Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
Do they have nuclear weapons that work?
If they do, it's more than we have.
Count Binface has a theory on that.
I will make the public absolute firm commitment to rebuild the £100bn Trident weapons system. And I will make an equally firm private commitment not to build them. Why? Because they're secret submarines so no one will ever know! Win win. Threaten the Ruskis, keep the cash.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
Tokyo says hello.
Japan has a higher proportion of people travelling on rails than the UK, and in the main island where Tokyo etc are it is subsidy free.
Subsidies only exist for the remote islands which are more comparable to subsidising the Scottish Highlands and nowhere else.
The 'Trump/Vance' plan for Ukraine is naive. They think they are doing a 'deal' with Russia but actually they would probably just be negotiating a temporary pause, which Russia would then probably use to its advantage over time. But I don't think it is fair to say this is 'selling out Ukraine', it just an alternative strategy to the current one.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
Tokyo says hello.
Japan has a higher proportion of people travelling on rails than the UK, and in the main island where Tokyo etc are it is subsidy free.
Subsidies only exist for the remote islands which are more comparable to subsidising the Scottish Highlands and nowhere else.
A surprising thing about Japan is how many abandoned stations and closed lines there are. The country' increasing urbanisation made many lines unprofitable. There have been closures even in recent years:
"Between 2000 and 2021 alone, forty-five train lines spanning 1158 kilometers were decommissioned across Japan."
I wonder if the US will have a financial crisis if Trump erects a 10% tariff on imports. 60% on Chinese stuff and 100% on Chinese cars.
The reason, the sole reason, the US can borrow infinite money is because of the Dollar's role as global reserve currency. But demand is already down a lot. And if if the world begins to demand even fewer dollars, interest rates will have to go up and the yanks can't service that. All those cheap airconditioned mcmansions, massive flatbed trucks and double doored fridges will become unviable.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
I think the problem was the Conservative government we just had operated a bit like the one we had from 1970 to 1974 - talked about the problems but didn't address the root cause.
It's trouble was that it continued state largesse, and just with its favoured base and cutbacks in the rest.
Strategic thinking there was none.
I know that spend to save is counter-factual. Especially for some politicians who are ideologues. Point is that none of these cuts are absolutes. You can't cut x from the police budget or the schools budget or any critical things we need without the y cost of the consequences of that.
And it isn't party political. Up here in Aberdeenshire the SNP government have slashed funding for the council. Which means they've had to squeeze education budgets and cut teaching places. That means more emergency cash having to be spent on supply staff - spending more not less.
When there is fat you can trim. All the fat has gone. We now cut muscle, which is a problem if we still intend to be able to move.
In many cases even the muscle has been cut and what's left is some crumbling bones.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
Tokyo says hello.
Japan has a higher proportion of people travelling on rails than the UK, and in the main island where Tokyo etc are it is subsidy free.
Subsidies only exist for the remote islands which are more comparable to subsidising the Scottish Highlands and nowhere else.
A surprising thing about Japan is how many abandoned stations and closed lines there are. The country' increasing urbanisation made many lines unprofitable. There have been closures even in recent years:
"Between 2000 and 2021 alone, forty-five train lines spanning 1158 kilometers were decommissioned across Japan."
Sarina Wiegman defo putting her CV forward to take over from Southgate. Her team grinds out a 0-0 result to qualify from the group. What more are England looking for. Oh, and she won her final.
In case you are wondering WHY Trump picked Vance as his running mate, anti-UKRism is one key reason, methinks.
Putin-pimpers & Trump-fluffers (ditto visa versa) please explain?
How could he be more anti UK than Biden ?
Biden supports NATO. Biden isn't intending to cut support to Ukraine, who we also support. Biden isn't going to introduce huge tariffs on goods imported from the UK. Biden isn't so deluded that he thinks the UK is run by Islamists.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
I don't want to borrow for opex, but in borrowing to invest in capex you reduce the need for opex.
Again, cut the schools budget enough and you create enormous social problems which cost *more* to mop up than you cur. We cannot make serious cuts to public spending because we will have to spend money dealing with the mess. As we already are. Or is the plan to simply withdraw from places like Dundee and let feral youths and petty criminals take over because it was definitely better to make serious cuts to education and law and order?
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
I don't want to borrow for opex, but in borrowing to invest in capex you reduce the need for opex.
Again, cut the schools budget enough and you create enormous social problems which cost *more* to mop up than you cur. We cannot make serious cuts to public spending because we will have to spend money dealing with the mess. As we already are. Or is the plan to simply withdraw from places like Dundee and let feral youths and petty criminals take over because it was definitely better to make serious cuts to education and law and order?
The obvious place to start is by ending the Triple Lock in order to free up funds for the areas needing real investment. No party seems serious about doing this, indeed the amounts being discussed for changes in expenditure in the GE were either trivial, or in the case of Greens and Reform completely unrealistic.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
I don't want to borrow for opex, but in borrowing to invest in capex you reduce the need for opex.
Again, cut the schools budget enough and you create enormous social problems which cost *more* to mop up than you cur. We cannot make serious cuts to public spending because we will have to spend money dealing with the mess. As we already are. Or is the plan to simply withdraw from places like Dundee and let feral youths and petty criminals take over because it was definitely better to make serious cuts to education and law and order?
The obvious place to start is by ending the Triple Lock in order to free up funds for the areas needing real investment. No party seems serious about doing this, indeed the amounts being discussed for changes in expenditure in the GE were either trivial, or in the case of Greens and Reform completely unrealistic.
So genteel poverty is pretty much nailed on.
It's the easiest choice, politically. It takes something very special to move away from such a path.
I wonder if the US will have a financial crisis if Trump erects a 10% tariff on imports. 60% on Chinese stuff and 100% on Chinese cars.
The reason, the sole reason, the US can borrow infinite money is because of the Dollar's role as global reserve currency. But demand is already down a lot. And if if the world begins to demand even fewer dollars, interest rates will have to go up and the yanks can't service that. All those cheap airconditioned mcmansions, massive flatbed trucks and double doored fridges will become unviable.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
I don't want to borrow for opex, but in borrowing to invest in capex you reduce the need for opex.
Again, cut the schools budget enough and you create enormous social problems which cost *more* to mop up than you cur. We cannot make serious cuts to public spending because we will have to spend money dealing with the mess. As we already are. Or is the plan to simply withdraw from places like Dundee and let feral youths and petty criminals take over because it was definitely better to make serious cuts to education and law and order?
Talking of which:
That the new govt haven't been able to take a quick decision on teacher pay essentially confirms that the proposed award from pay review body is higher than schools are funded for.
So they will need to find hundreds of millions from somewhere. Or push the cost on to schools.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
So very simple question - where do you plan to cut spending tomorrow...
Sarina Wiegman defo putting her CV forward to take over from Southgate. Her team grinds out a 0-0 result to qualify from the group. What more are England looking for. Oh, and she won her final.
Could do a lot worse than appoint Wiegman and indeed probably will.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
Tokyo says hello.
Japan has a higher proportion of people travelling on rails than the UK, and in the main island where Tokyo etc are it is subsidy free.
Subsidies only exist for the remote islands which are more comparable to subsidising the Scottish Highlands and nowhere else.
A surprising thing about Japan is how many abandoned stations and closed lines there are. The country' increasing urbanisation made many lines unprofitable. There have been closures even in recent years:
"Between 2000 and 2021 alone, forty-five train lines spanning 1158 kilometers were decommissioned across Japan."
TBH I don't know enough about it; only what I've read in various articles and sites. My *impression* is that it is companies doing this, not government, so there is no need for a fall guy like Beeching (*).
(*) Beeching closed absolutely zero railways. The (Conservative and Labour) governments closed them. Beeching was just a convenient person for the governments to put the 'blame' on.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Please define "serious cuts in public spending" - should that include defence? It might have to.
We have to think about tax rises or reducing the current thresholds if you don't want to actually increase the rates.
It's disappointing the debate starts again from cutting public spending as the only way to reduce the deficit - bringing in more from tax does as well so a balanced approach between the two (not the £5 cut for £1 raised from spending as Osborne tried but a £3/£3 approach).
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
I don't want to borrow for opex, but in borrowing to invest in capex you reduce the need for opex.
Again, cut the schools budget enough and you create enormous social problems which cost *more* to mop up than you cur. We cannot make serious cuts to public spending because we will have to spend money dealing with the mess. As we already are. Or is the plan to simply withdraw from places like Dundee and let feral youths and petty criminals take over because it was definitely better to make serious cuts to education and law and order?
If we were coming from zero I would agree with you. I have no problem with borrowing to invest. But we are nowhere near zero. We have a huge structural deficit in our spending that we need to address. We need to decide what the State needs to do and what it doesn't.
We already have very high levels of taxation. There is a risk that further increases will be counterproductive and dampen growth. But we definitely need more capital investment in our infrastructure to fund future growth and future public spending. It's not an easy problem and I don't envy Reeves and what she has inherited.
The sad decay of the UK really does need to be tret as a national crisis. Previous generations built, created and bequeathed to future generations. We are closing, shuttering and leaving only problems for my kids.
Starmer's missions pose a rather basic question for our society - do we want a society? When most of our towns are crumbling and shuttered with minimal service provision and no hope, the obvious turnaround need is there. Make the places we live places that people want to live. Somewhere they can be proud of.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Please define "serious cuts in public spending" - should that include defence? It might have to.
I think every party pledged to increase defence spending, except possibly the Greens (though they gave caveated support to NATO, surprisingly), though why Reform did so when they want to be involved far less in international matters I'm not sure.
But I don't see how we can possibly manage it even over a long time scale, we seem unable to afford what we spend already. Mythical savings in defence procurement are likely expected to fund a lot.
The sad decay of the UK really does need to be tret as a national crisis. Previous generations built, created and bequeathed to future generations. We are closing, shuttering and leaving only problems for my kids.
Starmer's missions pose a rather basic question for our society - do we want a society? When most of our towns are crumbling and shuttered with minimal service provision and no hope, the obvious turnaround need is there. Make the places we live places that people want to live. Somewhere they can be proud of.
Does anyone have any ideas how? A lot of ideas to revive towns is chasing after the past, pretending pubs and local shops are going to come back for some reason.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
I don't want to borrow for opex, but in borrowing to invest in capex you reduce the need for opex.
