Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
"My son (or daughter) is a DOCTOR!"
Definite bragging rights in some communities.
Correct a doctor has a certain status and kudos and when they get to the top of their scale its not a badly paid job. It the grind of getting through the scale which is uncomfortable.
But if you reduce the pool of potential applicants by making the job less attractive, then you are going to end up with people who struggle even more to get through the training and a greater drop-out rate. I'm sure Foxy has already explained this to you, but you don't strike me a the kind of person to listen to anything anyone else says.
Ive said you need to recruit more.This allows for a higher drop out rate and means you retain the numbers you need, And since you have a larger pool of trainees you can gradually cut back on excessive hours being foisted on people, that way the working conditions can start to improve thereby assisting retention rates.
You are absolutely correct on that. But it will take 5-15 years to filter through and your other suggestions will just make it even worse for the next 5-10 years for no particular benefit. Cut headline wages and we end up paying £3,000 for a single shift as cover is needed, the money saved is an illusion.
Yes it will take time but you have to start and not keep putting it off. And I suspect it wont take quite as long as you think. however you'll probably be fighting the BMA to do so,
Exactly and the answer is not hiring greedy barstewards through agencies, let them rot with no pay and they will be back begging for their old jobs, only so many can be in the private hospitals. These clowns could not run a bath.
I personally think that this is the biggest economic story in the world right now. Construction/property is over 30% of China's GDP. That needs a massive correction. China has already built enough houses to home another 3bn people.
If construction grinds to a halt China's GDP will fall by more (in terms of value) than any economy in the history of the world. 2008 will be a rounding error by comparison. That would lead to massive unemployment and the reimpoverishment of much of the Chinese middle class.
Its not obvious how this can be prevented. Attempts to increase exports to create domestic demand is driving tariffs around the world already. Once again, the scale is incredible. China already exports more solar panels than the rest of the world needs by a large margin. Production simply cannot go on at the current rates. We are seeing similar problems with electric vehicles.
When will this strike? I am really not sure but when something cannot go on it eventually stops. And when it does it won't just be the China economy that gets hurt.
Absolutely, it’s one of the biggest stories that’s being ignored at the moment.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
It's not anymore. In fact the number of applicants to do medicine has dropped by 12% over the past 2 years
Nice to see you quote the 2023 figures when the Telegraph article is based on the 2024 figures..
Are you daft take 12% off a record number and you are still massively oversubscribed. Really cant you handle numbers ?
7500 places, 12000 applicants.
You seem to have this strange idea that all the people applying to study medicine are suitable for a career in medicine. That simply won't be the case...
Oh FFS undestand your own article its 12% drop not 12,000 applications. See below
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
In the nicest possible way... This looks like Conservatives who haven't taken on board that they're in opposition for the longish haul.
If things go badly for the government, the next election is May 2029. The window from May 2028 to then is what all the parties should be thinking about.
And the Leader of the Opposition's response to a Budget speech is like doing a wee while wearing a dark suit. Nobody will notice.
It doesn't matter how brilliantly the Magnificent One Hundred and Twenty One perform; the government is basically going to do whatever it wants for the next few years.
Leader's first task is to make sure they don't go backwards and end up 3rd in seats to the Lib Dems or 3rd behind the popular vote to Reform. Or both !
The Conservatives still have the very oldest voters so the start point for the next GE is actuarially slightly behind where they are now.
Whilst that's true, there's surely a fairly significant number of people out there who vote Tory more often than not but couldn't support them in July for various reasons who would be expected to drift back as the farce of the last few years fades into memory - at least if they avoid picking Patel as leader.
These are people who voted Conservative in 2019 and who switched variously to Reform, Lib Dem and Labour. They would need a reason to switch back again where those reasons are different for each party they have switched to. A challenge the Conservatives don't appear even to be aware of. Albeit it is early days.
Targeting the people who voted Tory in 2019 would be a big mistake. 2019 was an unusual election. 2010 is the best guide in my view.
Maybe. The tricky thing is the people who made the switch to Reform, Labour and LD appear to be content with their respective choices.
Actually the one thing that is a feature of British politics is a discontent with the choices that they're making when voting. (I have no evidence for this)
At New Road, Kasey Aldridge is doing his chances of playing Tests this summer no harm at all. 1-20 off six overs and an excellent 78 off 96 to lift England Lions from 190-6 to 324 all out.
New Road was a wonderful ground. Almost like a village green and then they stuck up that God awful stand on New Road. I hear Ashley Giles is talking about moving "New Road" out of the city due to flooding, and they are already playing in Kiddy for the early season games.
Yes.
Can't blame them for wanting to move either. I think the square was under water for all bar about three weeks of the winter. That's not fair on the club. Kidderminster isn't a bad ground but it's not got the facilities or the access of New Road. Better to sell the land for car parking and move to the east of the city, near the M5 and the railway.
A shame, because it's an iconic ground, but an iconic ground that's constantly under two feet of water is no good to man nor ECB.
Glos are looking at moving too, for the slightly different reason that the ground's very cramped, access is terrible and the pitch is desperately slow.
Putting it in Norton would make some sense. Just off Junction 7 of the M5 and handy for the new "railway station from nowhere".
Essex keep talking about moving too. Current ground's small, but bang in the middle of Chelmsford.
Presumably they could make tens of millions selling off the ground for blocks of river view apartments to be built on the site, and find another site that’s currently a random field a mile out of town? Not an easy decision to make, especially when the money is being dangled in front of you.
It's access that's the big issue. At the moment it's good for bus, train and car, and foot from the City centre.
Maybe they should move back to London, the centre of gravity has moved that way rather than the north Essex and Suffolk villages
See what you mean, but I think that moving to London would mean that that the cricket mandarins would say "Ah, but Lords ...."
Essex looked at moving but I don't think they could afford to build a new ground. They'd probably have an even better talent stream if they moved some games back towards Ilford.
Ilford is London now not Essex
And is where Nasser Hussain is from. Until 1933 Essex's HQ was in Leyton. The East End East of the Lea is Essex in cricketing terms and full of Carribeans and Asians
The Oval is not in Surrey and Lords isn't in Middlesex which ceased to exist in 1965.
