enough to tackle this I don't know.
(*Welfare could in fairness be cut but top of the list is the Triple Lock and that now seems to have achieved 'untouchable' status. We could also reduce disability benefits by tackling the causes: e.g. better mental health services; tougher action on junk food; legalising, regulating and taxing recreational drugs; etc.)
PS I'd also make disability benefits taxable - that would be unpopular but fair.
Child Benefit too, presumably?
Something else that needs thinking about. Doing things costs money.
If building a small plank bridge is going to cost £250K, then we *can't* have lots of small plank bridges.
A little while back, there was a discussion, here, of the theft of artefacts at the British Museum. A number of people seemed appalled by the suggestion of doing a "quick and dirt" catalogue.
I've actually volunteered in the past doing this at a smaller museum. A relative is digitising some private archives with an iPhone, currently.
The thing is, that either we learn to cut our cloth from the fabric we have, or we will be naked.
Saying "We can't possibly have a library catalogue without a new Norman Foster inspired building, a chief executive and consultants to setup up the Herman Miller chairs for the Senior Management Team" means we can't have a catalogue.
The thing is, also, that if the catalogue is wildly popular on the basis of a cheapo version, then you also know that it would be worth the spend to do it "properly" later.
By doing cheapo things first you can find out what there is the demand for and then iterate from there. Instead of having a number of committees to decide between competing priorities with only their biases to use to choose.
His membership of Labour is automatically terminated
Great shame. A politician who actually gave a damn. Watch the Peter Oborne piece and you realise quite why politicians like Cleverly are no better than Paula Vennells
Corbyn was probably a decent local MP. He probably will be again. He will remain in his happy place irrespective of who wins the election, back on the Opposition benches.
That is true.
I'm truly surprised he's done this, I thought that despite never being beholden to the whip he was so personally invested as Labour that even with Keir edging him out he'd take the retirement and just bask in the support of many in the party regardless.
He'll still have his rallies and fans, but he's given such a win to the anti Corbyn faction, his allies who remain will be even bigger pariahs.
If he loses - King over the Water. A pariah inside the party, venerated by the people who hate the party because it isn't left-wing enough If he wins - totemic resistance fighter, battling for Socialism by sitting with and voting with the Tories
Comments
There is a very real possibility the present conservative party will be utterly humiliated on the 4th July and frankly they have nobody else to blame than themselves from the disaster of Truss (maybe the biggest gift to an opposition in recent history) to the internal factions openly attacking each other, and then Sunak upsetting their apple cart by calling (rightly) a snap election
I have no idea what happens to them next but Starmer as PM from 5th July will be the beginning of a very difficult political period but let's see just how he progresses as he will undoubtedly enjoy a honeymoon period
Jeremy Corbyn standing as an independent will hardly have any effect on Starmer
In the short term that means higher taxation. Yes we can strive make public services more efficient, reduce welfare spend round the margins*, try to reduce tax avoidance but these all offer negligible gains. We have to pay our way and realise that better infrastructure and better public services leads to higher productivity and growth.
Whether Labour will be brave enough to tackle this I don't know.
(*Welfare could in fairness be cut but top of the list is the Triple Lock and that now seems to have achieved 'untouchable' status. We could also reduce disability benefits by tackling the causes: e.g. better mental health services; tougher action on junk food; legalising, regulating and taxing recreational drugs; etc.)
His membership of Labour is automatically terminated
https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2024/may/17/israel-secret-war
Do they support Jez and get into trouble with the party? Or do they abandon him and get into trouble with the fanclub?
Corbyn really is a vain selfish fool.
This, of course, described both sides.
And it has been that way (with some few noble exceptions) with Israel/Palestine as long as I can remember.
"The government’s target to reduce unprecedented criminal court backlogs in England and Wales cannot be met, the national spending watchdog has concluded.The National Audit Office (NAO) says the delays are affecting victims and risking cases collapsing."
"Victims wait on average 22 months from an offence for a verdict in a Crown Court."
"The report reveals that the Criminal Justice Board, a body chaired by the justice secretary aimed at solving problems across the system, did not meet at all between July 2021 and July 2023. During that two-year period, there were four different justice secretaries"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd110lr5lpno
This is shambolic and pathetic, no hyperbole involved.
The polls say the Tories will be battered, but could it be worse than that?
(Matt 6:3)
After the 4th ballot in the leadership contest, when Badenoch was eliminated, Truss was third. But Truss picked up double the number of Badenoch supporters that Mordaunt did, catapulting her into 2nd.