Again, cut the schools budget enough and you create enormous social problems which cost *more* to mop up than you cur. We cannot make serious cuts to public spending because we will have to spend money dealing with the mess. As we already are. Or is the plan to simply withdraw from places like Dundee and let feral youths and petty criminals take over because it was definitely better to make serious cuts to education and law and order?
The obvious place to start is by ending the Triple Lock in order to free up funds for the areas needing real investment. No party seems serious about doing this, indeed the amounts being discussed for changes in expenditure in the GE were either trivial, or in the case of Greens and Reform completely unrealistic.
So genteel poverty is pretty much nailed on.
Ending the triple lock will not free up any money, at least, not in the short term. What would give Reeves more to spend is ending higher rate tax relief on pension contributions.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
I don't want to borrow for opex, but in borrowing to invest in capex you reduce the need for opex.
Again, cut the schools budget enough and you create enormous social problems which cost *more* to mop up than you cur. We cannot make serious cuts to public spending because we will have to spend money dealing with the mess. As we already are. Or is the plan to simply withdraw from places like Dundee and let feral youths and petty criminals take over because it was definitely better to make serious cuts to education and law and order?
If we were coming from zero I would agree with you. I have no problem with borrowing to invest. But we are nowhere near zero. We have a huge structural deficit in our spending that we need to address. We need to decide what the State needs to do and what it doesn't.
We already have very high levels of taxation. There is a risk that further increases will be counterproductive and dampen growth. But we definitely need more capital investment in our infrastructure to fund future growth and future public spending. It's not an easy problem and I don't envy Reeves and what she has inherited.
Agreed. Lets use some real world examples, and talk about our mutual friends in the Scottish government as an example. The education budget keeps getting cut. A live example up here in the form of Fraserburgh North school, a broken Victorian edifice due for replacement years ago.
The heating is stuck on - money literally pouring out the windows which need to be open. The cash to replace it isn't forthcoming and the operating costs continue to rise so they cut teachers. FN gets allocated all the kids that other schools can't cope with due to their own cuts. So emergency cover is hired in. They are literally spending more to get less.
The solution is simple - build a new school and pay teachers salaries. The operating costs drop significantly after a short period where spending is higher as you transition.
You mentioned the deficit. So I assume that the prudent action would be to let these kids roast / freeze in a school with dangerously few members of staff? But that also has a cost - and fixing the damage always costs more than dealing with the problem.
Cuts to manage the deficit - when things are as catastrophic as they are - always means a bigger deficit. And the Tories inability to recognise this - claiming "we are nowhere near zero" is how we cut and cut and cut and then stare in wonder at the deficit going ever higher.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Please define "serious cuts in public spending" - should that include defence? It might have to.
We have to think about tax rises or reducing the current thresholds if you don't want to actually increase the rates.
It's disappointing the debate starts again from cutting public spending as the only way to reduce the deficit - bringing in more from tax does as well so a balanced approach between the two (not the £5 cut for £1 raised from spending as Osborne tried but a £3/£3 approach).
The austerity of Osborne worked and things improved until we got blown off course by Covid and our response to it. Then we had the cost of gas and power on the back of the Ukraine invasion. So we do need to do it again until our spending and our income are more in balance.
So the government said most businesses would receive a discount on their energy bills of up to 6.97 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) for gas and 19.61 pounds per MWh for electricity between April 2023 and March 2024. Probably helped us avoid a recession but at what a cost. Do we need to subsidise public transport to the extent that we do, as was being discussed down thread? Can we really afford to keep giving the NHS a blank cheque to do everything or do we need to be start being more realistic about what they can and can't do?
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
I don't want to borrow for opex, but in borrowing to invest in capex you reduce the need for opex.
Again, cut the schools budget enough and you create enormous social problems which cost *more* to mop up than you cur. We cannot make serious cuts to public spending because we will have to spend money dealing with the mess. As we already are. Or is the plan to simply withdraw from places like Dundee and let feral youths and petty criminals take over because it was definitely better to make serious cuts to education and law and order?
If we were coming from zero I would agree with you. I have no problem with borrowing to invest. But we are nowhere near zero. We have a huge structural deficit in our spending that we need to address. We need to decide what the State needs to do and what it doesn't.
We already have very high levels of taxation. There is a risk that further increases will be counterproductive and dampen growth. But we definitely need more capital investment in our infrastructure to fund future growth and future public spending. It's not an easy problem and I don't envy Reeves and what she has inherited.
That's the question. By the standards of the UK input lifetimes, taxes are high. But compared with our neighbours right now, they are lower.
So the awkward question for all of us goes something like this. Was the British miracle (tolerably good public services for surprisingly low taxes) something of a blag all along, bolstered by borrowing, asset sales and not saving properly for retirement?
If so, what happens next? Nobody wants taxes to go up, nobody wants cuts at the level of "going forward, you will have to pay for this yourself". The answer probably involves both, and one of the really disreputable things Rishi and co did in government was to pretend that wasn't the case.
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
The sad decay of the UK really does need to be tret as a national crisis. Previous generations built, created and bequeathed to future generations. We are closing, shuttering and leaving only problems for my kids.
Starmer's missions pose a rather basic question for our society - do we want a society? When most of our towns are crumbling and shuttered with minimal service provision and no hope, the obvious turnaround need is there. Make the places we live places that people want to live. Somewhere they can be proud of.
I mean, I don't see that. We're building and creating massively, and previous generations also closed and shuttered stuff. I'd also like to see the last era that did not have significant problems they left for their kids. mid-Victorians perhaps?
Matt Parker from Stand-up Maths was at Rishi's count as an agent of Count Binface. PB's experienced agents will see nothing new but for the rest of us, the art of estimating results from piles of ballot papers might be interesting.
OT post - apologies if this has been posted before but I couldn't find any mention of it!
This story doesn't seem to have got much traction outside of the tech media yet, but if any PBers are looking to buy a new laptop or PC be aware it looks like Intel's i9 and i7 processors, specifically the 13th and 14th generation models, have an electromigration issue that will cause the chip to become unstable and eventually fail completely.
Rumours about the severity of this problem have been floating around for some time - I've experienced it first hand, and have been advising against buying Intel based systems - but crash logs maintained by some game developers have recently been made available for statistical analysis that has revealed the issue is widespread. As well as PCs and laptops these processors are often used by game server operators and some of them have apparently had to pull all their 13th and 14th gen servers due to a near 100% mortality rate with the chips.
We don't know if the i5 range is affected yet. They run at lower voltages than the i9 and i7, so will take longer to fail if they do have the issue.
If you have a 13/14 gen PC or laptop that's unstable it's probably the processor. An RMA to the retailer or manufacturer will result in a replacement that is also likely to fail. So there's not much to do but wait until Intel decides what it is going to do to clean up the mess.
The sad decay of the UK really does need to be tret as a national crisis. Previous generations built, created and bequeathed to future generations. We are closing, shuttering and leaving only problems for my kids.
Starmer's missions pose a rather basic question for our society - do we want a society? When most of our towns are crumbling and shuttered with minimal service provision and no hope, the obvious turnaround need is there. Make the places we live places that people want to live. Somewhere they can be proud of.
Does anyone have any ideas how? A lot of ideas to revive towns is chasing after the past, pretending pubs and local shops are going to come back for some reason.
Stockton-on-Tees has a plan, and it is working. Edited highlights: 1. Compulsory purchase the shuttered shops owned by foreign investment banks. Bulldose the surplus to create a viable base from the remaining downsized retail estate 2. Convert empty big stores into enterprise arcades. People can rent a space in the shop for peppercorn rent, build their business without crippling costs, and then be moved out into other retail space which is now owned by the council 3. Make the town centre somewhere you want to visit. Remove the decay, repave, protect the centuries old market by not charging stand fees that stallholders can't afford. 4. Borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. They refurbished The Globe theatre which had been derelict for decades. Reopened for business it gets booked with all the national tours as it is the perfect intermediate size that didn't exist in-between Leeds and Newcastle before it reopened 5. Build a modern hotel and CPI / demolish the closed one. Own the thing yourself. Watch as it gets heavily booked on a regular basis.
I note that the entire master plan and Every Single Step was opposed by the local Tories. They didn't want to spend money on the town centre, didn't want to repurpose empty shops to incubate new ones. Said the theatre would never be used and the Hotel a white elephant waste of money. Their alternative suggestion? Do nothing - can't afford it, let it rot and blame the Labour council for letting it go to ruin.
So it can be done. But you need vision and balls of steel. I can think of several of the bankrupt Tory councils in the home counties who used borrowing to speculate on the property market rather than invest in their own towns...
Matt Parker from Stand-up Maths was at Rishi's count as an agent of Count Binface. PB's experienced agents will see nothing new but for the rest of us, the art of estimating results from piles of ballot papers might be interesting.
One thing that surprised me at the count I was at was usually everyone has their little prepared tally sheets, but one party's agents, a major party, had people just marking things off in personal notebooks. I've been at many counts and never seen that, people usually stick with their clipboards from about 4 elections ago.
Will be interesting to see IF "Bribing Bob" Mendendez now carries through with his promise/threat to run for re-election in November in New Jersey as an Independent?
Interesting that the great Garden State is now in a significant spasm of political reform. For about the first time since similar spasm resulted in election of Woodrow Wilson as Governor in 1910.
That one ended two years later, when WW ran for POTUS and was elected, in large measure based on his progressive (early 20th-century style) record as Gov.
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
Johnson really does seem to be channelling Worzel Gummidge (spelling?) nowadays. He makes Trump look good in that pic.
Ukraine seemed to be the one thing, apart from himself, that Johnson did care about, so not sure whether this is really encouraging or simply a - noble enough - attempt to nail Trump's trousers to the mast.
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
Still got a few hearts and minds among the crazies to win over.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
Do they have nuclear weapons that work?
If they do, it's more than we have.
Count Binface has a theory on that.
I will make the public absolute firm commitment to rebuild the £100bn Trident weapons system. And I will make an equally firm private commitment not to build them. Why? Because they're secret submarines so no one will ever know! Win win. Threaten the Ruskis, keep the cash.
The Russians seem to have taken that approach themselves given the state of their weapons and the sheer amount of money diverted into the pockets of those with sufficient connections.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
I don't want to borrow for opex, but in borrowing to invest in capex you reduce the need for opex.