It didn't 'cease to exist'. It just stopped having any official status.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
Consider availablity, though.
There are about 60 thousand young people who do A Level Chemistry each year, which is the core qualification to go on to do a medical degree.
We currently have about 7500 places on medical degree courses each year, with plans to increase that. So as it stands, we're taking a bit more than ten percent of available eighteen year olds. (And trust me, there are many reasons why we don't want all of them doing medicine.) Besides, we need lots of them to do other things with their lives as well. The more you squeeze women out, the higher percentage of men you need. At some point, it stops being sensible.
It would be great to have more doctors, especially if you want to use a "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" model of management. But the time and cost of training and the human limit on people who can effectively practice medicine, put limits on that.
Besides, if the pay fails to keep up with the alternatives, why would people choose to study medicine?
About 25% of that 60 000 get an A or A* I presume, so you are really looking at a pool of about 15 000.
Which is consistent with something that I think I've seen here (maybe from your good self), that pretty much all students who sincerely want to study medicine and have A/A* at A Level get to do so, even if it means going a longer way round.
And then I come from it with my education hat on, working with young people for two years and knowing the grades they eventually get. I can imagine some of the students I have taught who came out with Bs being fine doctors in the end, but below that... I'm not sure there is a huge pool of unrealised medics out there.
About 75% of current applicants get in, albeit often not first go.
Some of the other 25% would rather frighten the horses!
Fine, as long as they don't decide to do vet med instead!
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Nice to read a news article about Monkeypox in Stockholm half an hour after the taking the most packed bus ride I've ever experienced in that very city. Wish me luck!
At least as patient zero (one?) I can provide a running commentary on PB as I expire.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
It will not end well, Labour's usual spaffing money at unions will end in tears. They will be out on their arses by next election.
Are you anticipating an SNP revival both sides of the border? As it stands the Tories are a long was from getting their act together. Or maybe you think Reform run riot so to speak...
SNP are fecked given the crew running the show, every deadbeat they could get is in that cabinet and the rest are just seat warmers , devoid of talent thanks to Sturgeon.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Edit. And btw why are advocates depute not on that list??
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
Thought the ysaid public service pay awards including teachers etc was 9 billion
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
Consider availablity, though.
There are about 60 thousand young people who do A Level Chemistry each year, which is the core qualification to go on to do a medical degree.
We currently have about 7500 places on medical degree courses each year, with plans to increase that. So as it stands, we're taking a bit more than ten percent of available eighteen year olds. (And trust me, there are many reasons why we don't want all of them doing medicine.) Besides, we need lots of them to do other things with their lives as well. The more you squeeze women out, the higher percentage of men you need. At some point, it stops being sensible.
It would be great to have more doctors, especially if you want to use a "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" model of management. But the time and cost of training and the human limit on people who can effectively practice medicine, put limits on that.
Besides, if the pay fails to keep up with the alternatives, why would people choose to study medicine?
About 25% of that 60 000 get an A or A* I presume, so you are really looking at a pool of about 15 000.
Which is consistent with something that I think I've seen here (maybe from your good self), that pretty much all students who sincerely want to study medicine and have A/A* at A Level get to do so, even if it means going a longer way round.
And then I come from it with my education hat on, working with young people for two years and knowing the grades they eventually get. I can imagine some of the students I have taught who came out with Bs being fine doctors in the end, but below that... I'm not sure there is a huge pool of unrealised medics out there.
I also imagine that a good proportion of people getting A or A* in chemistry should stick with inorganic compounds (or accountancy) and not get to play with with people's innards
Nice to read a news article about Monkeypox in Stockholm half an hour after the taking the most packed bus ride I've ever experienced in that very city. Wish me luck!
At least as patient zero (one?) I can provide a running commentary on PB as I expire.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Nice to read a news article about Monkeypox in Stockholm half an hour after the taking the most packed bus ride I've ever experienced in that very city. Wish me luck!
At least as patient zero (one?) I can provide a running commentary on PB as I expire.
We want a blow by blow as the bits fall off.
If I have understood mpox can only be spread by actual contact not via the air/sneezing etc.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Edit. And btw why are advocates depute not on that list??
Meanwhile, if you want to make Ronald Reagan turn in his grave:
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
I sometimes wonder if people have taken a vow to wilfully misunderstand what the OBR does. Creating the OBR is the only useful thing that George Osborne ever achieved so I think we owe it to George at least to understand its function. The OBR imposes no restrictions, fatuous or otherwise, on anyone. It simply produces forecasts independent of Treasury bias and assesses whether the government's chosen policies meet the government's own fiscal rules. Any restrictions come from the government itself. As for the quality of the OBR's forecasts, they are okay, no worse than anyone else's. More importantly, they are extremely transparent. This means that financial markets (the people who decide whether the government can borrow and at what cost) can really understand the fiscal outlook, and most likely means we get to borrow more cheaply than otherwise. That is certainly what the Truss debacle would suggest.
Nice to read a news article about Monkeypox in Stockholm half an hour after the taking the most packed bus ride I've ever experienced in that very city. Wish me luck!
At least as patient zero (one?) I can provide a running commentary on PB as I expire.
We want a blow by blow as the bits fall off.
If I have understood mpox can only be spread by actual contact not via the air/sneezing etc.
Don't touch anyone on that bus!
Oh everyone was touching everyone. Like a packed tube train but with more motion - they have bendy buses here and they shift.
On the plus side, the cake is fucking excellent here. Imagine fancy cakes which actually taste as good as they look.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Clinton inherited an economy going in the right direction but he did well with it. Clinton had the advantage of being seriously smart and genuinely interested in public policy issues throughout his career. If he could have only kept his zipper shut he could have been one of the greats.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
I sometimes wonder if people have taken a vow to wilfully misunderstand what the OBR does. Creating the OBR is the only useful thing that George Osborne ever achieved so I think we owe it to George at least to understand its function. The OBR imposes no restrictions, fatuous or otherwise, on anyone. It simply produces forecasts independent of Treasury bias and assesses whether the government's chosen policies meet the government's own fiscal rules. Any restrictions come from the government itself. As for the quality of the OBR's forecasts, they are okay, no worse than anyone else's. More importantly, they are extremely transparent. This means that financial markets (the people who decide whether the government can borrow and at what cost) can really understand the fiscal outlook, and most likely means we get to borrow more cheaply than otherwise. That is certainly what the Truss debacle would suggest.