And, of course, the membership chose Truss. Perhaps for reasons that Jolyon Maugham was right about?
That faction that backed Badenoch, nutters like Anderson, Fletcher, and Bradley, they're a problem.
Plus, of course, all those who were Truss true believers.
A lot can happen during the campaign though, in either direction.
NEW THREAD
And then if youre taxing more is this your priority ? Why not pay doctors more, or compensate SPMs or build some houses ? The CJBs only advantage is SKS is a lawyer and might look after his mates.
Everyone of working age.
The reason I think no is their performance at the locals. It showed a complete shellacking was coming, but not an utter collapse.
I think in the end there will be enough of the client vote persuaded to turn out to get them where they need to be to keep some of the more traditionally Tory seats. I am also not entirely convinced that the Lib Dem’s will be able to seize the moment as much as they did in 1997.
In the end an emphasis on tax bombshells, IHT, the VAT on schools policy will probably give them enough to get them to 150 at least.
BUT - the reason I am uncertain is because there is still a very febrile feeling in the polls and so far in the campaign, and Rishi is moving out of the blocks in a very low gear. If the campaign really continues to be that much of a damp squib and the Tories mess it up so bad that they dilute their core messaging, then it starts to become possible.
I really find it so difficult to predict, this one.
Reminiscent of the Johnson vs Livingstone mayoral race in London, where it came out that Boris was working self-employed rather than through a company, and paying way more tax than any advisor would have him pay.
In Israel/Palestine there is disagreement about to which groups the land as a whole belongs to, not only WRT political authority but as to who shall be allowed to live in it.
In RoI/NI there are sufficient good people on all sides to identify a central core of opinion which can make progress.
In Israel/Palestine no such large group of 'good people on all sides' can yet be identified. Events of the last year have demolished any faint hope for now.
Take this election. Bet365 has prices on most if not all constituencies already. Ladbrokes has 40. Hills has none that I can find. Skybet has 16. Betfair Exchange 50.
And there wasn't the same existential threat in NI from several ideologically committed near neighbours.
That the casualties of the last few months exceed those in NI over thirty years, by an order of magnitude, partly illustrates the difference.
I think the Tory vote will hold up in the Midlands and that is what will save them from obliteration. Watch areas with sizeable Hindu and maybe to a lesser extent Sikh populations. They could buck trends.
I'm truly surprised he's done this, I thought that despite never being beholden to the whip he was so personally invested as Labour that even with Keir edging him out he'd take the retirement and just bask in the support of many in the party regardless.
He'll still have his rallies and fans, but he's given such a win to the anti Corbyn faction, his allies who remain will be even bigger pariahs.
Decent guy, overpromoted.
And now to the PO Inquiry, and the parade of overpromoted shits.
At the level of suggested, it would simply make the majority of jobs in the country uneconomic.
I can't comment on Brum or Coventry etc, but if we assume Hindus and Sikhs are mainly in cities (a fair assumption imo), Nottingham, Derby and Leicester only have one Tory MP out of 8 total - that's Amanda Solloway.
And that perhaps limits this edge.
If a delay to a passenger train just means the operating company takes a hit regardless of fault, all the incentives get messed up. Rather like democracy, delay attribution its the worst system out there, apart from all the others that have been tried.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/02/04/the-state-of-process-the-process-state/
To me, the classic example is -
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/28/norfolk-marsh-bridge-national-trust
If building a small plank bridge is going to cost £250K, then we *can't* have lots of small plank bridges.
A little while back, there was a discussion, here, of the theft of artefacts at the British Museum. A number of people seemed appalled by the suggestion of doing a "quick and dirt" catalogue.
I've actually volunteered in the past doing this at a smaller museum. A relative is digitising some private archives with an iPhone, currently.
The thing is, that either we learn to cut our cloth from the fabric we have, or we will be naked.
Saying "We can't possibly have a library catalogue without a new Norman Foster inspired building, a chief executive and consultants to setup up the Herman Miller chairs for the Senior Management Team" means we can't have a catalogue.
By doing cheapo things first you can find out what there is the demand for and then iterate from there. Instead of having a number of committees to decide between competing priorities with only their biases to use to choose.
If he wins - totemic resistance fighter, battling for Socialism by sitting with and voting with the Tories
They really are having a disaster. One i saw was that it advised you to drink your own piss to help pass kidney stones.