Again, cut the schools budget enough and you create enormous social problems which cost *more* to mop up than you cur. We cannot make serious cuts to public spending because we will have to spend money dealing with the mess. As we already are. Or is the plan to simply withdraw from places like Dundee and let feral youths and petty criminals take over because it was definitely better to make serious cuts to education and law and order?
If we were coming from zero I would agree with you. I have no problem with borrowing to invest. But we are nowhere near zero. We have a huge structural deficit in our spending that we need to address. We need to decide what the State needs to do and what it doesn't.
We already have very high levels of taxation. There is a risk that further increases will be counterproductive and dampen growth. But we definitely need more capital investment in our infrastructure to fund future growth and future public spending. It's not an easy problem and I don't envy Reeves and what she has inherited.
Agreed. Lets use some real world examples, and talk about our mutual friends in the Scottish government as an example. The education budget keeps getting cut. A live example up here in the form of Fraserburgh North school, a broken Victorian edifice due for replacement years ago.
The heating is stuck on - money literally pouring out the windows which need to be open. The cash to replace it isn't forthcoming and the operating costs continue to rise so they cut teachers. FN gets allocated all the kids that other schools can't cope with due to their own cuts. So emergency cover is hired in. They are literally spending more to get less.
The solution is simple - build a new school and pay teachers salaries. The operating costs drop significantly after a short period where spending is higher as you transition.
You mentioned the deficit. So I assume that the prudent action would be to let these kids roast / freeze in a school with dangerously few members of staff? But that also has a cost - and fixing the damage always costs more than dealing with the problem.
Cuts to manage the deficit - when things are as catastrophic as they are - always means a bigger deficit. And the Tories inability to recognise this - claiming "we are nowhere near zero" is how we cut and cut and cut and then stare in wonder at the deficit going ever higher.
Wasting money is clearly not the solution and a major part of the problem is that we seem to get less and less for more and more from our public services. We need to improve productivity radically in our public services and that is much easier said than done.
The last government had an absolutely ridiculous target which was that the deficit had to be falling as a share of GDP in year 5. It was ok if the deficit was going up in the first 4 years provided it was falling in year 5. An absolutely ridiculous target which simply ignored the problems we face. And the new government have stuck with it.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
Do they have nuclear weapons that work?
If they do, it's more than we have.
Count Binface has a theory on that.
I will make the public absolute firm commitment to rebuild the £100bn Trident weapons system. And I will make an equally firm private commitment not to build them. Why? Because they're secret submarines so no one will ever know! Win win. Threaten the Ruskis, keep the cash.
The Russians seem to have taken that approach themselves given the state of their weapons and the sheer amount of money diverted into the pockets of those with sufficient connections.
Well, they probably never expected they'd need to take on places larger than places like Georgia or taking nibbles from Ukraine.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
I don't want to borrow for opex, but in borrowing to invest in capex you reduce the need for opex.
Again, cut the schools budget enough and you create enormous social problems which cost *more* to mop up than you cur. We cannot make serious cuts to public spending because we will have to spend money dealing with the mess. As we already are. Or is the plan to simply withdraw from places like Dundee and let feral youths and petty criminals take over because it was definitely better to make serious cuts to education and law and order?
If we were coming from zero I would agree with you. I have no problem with borrowing to invest. But we are nowhere near zero. We have a huge structural deficit in our spending that we need to address. We need to decide what the State needs to do and what it doesn't.
We already have very high levels of taxation. There is a risk that further increases will be counterproductive and dampen growth. But we definitely need more capital investment in our infrastructure to fund future growth and future public spending. It's not an easy problem and I don't envy Reeves and what she has inherited.
Agreed. Lets use some real world examples, and talk about our mutual friends in the Scottish government as an example. The education budget keeps getting cut. A live example up here in the form of Fraserburgh North school, a broken Victorian edifice due for replacement years ago.
The heating is stuck on - money literally pouring out the windows which need to be open. The cash to replace it isn't forthcoming and the operating costs continue to rise so they cut teachers. FN gets allocated all the kids that other schools can't cope with due to their own cuts. So emergency cover is hired in. They are literally spending more to get less.
The solution is simple - build a new school and pay teachers salaries. The operating costs drop significantly after a short period where spending is higher as you transition.
You mentioned the deficit. So I assume that the prudent action would be to let these kids roast / freeze in a school with dangerously few members of staff? But that also has a cost - and fixing the damage always costs more than dealing with the problem.
Cuts to manage the deficit - when things are as catastrophic as they are - always means a bigger deficit. And the Tories inability to recognise this - claiming "we are nowhere near zero" is how we cut and cut and cut and then stare in wonder at the deficit going ever higher.
Fixing the roof when the sun is shining is a great idea, but you really need to fix it when it's pissing down and you're running out of buckets.
Matt Parker from Stand-up Maths was at Rishi's count as an agent of Count Binface. PB's experienced agents will see nothing new but for the rest of us, the art of estimating results from piles of ballot papers might be interesting.
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
Johnson really does seem to be channelling Worzel Gummidge (spelling?) nowadays. He makes Trump look good in that pic.
Ukraine seemed to be the one thing, apart from himself, that Johnson did care about, so not sure whether this is really encouraging or simply a - noble enough - attempt to nail Trump's trousers to the mast.
I thought everyone was agreed that making physical threats to political opponents was no longer ok.
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Please define "serious cuts in public spending" - should that include defence? It might have to.
We have to think about tax rises or reducing the current thresholds if you don't want to actually increase the rates.
It's disappointing the debate starts again from cutting public spending as the only way to reduce the deficit - bringing in more from tax does as well so a balanced approach between the two (not the £5 cut for £1 raised from spending as Osborne tried but a £3/£3 approach).
The austerity of Osborne worked and things improved until we got blown off course by Covid and our response to it. Then we had the cost of gas and power on the back of the Ukraine invasion. So we do need to do it again until our spending and our income are more in balance.
So the government said most businesses would receive a discount on their energy bills of up to 6.97 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) for gas and 19.61 pounds per MWh for electricity between April 2023 and March 2024. Probably helped us avoid a recession but at what a cost. Do we need to subsidise public transport to the extent that we do, as was being discussed down thread? Can we really afford to keep giving the NHS a blank cheque to do everything or do we need to be start being more realistic about what they can and can't do?
Are you saying everything was tickety-boo until about Feb 2020?
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
So it must be true.
A lot of people last time fooled themselves Trump would not be as chaotic as he was or do the things his behaviour suggested he might. And until the very end they might have had at least some case, though nearly everyone in his Cabinet has previously said he is not fit to be President (even if most then back him anyway), so the odds on Boris seeing what he wants to see on this issue appears high, given the very clear comments Trump has made.
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
Johnson really does seem to be channelling Worzel Gummidge (spelling?) nowadays. He makes Trump look good in that pic.
Ukraine seemed to be the one thing, apart from himself, that Johnson did care about, so not sure whether this is really encouraging or simply a - noble enough - attempt to nail Trump's trousers to the mast.
I thought everyone was agreed that making physical threats to political opponents was no longer ok.
It's more that Johnson's trousers appear to be heading down towards half mast in that picture. He'd have looked less of a mess in a bin bag.
The sad decay of the UK really does need to be tret as a national crisis. Previous generations built, created and bequeathed to future generations. We are closing, shuttering and leaving only problems for my kids.
Starmer's missions pose a rather basic question for our society - do we want a society? When most of our towns are crumbling and shuttered with minimal service provision and no hope, the obvious turnaround need is there. Make the places we live places that people want to live. Somewhere they can be proud of.
Does anyone have any ideas how? A lot of ideas to revive towns is chasing after the past, pretending pubs and local shops are going to come back for some reason.
Stockton-on-Tees has a plan, and it is working. Edited highlights: 1. Compulsory purchase the shuttered shops owned by foreign investment banks. Bulldose the surplus to create a viable base from the remaining downsized retail estate 2. Convert empty big stores into enterprise arcades. People can rent a space in the shop for peppercorn rent, build their business without crippling costs, and then be moved out into other retail space which is now owned by the council 3. Make the town centre somewhere you want to visit. Remove the decay, repave, protect the centuries old market by not charging stand fees that stallholders can't afford. 4. Borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. They refurbished The Globe theatre which had been derelict for decades. Reopened for business it gets booked with all the national tours as it is the perfect intermediate size that didn't exist in-between Leeds and Newcastle before it reopened 5. Build a modern hotel and CPI / demolish the closed one. Own the thing yourself. Watch as it gets heavily booked on a regular basis.
I note that the entire master plan and Every Single Step was opposed by the local Tories. They didn't want to spend money on the town centre, didn't want to repurpose empty shops to incubate new ones. Said the theatre would never be used and the Hotel a white elephant waste of money. Their alternative suggestion? Do nothing - can't afford it, let it rot and blame the Labour council for letting it go to ruin.
So it can be done. But you need vision and balls of steel. I can think of several of the bankrupt Tory councils in the home counties who used borrowing to speculate on the property market rather than invest in their own towns...
It sounds like the council has taken the commanding heights of commercial real estate into council ownership, and used that to generate revenue for the council, and compulsory purchased anyone who might be competition. It's certainly a plan, but probably one that relies on essentially exporting local services at monopoly prices, to visitors from the rest of the country that still has a private sector?
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Please define "serious cuts in public spending" - should that include defence? It might have to.
We have to think about tax rises or reducing the current thresholds if you don't want to actually increase the rates.
It's disappointing the debate starts again from cutting public spending as the only way to reduce the deficit - bringing in more from tax does as well so a balanced approach between the two (not the £5 cut for £1 raised from spending as Osborne tried but a £3/£3 approach).
The austerity of Osborne worked and things improved until we got blown off course by Covid and our response to it. Then we had the cost of gas and power on the back of the Ukraine invasion. So we do need to do it again until our spending and our income are more in balance.
So the government said most businesses would receive a discount on their energy bills of up to 6.97 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) for gas and 19.61 pounds per MWh for electricity between April 2023 and March 2024. Probably helped us avoid a recession but at what a cost. Do we need to subsidise public transport to the extent that we do, as was being discussed down thread? Can we really afford to keep giving the NHS a blank cheque to do everything or do we need to be start being more realistic about what they can and can't do?