You're right. But in fact what it does is engender a bagginess in the state. Everybody at the OBR buys IBM.
Nice to read a news article about Monkeypox in Stockholm half an hour after the taking the most packed bus ride I've ever experienced in that very city. Wish me luck!
At least as patient zero (one?) I can provide a running commentary on PB as I expire.
We want a blow by blow as the bits fall off.
If I have understood mpox can only be spread by actual contact not via the air/sneezing etc.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Clinton inherited an economy going in the right direction but he did well with it. Clinton had the advantage of being seriously smart and genuinely interested in public policy issues throughout his career. If he could have only kept his zipper shut he could have been one of the greats.
Global conditions were also extraordinarily good for the US (and much of the west). Economic growth and presidential competence aren’t tightly correlated.
Maybe. The tricky thing is the people who made the switch to Reform, Labour and LD appear to be content with their respective choices.
I know Twitter isn't necessarily representative but all three groups seem to be united in their Toryphobia, however inconsistent the collective rationale.
There is an almost unlimited stream of anecdata along the lines of 'I'm never voting Tory again because they are Labour-lite and Reform are the real Conservatives these days' on one side and 'I no longer recognise a party that has drifted so far to the Right' on t'other.
So in a sense, they just can't win. At least not for a while. Maybe in time some of these voters will decide there are things they hate more than the Tories.
It's a longstanding feature of politics. Lucky Generals can say one thing and do another and both groups are happy. Unlucky ones find themselves pissing off both sides. People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. The balancing act is choosing who to serve and who to fool.
Using ONS data I calculate that private sector pay growth has outpaced public sector pay growth by around 5% cumulative since just before Covid started.
That captures a few periods where the public sector pay was initially better protected (during COVID) and then more recently private sector pay has kept pace with inflation better.
Unless there's been significant productivity growth in the private sector then I'd expect there to be some catch up or else retention and recruitment will become a bigger issue.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
watch this space there will eb a long long queue
I don't think so. The public sector awards seem to have gone down well, with no signs of unions asking for more, and if inflation stays at the sort of level that it has done in recent months, then a 2% award next year across the board would probably be fine. In other words less than the triple lock that your good self puts in his sporran.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Clinton inherited an economy going in the right direction but he did well with it. Clinton had the advantage of being seriously smart and genuinely interested in public policy issues throughout his career. If he could have only kept his zipper shut he could have been one of the greats.
Global conditions were also extraordinarily good for the US (and much of the west). Economic growth and presidential competence aren’t tightly correlated.
That's true but he used the surplus being generated by the boom sensibly. He got the deficit down and he got the Medicare back on a viable path. Defo a 7 or 8/10 for me.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now youre just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
1. They're only massive because their pay has been frozen for years 2. The productivity improvement is because they're no longer on strike 3. Many of the strikes have been in protest at wazzock management by things like the DfT which have wrecked productivity by (as an example) dictating to Transpennine Express management that they should reduce traincrew route knowledge so that a Newcastle - Liverpool train needs 2 changes of driver and conductor en-route
Yes all those poor sods heading off to University to get £50k of Clegg induced debt and who wont be able to get a well paid job shouold drop the whole charade and apply to be a train driver, £75k plus pension for pushing a lever.
On the other hand do you buy scotch eggs ? I could maybe do you a deal.
As Viz pointed out, it is not easy for train drivers to keep the train on those narrow steel rails, especially in dark tunnels.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now youre just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
1. They're only massive because their pay has been frozen for years 2. The productivity improvement is because they're no longer on strike 3. Many of the strikes have been in protest at wazzock management by things like the DfT which have wrecked productivity by (as an example) dictating to Transpennine Express management that they should reduce traincrew route knowledge so that a Newcastle - Liverpool train needs 2 changes of driver and conductor en-route
Yes all those poor sods heading off to University to get £50k of Clegg induced debt and who wont be able to get a well paid job shouold drop the whole charade and apply to be a train driver, £75k plus pension for pushing a lever.
On the other hand do you buy scotch eggs ? I could maybe do you a deal.
As Viz pointed out, it is not easy for train drivers to keep the train on those narrow steel rails, especially in dark tunnels.
Do you have a link for that? My brother is a tube driver and, wel,l you know, he's my brother, so the link would be awesome!
Nice to read a news article about Monkeypox in Stockholm half an hour after the taking the most packed bus ride I've ever experienced in that very city. Wish me luck!
At least as patient zero (one?) I can provide a running commentary on PB as I expire.
We want a blow by blow as the bits fall off.
If I have understood mpox can only be spread by actual contact not via the air/sneezing etc.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Clinton inherited an economy going in the right direction but he did well with it. Clinton had the advantage of being seriously smart and genuinely interested in public policy issues throughout his career. If he could have only kept his zipper shut he could have been one of the greats.
Global conditions were also extraordinarily good for the US (and much of the west). Economic growth and presidential competence aren’t tightly correlated.
If a ballooning national debt is a. affordable because people keep investing in your reserve currency and b. invested in productive assets (as the IRA and the TCJA largely were) then in my opinion fill your boots. Deficit spending has been a bipartisan effort. Trump and the Republican congress did it from 2016 and the Dems have continued.
The US GDP per capita performance in recent years is stellar. They have their problems, but their economy has blasted past ours in Europe several times over in the last decade.
I personally think that this is the biggest economic story in the world right now. Construction/property is over 30% of China's GDP. That needs a massive correction. China has already built enough houses to home another 3bn people.
If construction grinds to a halt China's GDP will fall by more (in terms of value) than any economy in the history of the world. 2008 will be a rounding error by comparison. That would lead to massive unemployment and the reimpoverishment of much of the Chinese middle class.
Its not obvious how this can be prevented. Attempts to increase exports to create domestic demand is driving tariffs around the world already. Once again, the scale is incredible. China already exports more solar panels than the rest of the world needs by a large margin. Production simply cannot go on at the current rates. We are seeing similar problems with electric vehicles.