Are you saying everything was tickety-boo until about Feb 2020?
No, but we were digging ourselves out of a hole gradually. It simply cannot be overstated how dependent we were on financial services to pay the bills before 2008. RBS went from being the largest taxpayer in the country to not paying any tax in the next 10 years. That required some serious tax increases on the better paid and a sharp, sharp focus on spending.
And then, before the damage had been fully made good, we got blown off course again. There are absolutely no easy solutions to this. As I have said already I do not envy Reeves her task.
Incredible bullshit now coming out from the seekyservs
“Secret Service director says the decision to leave the roof unguarded was deliberate, because it was unsafe to have snipers on a sloped roof.
“That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there's a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,” Cheatle said.
Secret Service director says the decision to leave the roof unguarded was deliberate, because it allowed the former and future president of the United States to be shot in the face becausdidn’t want a Secret Service agent to be on a roof
The evidence is actually that Vance's references to Moslem counties are as much random terms of abuse to be deployed, as they are anything which might approach analysis.
See also, for example:
It's odd that one of Vance's signature lines about how to deal with the American bureaucracy is to subject it to "de-ba’athification," one of the US policies in Iraq that everyone seems to agree was a huge failure.. https://x.com/AASchapiro/status/1813241849374474670
Since Vance thought Trump might be the American Hitler, perhaps the earlier and more successful de-Nazification may be a better model?
We all assume that Vance was being negative about Trump when he pronounced him American Hitler, the truth could very well be the opposite.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Please define "serious cuts in public spending" - should that include defence? It might have to.
We have to think about tax rises or reducing the current thresholds if you don't want to actually increase the rates.
It's disappointing the debate starts again from cutting public spending as the only way to reduce the deficit - bringing in more from tax does as well so a balanced approach between the two (not the £5 cut for £1 raised from spending as Osborne tried but a £3/£3 approach).
The austerity of Osborne worked and things improved until we got blown off course by Covid and our response to it. Then we had the cost of gas and power on the back of the Ukraine invasion. So we do need to do it again until our spending and our income are more in balance.
So the government said most businesses would receive a discount on their energy bills of up to 6.97 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) for gas and 19.61 pounds per MWh for electricity between April 2023 and March 2024. Probably helped us avoid a recession but at what a cost. Do we need to subsidise public transport to the extent that we do, as was being discussed down thread? Can we really afford to keep giving the NHS a blank cheque to do everything or do we need to be start being more realistic about what they can and can't do?
Are you saying everything was tickety-boo until about Feb 2020?
No, but we were digging ourselves out of a hole gradually. It simply cannot be overstated how dependent we were on financial services to pay the bills before 2008. RBS went from being the largest taxpayer in the country to not paying any tax in the next 10 years. That required some serious tax increases on the better paid and a sharp, sharp focus on spending.
And then, before the damage had been fully made good, we got blown off course again. There are absolutely no easy solutions to this. As I have said already I do not envy Reeves her task.
I'm afraid we also have had the experiment of "spend more to save more" - it was in 2020-22, every western country participated, and its main impact was to raise inflation and interest rates from zero to persistently high levels.
And after we all borrowed and spent 10-15% of GDP, nobody said it was enough.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Please define "serious cuts in public spending" - should that include defence? It might have to.
We have to think about tax rises or reducing the current thresholds if you don't want to actually increase the rates.
It's disappointing the debate starts again from cutting public spending as the only way to reduce the deficit - bringing in more from tax does as well so a balanced approach between the two (not the £5 cut for £1 raised from spending as Osborne tried but a £3/£3 approach).
The austerity of Osborne worked and things improved until we got blown off course by Covid and our response to it. Then we had the cost of gas and power on the back of the Ukraine invasion. So we do need to do it again until our spending and our income are more in balance.
So the government said most businesses would receive a discount on their energy bills of up to 6.97 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) for gas and 19.61 pounds per MWh for electricity between April 2023 and March 2024. Probably helped us avoid a recession but at what a cost. Do we need to subsidise public transport to the extent that we do, as was being discussed down thread? Can we really afford to keep giving the NHS a blank cheque to do everything or do we need to be start being more realistic about what they can and can't do?
Are you saying everything was tickety-boo until about Feb 2020?
No, but we were digging ourselves out of a hole gradually. It simply cannot be overstated how dependent we were on financial services to pay the bills before 2008. RBS went from being the largest taxpayer in the country to not paying any tax in the next 10 years. That required some serious tax increases on the better paid and a sharp, sharp focus on spending.
And then, before the damage had been fully made good, we got blown off course again. There are absolutely no easy solutions to this. As I have said already I do not envy Reeves her task.
If they had made proper, serious reform to the UKG finances I think I'd agree. But they cut everything they thought they could get away with and then tinkered at the edges.
VAT on pasties? Yes! Reform of local government services and funding? No!
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
Johnson really does seem to be channelling Worzel Gummidge (spelling?) nowadays. He makes Trump look good in that pic.
Ukraine seemed to be the one thing, apart from himself, that Johnson did care about, so not sure whether this is really encouraging or simply a - noble enough - attempt to nail Trump's trousers to the mast.
I thought everyone was agreed that making physical threats to political opponents was no longer ok.
That is not a physical threat. It’s from the old nautical term ‘nail colours to the mast’ (so you can’t surrender your ship by pulling them down) extended to ‘nail his trousers to the mast (so he can’t climb down without exposing himself).’
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
Johnson really does seem to be channelling Worzel Gummidge (spelling?) nowadays. He makes Trump look good in that pic.
Ukraine seemed to be the one thing, apart from himself, that Johnson did care about, so not sure whether this is really encouraging or simply a - noble enough - attempt to nail Trump's trousers to the mast.
I thought everyone was agreed that making physical threats to political opponents was no longer ok.
It's more that Johnson's trousers appear to be heading down towards half mast in that picture. He'd have looked less of a mess in a bin bag.
It takes a special person to look worse than the person next to you when they were shot a couple of days earlier.
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
Johnson really does seem to be channelling Worzel Gummidge (spelling?) nowadays. He makes Trump look good in that pic.
Ukraine seemed to be the one thing, apart from himself, that Johnson did care about, so not sure whether this is really encouraging or simply a - noble enough - attempt to nail Trump's trousers to the mast.
I thought everyone was agreed that making physical threats to political opponents was no longer ok.
It's more that Johnson's trousers appear to be heading down towards half mast in that picture. He'd have looked less of a mess in a bin bag.
You are doing the late Dame Vivienne Westwood a disservice. She would have at least held his trousers up with a safety pin before resorting to a bin bag.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Please define "serious cuts in public spending" - should that include defence? It might have to.
We have to think about tax rises or reducing the current thresholds if you don't want to actually increase the rates.
It's disappointing the debate starts again from cutting public spending as the only way to reduce the deficit - bringing in more from tax does as well so a balanced approach between the two (not the £5 cut for £1 raised from spending as Osborne tried but a £3/£3 approach).
The austerity of Osborne worked and things improved until we got blown off course by Covid and our response to it. Then we had the cost of gas and power on the back of the Ukraine invasion. So we do need to do it again until our spending and our income are more in balance.
So the government said most businesses would receive a discount on their energy bills of up to 6.97 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) for gas and 19.61 pounds per MWh for electricity between April 2023 and March 2024. Probably helped us avoid a recession but at what a cost. Do we need to subsidise public transport to the extent that we do, as was being discussed down thread? Can we really afford to keep giving the NHS a blank cheque to do everything or do we need to be start being more realistic about what they can and can't do?
Are you saying everything was tickety-boo until about Feb 2020?
No, but we were digging ourselves out of a hole gradually. It simply cannot be overstated how dependent we were on financial services to pay the bills before 2008. RBS went from being the largest taxpayer in the country to not paying any tax in the next 10 years. That required some serious tax increases on the better paid and a sharp, sharp focus on spending.
And then, before the damage had been fully made good, we got blown off course again. There are absolutely no easy solutions to this. As I have said already I do not envy Reeves her task.
I'm afraid we also have had the experiment of "spend more to save more" - it was in 2020-22, every western country participated, and its main impact was to raise inflation and interest rates from zero to persistently high levels.
And after we all borrowed and spent 10-15% of GDP, nobody said it was enough.
Yes, people seem all too keen to ignore that our record of spending to save is actually appalling. In reality, it just doesn't work.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Please define "serious cuts in public spending" - should that include defence? It might have to.
We have to think about tax rises or reducing the current thresholds if you don't want to actually increase the rates.
It's disappointing the debate starts again from cutting public spending as the only way to reduce the deficit - bringing in more from tax does as well so a balanced approach between the two (not the £5 cut for £1 raised from spending as Osborne tried but a £3/£3 approach).
The austerity of Osborne worked and things improved until we got blown off course by Covid and our response to it. Then we had the cost of gas and power on the back of the Ukraine invasion. So we do need to do it again until our spending and our income are more in balance.
So the government said most businesses would receive a discount on their energy bills of up to 6.97 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) for gas and 19.61 pounds per MWh for electricity between April 2023 and March 2024. Probably helped us avoid a recession but at what a cost. Do we need to subsidise public transport to the extent that we do, as was being discussed down thread? Can we really afford to keep giving the NHS a blank cheque to do everything or do we need to be start being more realistic about what they can and can't do?
Are you saying everything was tickety-boo until about Feb 2020?
No, but we were digging ourselves out of a hole gradually. It simply cannot be overstated how dependent we were on financial services to pay the bills before 2008. RBS went from being the largest taxpayer in the country to not paying any tax in the next 10 years. That required some serious tax increases on the better paid and a sharp, sharp focus on spending.
And then, before the damage had been fully made good, we got blown off course again. There are absolutely no easy solutions to this. As I have said already I do not envy Reeves her task.
If they had made proper, serious reform to the UKG finances I think I'd agree. But they cut everything they thought they could get away with and then tinkered at the edges.
VAT on pasties? Yes! Reform of local government services and funding? No!
The fuss about VAT on pasties was absolutely absurd. We had several years of this when people were much more interested in a silly gotcha than analysing the underlying direction.
What do we think happens regarding 5 Eyes intelligence if Trump is re-elected? If all that confidential information is going straight to Orban and Putin what is the point?
What do we think happens regarding 5 Eyes intelligence if Trump is re-elected? If all that confidential information is going straight to Orban and Putin what is the point?