When will this strike? I am really not sure but when something cannot go on it eventually stops. And when it does it won't just be the China economy that gets hurt.
Interesting. Any views on how it might impact the wider world economy and more specifically the UK?
It didn't 'cease to exist'. It just stopped having any official status.
59 years is a fair while. A lot of geopolitical entities have come and gone since then.
So, how many years without official status does it take for somewhere to cease to exist?
Does East Germany still exist, given that it lost official status 25 years after Middlesex?
Do the kingdoms Wessex and Mercia still 'exist' in some form?
Is any land anywhere that was ever designated a name and status have a guarantee to exist in perpetuity?
You're building towards the long held idea that places like France and the USA exist. Clearly it's up to KC3 to rule on such matters. I'm not sure he has yet done so.
Maybe. The tricky thing is the people who made the switch to Reform, Labour and LD appear to be content with their respective choices.
I know Twitter isn't necessarily representative but all three groups seem to be united in their Toryphobia, however inconsistent the collective rationale.
There is an almost unlimited stream of anecdata along the lines of 'I'm never voting Tory again because they are Labour-lite and Reform are the real Conservatives these days' on one side and 'I no longer recognise a party that has drifted so far to the Right' on t'other.
So in a sense, they just can't win. At least not for a while. Maybe in time some of these voters will decide there are things they hate more than the Tories.
It's a longstanding feature of politics. Lucky Generals can say one thing and do another and both groups are happy. Unlucky ones find themselves pissing off both sides. People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. The balancing act is choosing who to serve and who to fool.
I do think the past few years have been like the winter of discontent for the Tories, having managed to upset all sides of the political spectrum by either attacking them or breaking promises, and those with little interest in politics at all by looking like raging incompetents.
The generation or two that have had the Conservative governments of 2010-24 and post 2016 in particular as the defining one of their adult lives to date won't be voting for them in a hurry, in the same way you get people in their 70s who still bring up the late 70s as a reason to not vote Labour.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Clinton inherited an economy going in the right direction but he did well with it. Clinton had the advantage of being seriously smart and genuinely interested in public policy issues throughout his career. If he could have only kept his zipper shut he could have been one of the greats.
Global conditions were also extraordinarily good for the US (and much of the west). Economic growth and presidential competence aren’t tightly correlated.
That's true but he used the surplus being generated by the boom sensibly. He got the deficit down and he got the Medicare back on a viable path. Defo a 7 or 8/10 for me.
Oh, I’m not dissing his economic competence. Things went seriously pear shaped under GW Bush, who really was an awful President, and have never really recovered.
Here we still yearn for the return of the true Jarl of the East Angles. When North Folk and South Folk will join in climbing aboard our small boats to go and teach those Kesteven b-s a lesson they won't forget!
Washington Post (via Seattle Times) - Kamala Harris is among 1 in 8 Americans who have worked at McDonald’s
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris is emphasizing her middle-class bona fides, and one of the lines she’s coming to rely on in public appearances to make that case is a lesser-known entry on her résumé: former McDonald’s worker.
In an ad that debuted Friday, the Harris campaign highlighted her stint at the Golden Arches. As the camera pans across a set of vintage family photos, the narrator intones: “She grew up in a middle-class home. She was the daughter of a working mom. And she worked at McDonald’s while she got her degree.”
Harris also mentioned the job at Saturday’s rally in Las Vegas, where she told an enthusiastic crowd that “only in America” could two middle-class kids — referring to herself and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz — grow up to be on a ballot for the nation’s highest offices. “I had a summer job at McDonald’s,” she said, by way of underscoring her humble background. . . .
. . . . [McDonald's] said it surveyed a representative sample of American adults and found that 13.7% of people said they had worked or currently work for the chain. . . .
Of course, Trump is no stranger to McDonald’s, although his experience is on the other side of the register. . . . Campaign-finance disclosures have shown Trump’s presidential campaign is spending heavily at the chain. He had delivery orders brought in during both his fraud trial in October and his hush-money trial in April. And he famously served Big Macs several times to athletes visiting the White House. . . .
SSI - Can anyone produce ANY evidence, that Donald Trump has ever done a honest day's work in his entire life?'
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
It's not anymore. In fact the number of applicants to do medicine has dropped by 12% over the past 2 years
Nice to see you quote the 2023 figures when the Telegraph article is based on the 2024 figures..
Are you daft take 12% off a record number and you are still massively oversubscribed. Really cant you handle numbers ?
7500 places, 12000 applicants.
You seem to have this strange idea that all the people applying to study medicine are suitable for a career in medicine. That simply won't be the case...
Oh FFS undestand your own article its 12% drop not 12,000 applications. See below
Nope that's your inability to read - This is a quote from the Telegraph article
Just 12,100 teenagers applied to study medicine at university this year, down 12 per cent in two years, according to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (Ucas).
Now now - if we all started citing facts to Alanbrooke where would we be?
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
It's not anymore. In fact the number of applicants to do medicine has dropped by 12% over the past 2 years
Nice to see you quote the 2023 figures when the Telegraph article is based on the 2024 figures..
Are you daft take 12% off a record number and you are still massively oversubscribed. Really cant you handle numbers ?
7500 places, 12000 applicants.
You seem to have this strange idea that all the people applying to study medicine are suitable for a career in medicine. That simply won't be the case...
Oh FFS undestand your own article its 12% drop not 12,000 applications. See below
Nope that's your inability to read - This is a quote from the Telegraph article
Just 12,100 teenagers applied to study medicine at university this year, down 12 per cent in two years, according to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (Ucas).
Now now - if we all started citing facts to Alanbrooke where would we be?
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
I sometimes wonder if people have taken a vow to wilfully misunderstand what the OBR does. Creating the OBR is the only useful thing that George Osborne ever achieved so I think we owe it to George at least to understand its function. The OBR imposes no restrictions, fatuous or otherwise, on anyone. It simply produces forecasts independent of Treasury bias and assesses whether the government's chosen policies meet the government's own fiscal rules. Any restrictions come from the government itself. As for the quality of the OBR's forecasts, they are okay, no worse than anyone else's. More importantly, they are extremely transparent. This means that financial markets (the people who decide whether the government can borrow and at what cost) can really understand the fiscal outlook, and most likely means we get to borrow more cheaply than otherwise. That is certainly what the Truss debacle would suggest.
That is, with the greatest of respect, simplistic. If the OBR states what the government is doing does not comply with its fiscal rules then all hell breaks loose. That is what happened to Truss whose cunning plan of refusing to ask them went down like a cup of cold sick.
The problem is that their determination of what falls within the rules or not depends on the quality of their own forecasts which have been, to use a technical term, shite. In May of this year they forecast that GDP growth would be 0.8% for the year. This was after 0.7% growth in Q1. Basically, they were saying the economy was going to flat line for the rest of the year. That meant the budget was limited in what it could in terms of spending, investment or tax cuts. Q2, the first of those flat lining quarters, came in at 0.6% yesterday. So the determination of what met the fiscal rules and what did not were done on a seriously defective forecast tying the Chancellor's hands. My guess, FWIW, is that the GDP growth for the year will start with a 2. In a time of modest growth these are huge margins of error.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Clinton inherited an economy going in the right direction but he did well with it. Clinton had the advantage of being seriously smart and genuinely interested in public policy issues throughout his career. If he could have only kept his zipper shut he could have been one of the greats.
Global conditions were also extraordinarily good for the US (and much of the west). Economic growth and presidential competence aren’t tightly correlated.
If a ballooning national debt is a. affordable because people keep investing in your reserve currency and b. invested in productive assets (as the IRA and the TCJA largely were) then in my opinion fill your boots. Deficit spending has been a bipartisan effort. Trump and the Republican congress did it from 2016 and the Dems have continued.
The US GDP per capita performance in recent years is stellar. They have their problems, but their economy has blasted past ours in Europe several times over in the last decade.
It’s what you do with the deficit.
Global war on terror, and tax cuts for the richest, were economically dumb. Biden’s infrastructure investment isn’t.
Nice to read a news article about Monkeypox in Stockholm half an hour after the taking the most packed bus ride I've ever experienced in that very city. Wish me luck!
At least as patient zero (one?) I can provide a running commentary on PB as I expire.
In the 2022-3 mpox outbreak, there were recorded to be 99,518 cases and 207 deaths. Fatality is low, especially with access to good medical care. (That said, 2022-3 was Clade II and the new outbreak is Clade I, which tends to be more severe.)
Also, the official name is now mpox. The natural reservoir for the virus is probably not monkeys, but rather rodents.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Edit. And btw why are advocates depute not on that list??
Meanwhile, if you want to make Ronald Reagan turn in his grave:
It didn't 'cease to exist'. It just stopped having any official status.
59 years is a fair while. A lot of geopolitical entities have come and gone since then.
So, how many years without official status does it take for somewhere to cease to exist?
Does East Germany still exist, given that it lost official status 25 years after Middlesex?
Do the kingdoms Wessex and Mercia still 'exist' in some form?
Is any land anywhere that was ever designated a name and status have a guarantee to exist in perpetuity?
It's not a "guarantee to exist in perpetuity" it's just that a the loss of a particular function (as an administrative county or as a kingdom for instance) doesn't mean something loses all uses, or that the geographical description ceases to have meaning.
Wessex, Mercia and Middlesex are recognised as geographic entities. And they are in fact referenced officially still - Middlesex is used in postal addresses, West Mercia Police exist, Wessex Water is a water company. They are slightly hazy in terms of boundaries now, but they haven't ceased to exist.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Clinton inherited an economy going in the right direction but he did well with it. Clinton had the advantage of being seriously smart and genuinely interested in public policy issues throughout his career. If he could have only kept his zipper shut he could have been one of the greats.
Global conditions were also extraordinarily good for the US (and much of the west). Economic growth and presidential competence aren’t tightly correlated.
That's true but he used the surplus being generated by the boom sensibly. He got the deficit down and he got the Medicare back on a viable path. Defo a 7 or 8/10 for me.
Oh, I’m not dissing his economic competence. Things went seriously pear shaped under GW Bush, who really was an awful President, and have never really recovered.
"Deficit don't matter" - Dick Cheney.
Citing the politics & policy of that great conservative . . . wait for it . . . Ronald Reagan.
Nice to read a news article about Monkeypox in Stockholm half an hour after the taking the most packed bus ride I've ever experienced in that very city. Wish me luck!
At least as patient zero (one?) I can provide a running commentary on PB as I expire.
In the 2022-3 mpox outbreak, there were recorded to be 99,518 cases and 207 deaths. Fatality is low, especially with access to good medical care. (That said, 2022-3 was Clade II and the new outbreak is Clade I, which tends to be more severe.)
Also, the official name is now mpox. The natural reservoir for the virus is probably not monkeys, but rather rodents.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Edit. And btw why are advocates depute not on that list??
Meanwhile, if you want to make Ronald Reagan turn in his grave:
$35trn and counting, rising by an average of $11bn a day so far this month.
Bidenomics in action.