Probably going to a shower room in Mar-a-Lago in fairness.
Incredible bullshit now coming out from the seekyservs
“Secret Service director says the decision to leave the roof unguarded was deliberate, because it was unsafe to have snipers on a sloped roof.
“That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there's a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,” Cheatle said.
Secret Service director says the decision to leave the roof unguarded was deliberate, because it allowed the former and future president of the United States to be shot in the face becausdidn’t want a Secret Service agent to be on a roof
The evidence is actually that Vance's references to Moslem counties are as much random terms of abuse to be deployed, as they are anything which might approach analysis.
See also, for example:
It's odd that one of Vance's signature lines about how to deal with the American bureaucracy is to subject it to "de-ba’athification," one of the US policies in Iraq that everyone seems to agree was a huge failure.. https://x.com/AASchapiro/status/1813241849374474670
Since Vance thought Trump might be the American Hitler, perhaps the earlier and more successful de-Nazification may be a better model?
We all assume that Vance was being negative about Trump when he pronounced him American Hitler, the truth could very well be the opposite.
VG
Vance is the real Komodo. A very clever Trump
Which is crap. You can work safely on any roof. It’s a matter of training and equipment.
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
Johnson really does seem to be channelling Worzel Gummidge (spelling?) nowadays. He makes Trump look good in that pic.
Ukraine seemed to be the one thing, apart from himself, that Johnson did care about, so not sure whether this is really encouraging or simply a - noble enough - attempt to nail Trump's trousers to the mast.
I thought everyone was agreed that making physical threats to political opponents was no longer ok.
It's more that Johnson's trousers appear to be heading down towards half mast in that picture. He'd have looked less of a mess in a bin bag.
It takes a special person to look worse than the person next to you when they were shot a couple of days earlier.
OK, he resigned/was sacked in disgrace, which is a reasonable excuse to let oneself go a bit.
But it's hard to imagine him surviving a gennylex campaign in 2024 as PM.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Please define "serious cuts in public spending" - should that include defence? It might have to.
We have to think about tax rises or reducing the current thresholds if you don't want to actually increase the rates.
It's disappointing the debate starts again from cutting public spending as the only way to reduce the deficit - bringing in more from tax does as well so a balanced approach between the two (not the £5 cut for £1 raised from spending as Osborne tried but a £3/£3 approach).
The austerity of Osborne worked and things improved until we got blown off course by Covid and our response to it. Then we had the cost of gas and power on the back of the Ukraine invasion. So we do need to do it again until our spending and our income are more in balance.
So the government said most businesses would receive a discount on their energy bills of up to 6.97 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) for gas and 19.61 pounds per MWh for electricity between April 2023 and March 2024. Probably helped us avoid a recession but at what a cost. Do we need to subsidise public transport to the extent that we do, as was being discussed down thread? Can we really afford to keep giving the NHS a blank cheque to do everything or do we need to be start being more realistic about what they can and can't do?
Are you saying everything was tickety-boo until about Feb 2020?
No, but we were digging ourselves out of a hole gradually. It simply cannot be overstated how dependent we were on financial services to pay the bills before 2008. RBS went from being the largest taxpayer in the country to not paying any tax in the next 10 years. That required some serious tax increases on the better paid and a sharp, sharp focus on spending.
And then, before the damage had been fully made good, we got blown off course again. There are absolutely no easy solutions to this. As I have said already I do not envy Reeves her task.
If they had made proper, serious reform to the UKG finances I think I'd agree. But they cut everything they thought they could get away with and then tinkered at the edges.
VAT on pasties? Yes! Reform of local government services and funding? No!
The fuss about VAT on pasties was absolutely absurd. We had several years of this when people were much more interested in a silly gotcha than analysing the underlying direction.
1) you can have a world where a short plank bridge costs £250k and cataloging the British Museum will cost £250 million and take 10 years. And social workers spend 80% of their time on paperwork.
2) a short plank bridge costs £250, cataloguing the British Library is done by volunteers with a small amount of public money. And the social workers spend 80% of their time on social work.
What do we think happens regarding 5 Eyes intelligence if Trump is re-elected? If all that confidential information is going straight to Orban and Putin what is the point?
One of the overlooked factors in Trump's potential re-election is the fact he's been elected before and is thus a known quantity. So there are data points, even if they're not available to the public.
Did the intelligence services see a notable uptick in leaked information during 2016-2020? If so, what measures did they put in place to prevent it happening again in the event of, say, Trump 2024 or Unknown Putinist MAGA Quantity 2024 being the next POTUS?
The other thing here is the smoking gun. If Trump was actively conspiring against US interests, if his team was full of Putin moles, if US intelligence was compromised, don't you think they'd be releasing that kind of information?
Unless you want to go full Leon and assume they were considering an alternative solution last weekend.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Please define "serious cuts in public spending" - should that include defence? It might have to.
We have to think about tax rises or reducing the current thresholds if you don't want to actually increase the rates.
It's disappointing the debate starts again from cutting public spending as the only way to reduce the deficit - bringing in more from tax does as well so a balanced approach between the two (not the £5 cut for £1 raised from spending as Osborne tried but a £3/£3 approach).
The austerity of Osborne worked and things improved until we got blown off course by Covid and our response to it. Then we had the cost of gas and power on the back of the Ukraine invasion. So we do need to do it again until our spending and our income are more in balance.
So the government said most businesses would receive a discount on their energy bills of up to 6.97 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) for gas and 19.61 pounds per MWh for electricity between April 2023 and March 2024. Probably helped us avoid a recession but at what a cost. Do we need to subsidise public transport to the extent that we do, as was being discussed down thread? Can we really afford to keep giving the NHS a blank cheque to do everything or do we need to be start being more realistic about what they can and can't do?
Are you saying everything was tickety-boo until about Feb 2020?
No, but we were digging ourselves out of a hole gradually. It simply cannot be overstated how dependent we were on financial services to pay the bills before 2008. RBS went from being the largest taxpayer in the country to not paying any tax in the next 10 years. That required some serious tax increases on the better paid and a sharp, sharp focus on spending.
And then, before the damage had been fully made good, we got blown off course again. There are absolutely no easy solutions to this. As I have said already I do not envy Reeves her task.
If they had made proper, serious reform to the UKG finances I think I'd agree. But they cut everything they thought they could get away with and then tinkered at the edges.
VAT on pasties? Yes! Reform of local government services and funding? No!
The fuss about VAT on pasties was absolutely absurd. We had several years of this when people were much more interested in a silly gotcha than analysing the underlying direction.
The omnishambles budget was more important than just pasties. First, it showed Osborne had no political sense; second, that he was just rubberstamping Treasury proposals; third, that the combined effect was to target Conservative supporters.
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
Boris would make an excellent Governor/ Viceroy of Great Britain when President Trump and Vice President Vance overthrow Starmer- Labour, although Farage probably thought that was his gig.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Please define "serious cuts in public spending" - should that include defence? It might have to.
We have to think about tax rises or reducing the current thresholds if you don't want to actually increase the rates.
It's disappointing the debate starts again from cutting public spending as the only way to reduce the deficit - bringing in more from tax does as well so a balanced approach between the two (not the £5 cut for £1 raised from spending as Osborne tried but a £3/£3 approach).
The austerity of Osborne worked and things improved until we got blown off course by Covid and our response to it. Then we had the cost of gas and power on the back of the Ukraine invasion. So we do need to do it again until our spending and our income are more in balance.
So the government said most businesses would receive a discount on their energy bills of up to 6.97 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) for gas and 19.61 pounds per MWh for electricity between April 2023 and March 2024. Probably helped us avoid a recession but at what a cost. Do we need to subsidise public transport to the extent that we do, as was being discussed down thread? Can we really afford to keep giving the NHS a blank cheque to do everything or do we need to be start being more realistic about what they can and can't do?
Are you saying everything was tickety-boo until about Feb 2020?
No, but we were digging ourselves out of a hole gradually. It simply cannot be overstated how dependent we were on financial services to pay the bills before 2008. RBS went from being the largest taxpayer in the country to not paying any tax in the next 10 years. That required some serious tax increases on the better paid and a sharp, sharp focus on spending.
And then, before the damage had been fully made good, we got blown off course again. There are absolutely no easy solutions to this. As I have said already I do not envy Reeves her task.
If they had made proper, serious reform to the UKG finances I think I'd agree. But they cut everything they thought they could get away with and then tinkered at the edges.
VAT on pasties? Yes! Reform of local government services and funding? No!
The fuss about VAT on pasties was absolutely absurd. We had several years of this when people were much more interested in a silly gotcha than analysing the underlying direction.
1) you can have a world where a short plank bridge costs £250k and cataloging the British Museum will cost £250 million and take 10 years. And social workers spend 80% of their time on paperwork.
2) a short plank bridge costs £250, cataloguing the British Library is done by volunteers with a small amount of public money. And the social workers spend 80% of their time on social work.
Your choice.
1) Creates loads of middle class non-jobs 2) Does not create lots of middle class non-jobs
The world is creating increasing numbers of debt laden graduates who require jobs.
From the Telegraph. An example of why the government is near bankrupt
"Currently, state schools must automatically enrol their teaching staff in the TPS. Teachers pay in between 7.4pc and 11.7pc of their salary, with a further 28.68pc added by their employer. Each year, these contributions receive a boost equal to inflation plus 1.6pc. When they retire, the final pot is used to provide a set pension for life, which also rises annually with inflation."
Interesting. Top of the pile for Starmer and European members of NATO. It is not impossible that within 12 months it will be clear that USA has no intention of supporting Europe. This is loads more important than the EU or Brexit.
A couple of clear possibilities: UK and France (if it can avoid going nuts) are the most important players by miles. Expect Europe to start being nicer to us.
If USA is not 100% clear about NATO commitments, then Russia will test this out. (Baltic states, Poland) At that point we are in 1940 territory.
We all discover that the EU is a trade association with a flag not a country, and compared with NATO a triviality with fewer brigades than the pope.
There is currently no defence plan B beyond NATO with USA at the centre.
Our best hope would be that for Trump the NATO thing is a negotiating tactic rather than actual isolationism.
Long shot within 3 years: Farage offered job in defence ministry (and declines?)
Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff has been accused of “subverting” cabinet ministers in an effort to secure a government bailout of up to £310 million to rebuild a derelict stadium in Belfast.
Sue Gray has angered government officials and ministers by “personally dominating” negotiations for a bailout for Casement Park, a dilapidated Gaelic games venue due to host matches at the 2028 European football championship.
Gray’s close interest in the project, which is politically contentious in Northern Ireland, has caused resentment among Labour ministers who have been told there is no money for new spending commitments.
The row is also likely to invite new scrutiny of Gray’s personal and political links to Northern Ireland, where she maintains a home, ran a pub at the height of the Troubles, and whose finance department she ran between 2018 and 2021.
Interesting. Top of the pile for Starmer and European members of NATO. It is not impossible that within 12 months it will be clear that USA has no intention of supporting Europe. This is loads more important than the EU or Brexit.
A couple of clear possibilities: UK and France (if it can avoid going nuts) are the most important players by miles. Expect Europe to start being nicer to us.
If USA is not 100% clear about NATO commitments, then Russia will test this out. (Baltic states, Poland) At that point we are in 1940 territory.
We all discover that the EU is a trade association with a flag not a country, and compared with NATO a triviality with fewer brigades than the pope.
There is currently no defence plan B beyond NATO with USA at the centre.
Our best hope would be that for Trump the NATO thing is a negotiating tactic rather than actual isolationism.
Long shot within 3 years: Farage offered job in defence ministry (and declines?)
Hardly.
Putin has lost half a million men to take a few bombed out colliery towns, not to mention a vast share of his best equipment. If he invaded a NATO country his arse would be handed to him very quickly.
Farage in defence? Unless we are going full appeasement why put a Putin kiss-arse there?
Interesting. Top of the pile for Starmer and European members of NATO. It is not impossible that within 12 months it will be clear that USA has no intention of supporting Europe. This is loads more important than the EU or Brexit.
A couple of clear possibilities: UK and France (if it can avoid going nuts) are the most important players by miles. Expect Europe to start being nicer to us.
If USA is not 100% clear about NATO commitments, then Russia will test this out. (Baltic states, Poland) At that point we are in 1940 territory.
We all discover that the EU is a trade association with a flag not a country, and compared with NATO a triviality with fewer brigades than the pope.
There is currently no defence plan B beyond NATO with USA at the centre.
Our best hope would be that for Trump the NATO thing is a negotiating tactic rather than actual isolationism.
Long shot within 3 years: Farage offered job in defence ministry (and declines?)
We can't afford to play wait and see with Trump. His words alone have already undermined NATO credibility, so we need to plan on the assumption that Trump will be re-elected and there will be a de facto removal of US support for NATO, irrespective of what legislation may say about explicit withdrawal.
From the Telegraph. An example of why the government is near bankrupt
"Currently, state schools must automatically enrol their teaching staff in the TPS. Teachers pay in between 7.4pc and 11.7pc of their salary, with a further 28.68pc added by their employer. Each year, these contributions receive a boost equal to inflation plus 1.6pc. When they retire, the final pot is used to provide a set pension for life, which also rises annually with inflation."
Yes, the TPS is one of the best going at the moment.
USS (universities) was until recently ~10% staff and 20% employer contribution, not miles off and less generous pension in the end. But these pensions do factor in to employment decisions. I'm in academia but currently having discussions about a similar role in a private company. the less substantial pension means I will absolutely be asking for substantially higher salary if we get to that point and walking away if the salary + pension doesn't compare favourably.
TLDR: Cut the TPS, you'll have to raise teacher salaries to not further exacerbate the recruitment and retention issues in education (I've no problem with such an approach - people can then make their own pension decisions)
Trump gave Europe the best two pieces of advice it has had for decades:
1) Increase defence spending 2) Stop dependence on Russian energy
And received nothing but abuse in response.
Perhaps those people who gave the abuse might do some apologising and act on Trump's advice.
That would, I suggest, be more likely to improve relations with him than yelling yet more abuse.
Bonkers Trump apologia.
Reality.
Deal with it.
Look at Vance's words:
"And I was talking about, you know, what is the first truly Islamist country that will get a nuclear weapon?
"And we were like, 'maybe it is Iran, maybe Pakistan already kind of counts', and then we sort of finally decided maybe it's actually the UK - since Labour just took over."
What do those comments have to do with reality? Comments that were once only heard on fringe YouTube channels are not being uttered by the Republicans' Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.
Doctors have been told to discuss climate change with their patients in guidance that says they are “uniquely placed” as a trusted members of the community to explain the impacts of global warming.
A “green toolkit” published by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) also advises doctors to reduce “unnecessary” prescriptions and blood tests to help the NHS to reach its net zero target.
Pumping more money into the NHS is “not feasible” while it fails to improve productivity, Labour’s new health adviser has warned as he insisted GPs and hospitals must be rewired to spend public funds better.
Doctors have been told to discuss climate change with their patients in guidance that says they are “uniquely placed” as a trusted members of the community to explain the impacts of global warming.
A “green toolkit” published by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) also advises doctors to reduce “unnecessary” prescriptions and blood tests to help the NHS to reach its net zero target.
Pumping more money into the NHS is “not feasible” while it fails to improve productivity, Labour’s new health adviser has warned as he insisted GPs and hospitals must be rewired to spend public funds better.
Interesting. Top of the pile for Starmer and European members of NATO. It is not impossible that within 12 months it will be clear that USA has no intention of supporting Europe. This is loads more important than the EU or Brexit.
A couple of clear possibilities: UK and France (if it can avoid going nuts) are the most important players by miles. Expect Europe to start being nicer to us.
If USA is not 100% clear about NATO commitments, then Russia will test this out. (Baltic states, Poland) At that point we are in 1940 territory.
We all discover that the EU is a trade association with a flag not a country, and compared with NATO a triviality with fewer brigades than the pope.
There is currently no defence plan B beyond NATO with USA at the centre.
Our best hope would be that for Trump the NATO thing is a negotiating tactic rather than actual isolationism.
Long shot within 3 years: Farage offered job in defence ministry (and declines?)
You cannot disentangle nato and the eu once the US is out of the equation. Trump is going to kill brexit stone dead if he abandons europe and slaps up a tariff wall. If (when) Trump wins, the timeline for SM and CU becomes 20-25% of what it would otherwise have been.
From the Telegraph. An example of why the government is near bankrupt
"Currently, state schools must automatically enrol their teaching staff in the TPS. Teachers pay in between 7.4pc and 11.7pc of their salary, with a further 28.68pc added by their employer. Each year, these contributions receive a boost equal to inflation plus 1.6pc. When they retire, the final pot is used to provide a set pension for life, which also rises annually with inflation."
Yes, the TPS is one of the best going at the moment.
USS (universities) was until recently ~10% staff and 20% employer contribution, not miles off and less generous pension in the end. But these pensions do factor in to employment decisions. I'm in academia but currently having discussions about a similar role in a private company. the less substantial pension means I will absolutely be asking for substantially higher salary if we get to that point and walking away if the salary + pension doesn't compare favourably.
TLDR: Cut the TPS, you'll have to raise teacher salaries to not further exacerbate the recruitment and retention issues in education (I've no problem with such an approach - people can then make their own pension decisions)
One of the big academy chains is proposing pretty much that:
My instinctive reaction is something along the lines of "Danger Will Robinson!" Yes, it's expensive when written down. But if fortysomething years of work have to fund twentysomething years of retirement, the numbers are probably about right.
And one of the reasons we are collectively in this situation is that, overall, we've spent decades not saving enough for retirement.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
I think the problem was the Conservative government we just had operated a bit like the one we had from 1970 to 1974 - talked about the problems but didn't address the root cause.
It's trouble was that it continued state largesse, and just with its favoured base and cutbacks in the rest.
Strategic thinking there was none.
I know that spend to save is counter-factual. Especially for some politicians who are ideologues. Point is that none of these cuts are absolutes. You can't cut x from the police budget or the schools budget or any critical things we need without the y cost of the consequences of that.
And it isn't party political. Up here in Aberdeenshire the SNP government have slashed funding for the council. Which means they've had to squeeze education budgets and cut teaching places. That means more emergency cash having to be spent on supply staff - spending more not less.
When there is fat you can trim. All the fat has gone. We now cut muscle, which is a problem if we still intend to be able to move.
In many cases even the muscle has been cut and what's left is some crumbling bones.
I'd backup what I argued before.
It means some emergency funding, to eg prevent Councils having to sell off their museums, green spaces, parks and tide key services over. We will hear something about that on Thursday.
And it means a long-term programme to rebuild what was slashed starting with Cameron in England and the SNP in Scotland. That is about Councils being able "to Council", and means immense effort into capacity building, ability to deliver services, and public realm. We will hear about that in the autumn.
Trump gave Europe the best two pieces of advice it has had for decades:
1) Increase defence spending 2) Stop dependence on Russian energy
And received nothing but abuse in response.
Perhaps those people who gave the abuse might do some apologising and act on Trump's advice.
That would, I suggest, be more likely to improve relations with him than yelling yet more abuse.
Bonkers Trump apologia.
Reality.
Deal with it.
Look at Vance's words:
"And I was talking about, you know, what is the first truly Islamist country that will get a nuclear weapon?
"And we were like, 'maybe it is Iran, maybe Pakistan already kind of counts', and then we sort of finally decided maybe it's actually the UK - since Labour just took over."
What do those comments have to do with reality? Comments that were once only heard on fringe YouTube channels are not being uttered by the Republicans' Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.
Well if you're so concerned about what Vance is spouting it should make you want to increase defence spending.
Something we could have done when Trump was President the first time.
From the Telegraph. An example of why the government is near bankrupt
"Currently, state schools must automatically enrol their teaching staff in the TPS. Teachers pay in between 7.4pc and 11.7pc of their salary, with a further 28.68pc added by their employer. Each year, these contributions receive a boost equal to inflation plus 1.6pc. When they retire, the final pot is used to provide a set pension for life, which also rises annually with inflation."
28.68% employers' contribution to the pension? How can we possibly afford to employ more teachers on such terms?
But I will tell you a thing. 7 or 8 years ago the pension scheme I am a trustee of had a deficit of around £5m. Quite a lot for a relatively small scheme (it is for the employees not the members). Today it is in surplus to the tune of around £10m. We have paid no contributions at all into the scheme (it closed about 8 years ago), for the last 4 years.