Odd to reference Reagan there as the national debt tripled in his tenure. It's much higher now, of course, but he certainly wasn't notable for keeping a cap on the national debt.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Wow! Time travelling back to the 1970s. "Keep the little lady back home with the weans". You may be right power cuts are on their way
I definitely don't think there should be any restrictions on employing women but the mass entry of women into the workforce from the 1970s/1980s certainly made changes to the motivation and of the workforce, that were not addressed at the time and still have ramifications for today. For example, men and women in the exact same profession might have been paid the same , but there was a perception by some that because a significant number of the women were not the "breadwinner" in the family, they were prepared to accept less in pay rise negotiations. In professions that had traditionally been male there was a perception that wages fell relative to other professions. Women who were in positions where their employer didn't want to lose them and their skills, they were able to negotiate for part time work. And why shouldn't they? It's simple supply and demand. Of course now women have rights to maternity leave, and to request part time and flexible work, and unpaid parental leave for family emergencies. I hear childless employees and male employees frequently complain about having to pick up the slack. But of course, men also have the right to paternity leave, request part time and flexible work etc, they just don't do it. (Some enlightened employers offer more flexible arrangements for all of their staff in the interests of fairness, job satisfaction and in some cases improved productivity) The fundamental problem is cultural differences between men and women, for example, some people's minds are stuck in fixed gender roles where men go out to work and women do childcare. Some people think work should be at least 40 hours a week or 5 days a week, and anything less is not a proper job. Some people think paid work is the most important thing anyone does, and people who want to work part time to give them space in their lives to spend time with their children, pursue a hobby, travel, sleep or whatever the hell they want. It doesn't matter if someone works 3, 4, or 5 days a week or whatever as long as there are enough full time equivalents to get the job done and they are working enough hours to keep up their skills and not working so much that they are overtired and make mistakes. The important things are that the person knows how to do the job well, that they are paid an appropriate salary for the work that they do, and that the job gets done properly, not whether the staff are "part" or "full" time, are women or men or whatever, are parents or not parents, and so on.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now youre just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
1. They're only massive because their pay has been frozen for years 2. The productivity improvement is because they're no longer on strike 3. Many of the strikes have been in protest at wazzock management by things like the DfT which have wrecked productivity by (as an example) dictating to Transpennine Express management that they should reduce traincrew route knowledge so that a Newcastle - Liverpool train needs 2 changes of driver and conductor en-route
Yes all those poor sods heading off to University to get £50k of Clegg induced debt and who wont be able to get a well paid job shouold drop the whole charade and apply to be a train driver, £75k plus pension for pushing a lever.
On the other hand do you buy scotch eggs ? I could maybe do you a deal.
As Viz pointed out, it is not easy for train drivers to keep the train on those narrow steel rails, especially in dark tunnels.
Do you have a link for that? My brother is a tube driver and, wel,l you know, he's my brother, so the link would be awesome!
Sadly not, just a faded memory, and it's been decades since I regularly bought Viz. That said, I expect tube drivers will be familiar with that sort of joke anyway.
Nice to read a news article about Monkeypox in Stockholm half an hour after the taking the most packed bus ride I've ever experienced in that very city. Wish me luck!
At least as patient zero (one?) I can provide a running commentary on PB as I expire.
In the 2022-3 mpox outbreak, there were recorded to be 99,518 cases and 207 deaths. Fatality is low, especially with access to good medical care. (That said, 2022-3 was Clade II and the new outbreak is Clade I, which tends to be more severe.)
Also, the official name is now mpox. The natural reservoir for the virus is probably not monkeys, but rather rodents.
Plus there exists a vaccine, no?
Yes. Well, it’s just the smallpox vaccines, but it works on mpox too. And you can have it for a period after infection and it still be effective.
I personally think that this is the biggest economic story in the world right now. Construction/property is over 30% of China's GDP. That needs a massive correction. China has already built enough houses to home another 3bn people.
If construction grinds to a halt China's GDP will fall by more (in terms of value) than any economy in the history of the world. 2008 will be a rounding error by comparison. That would lead to massive unemployment and the reimpoverishment of much of the Chinese middle class.
Its not obvious how this can be prevented. Attempts to increase exports to create domestic demand is driving tariffs around the world already. Once again, the scale is incredible. China already exports more solar panels than the rest of the world needs by a large margin. Production simply cannot go on at the current rates. We are seeing similar problems with electric vehicles.
When will this strike? I am really not sure but when something cannot go on it eventually stops. And when it does it won't just be the China economy that gets hurt.
Interesting. Any views on how it might impact the wider world economy and more specifically the UK?
The risks are several as I see them. Firstly, there is a real risk of a 1930s tariff war to stop dumping from China. We are already seeing that. Secondly, a very large number of banks, including the 4 largest banks in the world (all Chinese) will collapse without huge recapitalisation. We face a risk of 2008 being repeated. Thirdly, there is the risk of serious instability in China and the possible threats to Taiwan that might generate. Fourthly, we might end up with the risk of a refugee crisis the likes of which we have never seen. Fifthly, the consequences for Africa and those who have been dependent on belt and road funding will be horrendous. Sixthly, it is very likely we will have shortages of things that we have stopped making for ourselves. Seventhly, a lot of our funding for infrastructure, including our new nuclear power stations, will disappear. Eighthly, the deflationary impact will hit us all with the collapse in asset prices not being restricted to China.
Its going to be rough. And it seems the next best thing to inevitable.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now youre just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
1. They're only massive because their pay has been frozen for years 2. The productivity improvement is because they're no longer on strike 3. Many of the strikes have been in protest at wazzock management by things like the DfT which have wrecked productivity by (as an example) dictating to Transpennine Express management that they should reduce traincrew route knowledge so that a Newcastle - Liverpool train needs 2 changes of driver and conductor en-route
Yes all those poor sods heading off to University to get £50k of Clegg induced debt and who wont be able to get a well paid job shouold drop the whole charade and apply to be a train driver, £75k plus pension for pushing a lever.
On the other hand do you buy scotch eggs ? I could maybe do you a deal.
As Viz pointed out, it is not easy for train drivers to keep the train on those narrow steel rails, especially in dark tunnels.
Do you have a link for that? My brother is a tube driver and, wel,l you know, he's my brother, so the link would be awesome!
Sadly not, just a faded memory, and it's been decades since I regularly bought Viz. That said, I expect tube drivers will be familiar with that sort of joke anyway.
Yeah, but I'm not going to jab him in his socks with a 'do you remember'.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now youre just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
1. They're only massive because their pay has been frozen for years 2. The productivity improvement is because they're no longer on strike 3. Many of the strikes have been in protest at wazzock management by things like the DfT which have wrecked productivity by (as an example) dictating to Transpennine Express management that they should reduce traincrew route knowledge so that a Newcastle - Liverpool train needs 2 changes of driver and conductor en-route
Yes all those poor sods heading off to University to get £50k of Clegg induced debt and who wont be able to get a well paid job shouold drop the whole charade and apply to be a train driver, £75k plus pension for pushing a lever.
On the other hand do you buy scotch eggs ? I could maybe do you a deal.
As Viz pointed out, it is not easy for train drivers to keep the train on those narrow steel rails, especially in dark tunnels.
Do you have a link for that? My brother is a tube driver and, wel,l you know, he's my brother, so the link would be awesome!