We have made some good investment decisions and have been fortunate but the biggest single factor, by an order of magnitude, has been the increase in gilt yields. To pay a final salary pension you need to buy enough gilts to generate the income. When gilts are under 1% that is a lot of gilts. When they are at 4% you need roughly 1/4 of the capital to pay the same income.
So, it is entirely understandable that those state funded pension schemes like the teachers were in dire straits in the aftermath of the GFC. It is rather harder to see why it is so bad now. There must surely be room for some serious cuts in the employer's contributions on funded schemes. I suspect that there is some "catch up" to eliminate the deficits that accrued but we really should be through this.
Trump gave Europe the best two pieces of advice it has had for decades:
1) Increase defence spending 2) Stop dependence on Russian energy
And received nothing but abuse in response.
Perhaps those people who gave the abuse might do some apologising and act on Trump's advice.
That would, I suggest, be more likely to improve relations with him than yelling yet more abuse.
Bonkers Trump apologia.
Reality.
Deal with it.
Look at Vance's words:
"And I was talking about, you know, what is the first truly Islamist country that will get a nuclear weapon?
"And we were like, 'maybe it is Iran, maybe Pakistan already kind of counts', and then we sort of finally decided maybe it's actually the UK - since Labour just took over."
What do those comments have to do with reality? Comments that were once only heard on fringe YouTube channels are not being uttered by the Republicans' Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.
Well if you're so concerned about what Vance is spouting it should make you want to increase defence spending.
Something we could have done when Trump was President the first time.
Stop deflecting and address the issue. Trump and Vance are dangerous fantasists. They are disconnected from reality. Why are you going out to bat for Trump?
Doctors have been told to discuss climate change with their patients in guidance that says they are “uniquely placed” as a trusted members of the community to explain the impacts of global warming.
A “green toolkit” published by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) also advises doctors to reduce “unnecessary” prescriptions and blood tests to help the NHS to reach its net zero target.
Pumping more money into the NHS is “not feasible” while it fails to improve productivity, Labour’s new health adviser has warned as he insisted GPs and hospitals must be rewired to spend public funds better.
You don't think that reducing unnecessary prescriptions and blood tests would be a good thing?
I think it would be a great thing.
But I doubt many going to see the doctor want to be lectured on global warming.
Not least because we're continually told that doctors don't have enough time to see all their patients.
And, forgive me for being cynical, I wonder if we'll see yet more admin and 'targets' to see if doctors are doing what is deemed necessary for a 'net zero NHS'.
Too many people are pining for a world in which US power absolves them of the need to think about anything in a serious way. Not every question can be reduced to good guys vs bad guys.
What do we think happens regarding 5 Eyes intelligence if Trump is re-elected? If all that confidential information is going straight to Orban and Putin what is the point?
It becomes eight eyes, as presumably the Saudis will pay to see it, too.
Doctors have been told to discuss climate change with their patients in guidance that says they are “uniquely placed” as a trusted members of the community to explain the impacts of global warming.
A “green toolkit” published by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) also advises doctors to reduce “unnecessary” prescriptions and blood tests to help the NHS to reach its net zero target.
Pumping more money into the NHS is “not feasible” while it fails to improve productivity, Labour’s new health adviser has warned as he insisted GPs and hospitals must be rewired to spend public funds better.
You don't think that reducing unnecessary prescriptions and blood tests would be a good thing?
The rub is identifying "unnecessary", and whether a business case exists to justify such a move. The last thing we need is innumerate senior management looking for easy deductions behaving like lobotomised neo-Thatcherites or (to quote the Times) "Marxists".
If you take diabetes, 90% of the money (£10bn a year ish?) spent goes on treatment of complications.
There are normal blood tests and various others every year, and eg CGM (continuous glucose monitorin - as used by eg Theresa May from 2016) has been rolled out *far* more extensively in the last decade. The blood tests are not cheap - my CGM monitor costs at BNP prices approximately £900 per annum; but that is cheap compared to potential costs of complications.
It's the same with eg the Diabetes Prevention Programme, which addresses Type II and has been running for nearly a decade. The evidence currently (@Foxy may have better data) is that it reduces progression to Type II diabetes amongst pre-diabetics by 20%.
All of that - including currently rolling out Insulin Pumps to essentially all Type I Diabetics - has got past the NICE financial tests, which are not mild.
Get rid of prevention structures, and it will be like Rishi - spending investments for the future on revenue now.
Comments
I will make the public absolute firm commitment to rebuild the £100bn Trident weapons system. And I will make an equally firm private commitment not to build them. Why? Because they're secret submarines so no one will ever know! Win win. Threaten the Ruskis, keep the cash.
You know what? This country is so skint I wouldn't be surprised if that is what they're doing. And if you went to Faslane, it's all papier mache. It doesn't exist.
https://nitter.poast.org/CountBinface/status/1760300327599759677#m
Again, cut the schools budget enough and you create enormous social problems which cost *more* to mop up than you cur. We cannot make serious cuts to public spending because we will have to spend money dealing with the mess. As we already are. Or is the plan to simply withdraw from places like Dundee and let feral youths and petty criminals take over because it was definitely better to make serious cuts to education and law and order?
So genteel poverty is pretty much nailed on.
https://www.newsweek.com/china-moves-away-us-dollar-hit-new-milestone-1901901
That the new govt haven't been able to take a quick decision on teacher pay essentially confirms that the proposed award from pay review body is higher than schools are funded for.
So they will need to find hundreds of millions from somewhere. Or push the cost on to schools.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1813253953376895033
Note that this isn't about grovelling to the unions. It's a combination of staff costing what they cost and a fantasy budget left by the last lot.
(*) Beeching closed absolutely zero railways. The (Conservative and Labour) governments closed them. Beeching was just a convenient person for the governments to put the 'blame' on.
We have to think about tax rises or reducing the current thresholds if you don't want to actually increase the rates.
It's disappointing the debate starts again from cutting public spending as the only way to reduce the deficit - bringing in more from tax does as well so a balanced approach between the two (not the £5 cut for £1 raised from spending as Osborne tried but a £3/£3 approach).
We already have very high levels of taxation. There is a risk that further increases will be counterproductive and dampen growth. But we definitely need more capital investment in our infrastructure to fund future growth and future public spending. It's not an easy problem and I don't envy Reeves and what she has inherited.
Starmer's missions pose a rather basic question for our society - do we want a society? When most of our towns are crumbling and shuttered with minimal service provision and no hope, the obvious turnaround need is there. Make the places we live places that people want to live. Somewhere they can be proud of.
But I don't see how we can possibly manage it even over a long time scale, we seem unable to afford what we spend already. Mythical savings in defence procurement are likely expected to fund a lot.
The heating is stuck on - money literally pouring out the windows which need to be open. The cash to replace it isn't forthcoming and the operating costs continue to rise so they cut teachers. FN gets allocated all the kids that other schools can't cope with due to their own cuts. So emergency cover is hired in. They are literally spending more to get less.
The solution is simple - build a new school and pay teachers salaries. The operating costs drop significantly after a short period where spending is higher as you transition.
You mentioned the deficit. So I assume that the prudent action would be to let these kids roast / freeze in a school with dangerously few members of staff? But that also has a cost - and fixing the damage always costs more than dealing with the problem.
Cuts to manage the deficit - when things are as catastrophic as they are - always means a bigger deficit. And the Tories inability to recognise this - claiming "we are nowhere near zero" is how we cut and cut and cut and then stare in wonder at the deficit going ever higher.
So the government said most businesses would receive a discount on their energy bills of up to 6.97 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) for gas and 19.61 pounds per MWh for electricity between April 2023 and March 2024. Probably helped us avoid a recession but at what a cost. Do we need to subsidise public transport to the extent that we do, as was being discussed down thread? Can we really afford to keep giving the NHS a blank cheque to do everything or do we need to be start being more realistic about what they can and can't do?
So the awkward question for all of us goes something like this. Was the British miracle (tolerably good public services for surprisingly low taxes) something of a blag all along, bolstered by borrowing, asset sales and not saving properly for retirement?
If so, what happens next? Nobody wants taxes to go up, nobody wants cuts at the level of "going forward, you will have to pay for this yourself". The answer probably involves both, and one of the really disreputable things Rishi and co did in government was to pretend that wasn't the case.
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-hdJIWsK3A
Matt Parker from Stand-up Maths was at Rishi's count as an agent of Count Binface. PB's experienced agents will see nothing new but for the rest of us, the art of estimating results from piles of ballot papers might be interesting.
This story doesn't seem to have got much traction outside of the tech media yet, but if any PBers are looking to buy a new laptop or PC be aware it looks like Intel's i9 and i7 processors, specifically the 13th and 14th generation models, have an electromigration issue that will cause the chip to become unstable and eventually fail completely.
Rumours about the severity of this problem have been floating around for some time - I've experienced it first hand, and have been advising against buying Intel based systems - but crash logs maintained by some game developers have recently been made available for statistical analysis that has revealed the issue is widespread. As well as PCs and laptops these processors are often used by game server operators and some of them have apparently had to pull all their 13th and 14th gen servers due to a near 100% mortality rate with the chips.
We don't know if the i5 range is affected yet. They run at lower voltages than the i9 and i7, so will take longer to fail if they do have the issue.
If you have a 13/14 gen PC or laptop that's unstable it's probably the processor. An RMA to the retailer or manufacturer will result in a replacement that is also likely to fail. So there's not much to do but wait until Intel decides what it is going to do to clean up the mess.
1. Compulsory purchase the shuttered shops owned by foreign investment banks. Bulldose the surplus to create a viable base from the remaining downsized retail estate
2. Convert empty big stores into enterprise arcades. People can rent a space in the shop for peppercorn rent, build their business without crippling costs, and then be moved out into other retail space which is now owned by the council
3. Make the town centre somewhere you want to visit. Remove the decay, repave, protect the centuries old market by not charging stand fees that stallholders can't afford.
4. Borrow. Invest. Receive a return on the investment. They refurbished The Globe theatre which had been derelict for decades. Reopened for business it gets booked with all the national tours as it is the perfect intermediate size that didn't exist in-between Leeds and Newcastle before it reopened
5. Build a modern hotel and CPI / demolish the closed one. Own the thing yourself. Watch as it gets heavily booked on a regular basis.
I note that the entire master plan and Every Single Step was opposed by the local Tories. They didn't want to spend money on the town centre, didn't want to repurpose empty shops to incubate new ones. Said the theatre would never be used and the Hotel a white elephant waste of money. Their alternative suggestion? Do nothing - can't afford it, let it rot and blame the Labour council for letting it go to ruin.
So it can be done. But you need vision and balls of steel. I can think of several of the bankrupt Tory councils in the home counties who used borrowing to speculate on the property market rather than invest in their own towns...
Interesting that the great Garden State is now in a significant spasm of political reform. For about the first time since similar spasm resulted in election of Woodrow Wilson as Governor in 1910.
That one ended two years later, when WW ran for POTUS and was elected, in large measure based on his progressive (early 20th-century style) record as Gov.
I lived in Berwick from 9 to 17 and it was a wonderful time of my life full of sport and boating activities
I would recommend Berwick for a visit to everyone
Ukraine seemed to be the one thing, apart from himself, that Johnson did care about, so not sure whether this is really encouraging or simply a - noble enough - attempt to nail Trump's trousers to the mast.
https://x.com/parody_pm/status/1813166889213870266?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
The last government had an absolutely ridiculous target which was that the deficit had to be falling as a share of GDP in year 5. It was ok if the deficit was going up in the first 4 years provided it was falling in year 5. An absolutely ridiculous target which simply ignored the problems we face. And the new government have stuck with it.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1813224006788530326
He'd have looked less of a mess in a bin bag.
And then, before the damage had been fully made good, we got blown off course again. There are absolutely no easy solutions to this. As I have said already I do not envy Reeves her task.
Trump Jr. says he wants ‘veto power’ in staffing second Trump term
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4775730-trump-jr-wants-veto-power/
“Secret Service director says the decision to leave the roof unguarded was deliberate, because it was unsafe to have snipers on a sloped roof.
“That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there's a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,” Cheatle said.
Secret Service director says the decision to leave the roof unguarded was deliberate, because it allowed the former and future president of the United States to be shot in the face becausdidn’t want a Secret Service agent to be on a roof VG
Vance is the real Komodo. A very clever Trump
He might be a better VP, tbf.
And after we all borrowed and spent 10-15% of GDP, nobody said it was enough.
VAT on pasties? Yes! Reform of local government services and funding? No!
Six months ago I wrote a viral thread, arguing that NATO has 2-3 years to prepare for Russia challenging NATO Art 5.
I wanted to revisit the topic for a while. In light of @JDVance1's pick as VP, today seems as good as any.
TLDR: panic should set in. 1/15
https://x.com/FRHoffmann1/status/1813198919683436604
But it's hard to imagine him surviving a gennylex campaign in 2024 as PM.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/02/04/the-state-of-process-the-process-state/
1) you can have a world where a short plank bridge costs £250k and cataloging the British Museum will cost £250 million and take 10 years. And social workers spend 80% of their time on paperwork.
2) a short plank bridge costs £250, cataloguing the British Library is done by volunteers with a small amount of public money. And the social workers spend 80% of their time on social work.
Your choice.
Did the intelligence services see a notable uptick in leaked information during 2016-2020? If so, what measures did they put in place to prevent it happening again in the event of, say, Trump 2024 or Unknown Putinist MAGA Quantity 2024 being the next POTUS?
The other thing here is the smoking gun. If Trump was actively conspiring against US interests, if his team was full of Putin moles, if US intelligence was compromised, don't you think they'd be releasing that kind of information?
Unless you want to go full Leon and assume they were considering an alternative solution last weekend.
1) Increase defence spending
2) Stop dependence on Russian energy
And received nothing but abuse in response.
Perhaps those people who gave the abuse might do some apologising and act on Trump's advice.
That would, I suggest, be more likely to improve relations with him than yelling yet more abuse.
2) Does not create lots of middle class non-jobs
The world is creating increasing numbers of debt laden graduates who require jobs.
"Currently, state schools must automatically enrol their teaching staff in the TPS. Teachers pay in between 7.4pc and 11.7pc of their salary, with a further 28.68pc added by their employer.
Each year, these contributions receive a boost equal to inflation plus 1.6pc. When they retire, the final pot is used to provide a set pension for life, which also rises annually with inflation."
A couple of clear possibilities: UK and France (if it can avoid going nuts) are the most important players by miles. Expect Europe to start being nicer to us.
If USA is not 100% clear about NATO commitments, then Russia will test this out. (Baltic states, Poland) At that point we are in 1940 territory.
We all discover that the EU is a trade association with a flag not a country, and compared with NATO a triviality with fewer brigades than the pope.
There is currently no defence plan B beyond NATO with USA at the centre.
Our best hope would be that for Trump the NATO thing is a negotiating tactic rather than actual isolationism.
Long shot within 3 years: Farage offered job in defence ministry (and declines?)
Time until Nigel resigns from Clacton, 5...4... 3... 2... 1...
Sue Gray has angered government officials and ministers by “personally dominating” negotiations for a bailout for Casement Park, a dilapidated Gaelic games venue due to host matches at the 2028 European football championship.
Gray’s close interest in the project, which is politically contentious in Northern Ireland, has caused resentment among Labour ministers who have been told there is no money for new spending commitments.
The row is also likely to invite new scrutiny of Gray’s personal and political links to Northern Ireland, where she maintains a home, ran a pub at the height of the Troubles, and whose finance department she ran between 2018 and 2021.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/sue-gray-accused-of-subverting-cabinet-over-belfast-stadium-bailout-0jxd3zwrp
Money and trees again.
Putin has lost half a million men to take a few bombed out colliery towns, not to mention a vast share of his best equipment. If he invaded a NATO country his arse would be handed to him very quickly.
Farage in defence? Unless we are going full appeasement why put a Putin kiss-arse there?
Deal with it.
USS (universities) was until recently ~10% staff and 20% employer contribution, not miles off and less generous pension in the end. But these pensions do factor in to employment decisions. I'm in academia but currently having discussions about a similar role in a private company. the less substantial pension means I will absolutely be asking for substantially higher salary if we get to that point and walking away if the salary + pension doesn't compare favourably.
TLDR: Cut the TPS, you'll have to raise teacher salaries to not further exacerbate the recruitment and retention issues in education (I've no problem with such an approach - people can then make their own pension decisions)
"And I was talking about, you know, what is the first truly Islamist country that will get a nuclear weapon?
"And we were like, 'maybe it is Iran, maybe Pakistan already kind of counts', and then we sort of finally decided maybe it's actually the UK - since Labour just took over."
What do those comments have to do with reality? Comments that were once only heard on fringe YouTube channels are not being uttered by the Republicans' Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.
A “green toolkit” published by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) also advises doctors to reduce “unnecessary” prescriptions and blood tests to help the NHS to reach its net zero target.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/environment/article/cut-prescriptions-to-help-nhs-reach-net-zero-doctors-told-6v2s6dck3
Meanwhile in the real world:
Pumping more money into the NHS is “not feasible” while it fails to improve productivity, Labour’s new health adviser has warned as he insisted GPs and hospitals must be rewired to spend public funds better.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/more-nhs-cash-not-feasible-adviser-tells-labour-02trpqdls
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/united-learning-to-offer-45k-starting-salaries-by-offering-alternative-pension/
My instinctive reaction is something along the lines of "Danger Will Robinson!" Yes, it's expensive when written down. But if fortysomething years of work have to fund twentysomething years of retirement, the numbers are probably about right.
And one of the reasons we are collectively in this situation is that, overall, we've spent decades not saving enough for retirement.
It means some emergency funding, to eg prevent Councils having to sell off their museums, green spaces, parks and tide key services over. We will hear something about that on Thursday.
And it means a long-term programme to rebuild what was slashed starting with Cameron in England and the SNP in Scotland. That is about Councils being able "to Council", and means immense effort into capacity building, ability to deliver services, and public realm. We will hear about that in the autumn.
Something we could have done when Trump was President the first time.
But I will tell you a thing. 7 or 8 years ago the pension scheme I am a trustee of had a deficit of around £5m. Quite a lot for a relatively small scheme (it is for the employees not the members). Today it is in surplus to the tune of around £10m. We have paid no contributions at all into the scheme (it closed about 8 years ago), for the last 4 years.
We have made some good investment decisions and have been fortunate but the biggest single factor, by an order of magnitude, has been the increase in gilt yields. To pay a final salary pension you need to buy enough gilts to generate the income. When gilts are under 1% that is a lot of gilts. When they are at 4% you need roughly 1/4 of the capital to pay the same income.
So, it is entirely understandable that those state funded pension schemes like the teachers were in dire straits in the aftermath of the GFC. It is rather harder to see why it is so bad now. There must surely be room for some serious cuts in the employer's contributions on funded schemes. I suspect that there is some "catch up" to eliminate the deficits that accrued but we really should be through this.
But I doubt many going to see the doctor want to be lectured on global warming.
Not least because we're continually told that doctors don't have enough time to see all their patients.
And, forgive me for being cynical, I wonder if we'll see yet more admin and 'targets' to see if doctors are doing what is deemed necessary for a 'net zero NHS'.
Paul Corrigan also suggested GPs should be paid for the number of patients they keep out of hospital
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/more-nhs-cash-not-feasible-adviser-tells-labour-02trpqdls (£££)
Former (and possibly current) Milburn SpAd. That will not age well the next time someone dies because of a missed diagnosis.
If you take diabetes, 90% of the money (£10bn a year ish?) spent goes on treatment of complications.
There are normal blood tests and various others every year, and eg CGM (continuous glucose monitorin - as used by eg Theresa May from 2016) has been rolled out *far* more extensively in the last decade. The blood tests are not cheap - my CGM monitor costs at BNP prices approximately £900 per annum; but that is cheap compared to potential costs of complications.
It's the same with eg the Diabetes Prevention Programme, which addresses Type II and has been running for nearly a decade. The evidence currently (@Foxy may have better data) is that it reduces progression to Type II diabetes amongst pre-diabetics by 20%.
All of that - including currently rolling out Insulin Pumps to essentially all Type I Diabetics - has got past the NICE financial tests, which are not mild.
Get rid of prevention structures, and it will be like Rishi - spending investments for the future on revenue now.