Sadly not, just a faded memory, and it's been decades since I regularly bought Viz. That said, I expect tube drivers will be familiar with that sort of joke anyway.
Start buying it again. I have stuff published in almost every issue.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now youre just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
1. They're only massive because their pay has been frozen for years 2. The productivity improvement is because they're no longer on strike 3. Many of the strikes have been in protest at wazzock management by things like the DfT which have wrecked productivity by (as an example) dictating to Transpennine Express management that they should reduce traincrew route knowledge so that a Newcastle - Liverpool train needs 2 changes of driver and conductor en-route
Yes all those poor sods heading off to University to get £50k of Clegg induced debt and who wont be able to get a well paid job shouold drop the whole charade and apply to be a train driver, £75k plus pension for pushing a lever.
On the other hand do you buy scotch eggs ? I could maybe do you a deal.
As Viz pointed out, it is not easy for train drivers to keep the train on those narrow steel rails, especially in dark tunnels.
Do you have a link for that? My brother is a tube driver and, wel,l you know, he's my brother, so the link would be awesome!
Sadly not, just a faded memory, and it's been decades since I regularly bought Viz. That said, I expect tube drivers will be familiar with that sort of joke anyway.
Start buying it again. I have stuff published in almost every issue.
Those vacuum-padded girdles never sold though, did they?
It didn't 'cease to exist'. It just stopped having any official status.
59 years is a fair while. A lot of geopolitical entities have come and gone since then.
So, how many years without official status does it take for somewhere to cease to exist?
Does East Germany still exist, given that it lost official status 25 years after Middlesex?
Do the kingdoms Wessex and Mercia still 'exist' in some form?
Is any land anywhere that was ever designated a name and status have a guarantee to exist in perpetuity?
You're building towards the long held idea that places like France and the USA exist. Clearly it's up to KC3 to rule on such matters. I'm not sure he has yet done so.
This country has gone sadly downhill ever since that liberal pinko George III renounced the title King of France in 1803 as a sop to a Corsican dictator whose name escapes me. Time to rectify that historical anomaly.
If you don't like this post you should move to France fortwith.
Nice to read a news article about Monkeypox in Stockholm half an hour after the taking the most packed bus ride I've ever experienced in that very city. Wish me luck!
At least as patient zero (one?) I can provide a running commentary on PB as I expire.
In the 2022-3 mpox outbreak, there were recorded to be 99,518 cases and 207 deaths. Fatality is low, especially with access to good medical care. (That said, 2022-3 was Clade II and the new outbreak is Clade I, which tends to be more severe.)
Also, the official name is now mpox. The natural reservoir for the virus is probably not monkeys, but rather rodents.
Nice to read a news article about Monkeypox in Stockholm half an hour after the taking the most packed bus ride I've ever experienced in that very city. Wish me luck!
At least as patient zero (one?) I can provide a running commentary on PB as I expire.
In the 2022-3 mpox outbreak, there were recorded to be 99,518 cases and 207 deaths. Fatality is low, especially with access to good medical care. (That said, 2022-3 was Clade II and the new outbreak is Clade I, which tends to be more severe.)
Also, the official name is now mpox. The natural reservoir for the virus is probably not monkeys, but rather rodents.
People have sex with rats??
Mpox is not a sexually transmitted disease (although it is often transmitted during sex and it is also a sexually transmitted disease).
It didn't 'cease to exist'. It just stopped having any official status.
59 years is a fair while. A lot of geopolitical entities have come and gone since then.
So, how many years without official status does it take for somewhere to cease to exist?
Does East Germany still exist, given that it lost official status 25 years after Middlesex?
Do the kingdoms Wessex and Mercia still 'exist' in some form?
Is any land anywhere that was ever designated a name and status have a guarantee to exist in perpetuity?
You're building towards the long held idea that places like France and the USA exist. Clearly it's up to KC3 to rule on such matters. I'm not sure he has yet done so.
This country has gone sadly downhill ever since that liberal pinko George III renounced the title King of France in 1803 as a sop to a Corsican dictator whose name escapes me. Time to rectify that historical anomaly.
He was mad at the time. I think there was some sort of energetic little man at the time that did something or other, you're quite right!
I personally think that this is the biggest economic story in the world right now. Construction/property is over 30% of China's GDP. That needs a massive correction. China has already built enough houses to home another 3bn people.
If construction grinds to a halt China's GDP will fall by more (in terms of value) than any economy in the history of the world. 2008 will be a rounding error by comparison. That would lead to massive unemployment and the reimpoverishment of much of the Chinese middle class.
Its not obvious how this can be prevented. Attempts to increase exports to create domestic demand is driving tariffs around the world already. Once again, the scale is incredible. China already exports more solar panels than the rest of the world needs by a large margin. Production simply cannot go on at the current rates. We are seeing similar problems with electric vehicles.
When will this strike? I am really not sure but when something cannot go on it eventually stops. And when it does it won't just be the China economy that gets hurt.
Interesting. Any views on how it might impact the wider world economy and more specifically the UK?
The risks are several as I see them. Firstly, there is a real risk of a 1930s tariff war to stop dumping from China. We are already seeing that. Secondly, a very large number of banks, including the 4 largest banks in the world (all Chinese) will collapse without huge recapitalisation. We face a risk of 2008 being repeated. Thirdly, there is the risk of serious instability in China and the possible threats to Taiwan that might generate. Fourthly, we might end up with the risk of a refugee crisis the likes of which we have never seen. Fifthly, the consequences for Africa and those who have been dependent on belt and road funding will be horrendous. Sixthly, it is very likely we will have shortages of things that we have stopped making for ourselves. Seventhly, a lot of our funding for infrastructure, including our new nuclear power stations, will disappear. Eighthly, the deflationary impact will hit us all with the collapse in asset prices not being restricted to China.
Its going to be rough. And it seems the next best thing to inevitable.
Er, and the bad news is...?
We're just in the process of selling our house and are going to rent for a year or two while we look for our next place. Think I might put the capital under the mattress.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Edit. And btw why are advocates depute not on that list??
Meanwhile, if you want to make Ronald Reagan turn in his grave:
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
watch this space there will eb a long long queue
I don't think so. The public sector awards seem to have gone down well, with no signs of unions asking for more, and if inflation stays at the sort of level that it has done in recent months, then a 2% award next year across the board would probably be fine. In other words less than the triple lock that your good self puts in his sporran.
That will be at same level next year and 2% of a pittance is slightly different to 2% of a Doctor's salary and no overtime, shift allowance , etc on the pension so hardly comparable and is nowhere near 22% in any case. Luckily I will never have to survive on state pension alone.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Edit. And btw why are advocates depute not on that list??
Meanwhile, if you want to make Ronald Reagan turn in his grave:
$35trn and counting, rising by an average of $11bn a day so far this month.
Bidenomics in action.
See that you too have bought the BS about St Ronald, the Patron Saint of Fiscal Conservatism?
That sound you're hearing, is the ghost of Reagan laughing what's left of his ass!
I'm not worried about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.
Ronald Reagan.
It was of course a deliberate strategy to massively increase the deficit and thereby the American burden of debt, as part of his scheme to spend the Soviet Union into the ground during the Cold War. Which worked, after a fashion.
It didn't 'cease to exist'. It just stopped having any official status.
59 years is a fair while. A lot of geopolitical entities have come and gone since then.
So, how many years without official status does it take for somewhere to cease to exist?
Does East Germany still exist, given that it lost official status 25 years after Middlesex?
Do the kingdoms Wessex and Mercia still 'exist' in some form?
Is any land anywhere that was ever designated a name and status have a guarantee to exist in perpetuity?
It's not a "guarantee to exist in perpetuity" it's just that a the loss of a particular function (as an administrative county or as a kingdom for instance) doesn't mean something loses all uses, or that the geographical description ceases to have meaning.
Wessex, Mercia and Middlesex are recognised as geographic entities. And they are in fact referenced officially still - Middlesex is used in postal addresses, West Mercia Police exist, Wessex Water is a water company. They are slightly hazy in terms of boundaries now, but they haven't ceased to exist.
Postal counties ceased to have functional meaning in the mid 1990s, no?
You can write 'Middlesex' in a postal address (indeed you can write whatever you want) but it won't mean anything to the robots that process it.
But this is my point really - if something exists, even if only in peoples minds, then it exists, at least on a conceptual/notional/philosophic level, and the definitions and boundaries can be as vague or inconsistent as one likes.
This is not the same as official entities which serve a specific purpose and whose boundaries are clearly defined, absolute and almost never up for negotiation.
There will always be those who confuse and conflate the two of course, whether through wistful longing for a specific point in the past, lack of awareness about recent administrative changes, general ignorance or just plain trolling.
I personally think that this is the biggest economic story in the world right now. Construction/property is over 30% of China's GDP. That needs a massive correction. China has already built enough houses to home another 3bn people.
If construction grinds to a halt China's GDP will fall by more (in terms of value) than any economy in the history of the world. 2008 will be a rounding error by comparison. That would lead to massive unemployment and the reimpoverishment of much of the Chinese middle class.
Its not obvious how this can be prevented. Attempts to increase exports to create domestic demand is driving tariffs around the world already. Once again, the scale is incredible. China already exports more solar panels than the rest of the world needs by a large margin. Production simply cannot go on at the current rates. We are seeing similar problems with electric vehicles.
When will this strike? I am really not sure but when something cannot go on it eventually stops. And when it does it won't just be the China economy that gets hurt.
Interesting. Any views on how it might impact the wider world economy and more specifically the UK?
The risks are several as I see them. Firstly, there is a real risk of a 1930s tariff war to stop dumping from China. We are already seeing that. Secondly, a very large number of banks, including the 4 largest banks in the world (all Chinese) will collapse without huge recapitalisation. We face a risk of 2008 being repeated. Thirdly, there is the risk of serious instability in China and the possible threats to Taiwan that might generate. Fourthly, we might end up with the risk of a refugee crisis the likes of which we have never seen. Fifthly, the consequences for Africa and those who have been dependent on belt and road funding will be horrendous. Sixthly, it is very likely we will have shortages of things that we have stopped making for ourselves. Seventhly, a lot of our funding for infrastructure, including our new nuclear power stations, will disappear. Eighthly, the deflationary impact will hit us all with the collapse in asset prices not being restricted to China.
Its going to be rough. And it seems the next best thing to inevitable.
Er, and the bad news is...?
We're just in the process of selling our house and are going to rent for a year or two while we look for our next place. Think I might put the capital under the mattress.
I am not qualified or authorised to give financial advice but if I had a nest egg right now I would be looking for a very safe home for it. Gilts or top ranked commercial bonds. This is not really a time to be brave.
It didn't 'cease to exist'. It just stopped having any official status.
59 years is a fair while. A lot of geopolitical entities have come and gone since then.
So, how many years without official status does it take for somewhere to cease to exist?
Does East Germany still exist, given that it lost official status 25 years after Middlesex?
Do the kingdoms Wessex and Mercia still 'exist' in some form?
Is any land anywhere that was ever designated a name and status have a guarantee to exist in perpetuity?
You're building towards the long held idea that places like France and the USA exist. Clearly it's up to KC3 to rule on such matters. I'm not sure he has yet done so.
This country has gone sadly downhill ever since that liberal pinko George III renounced the title King of France in 1803 as a sop to a Corsican dictator whose name escapes me. Time to rectify that historical anomaly.
If you don't like this post you should move to France fortwith.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Edit. And btw why are advocates depute not on that list??
Meanwhile, if you want to make Ronald Reagan turn in his grave:
$35trn and counting, rising by an average of $11bn a day so far this month.
Bidenomics in action.
See that you too have bought the BS about St Ronald, the Patron Saint of Fiscal Conservatism?
That sound you're hearing, is the ghost of Reagan laughing what's left of his ass!
I'm not worried about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.
Ronald Reagan.
It was of course a deliberate strategy to massively increase the deficit and thereby the American burden of debt, as part of his scheme to spend the Soviet Union into the ground during the Cold War. Which worked, after a fashion.
On the backs of generations yet unborn, as opposed to Reagan's fatcat fan club who reaped mega-millions from HIS targeted tax cuts.
I had one of those ultra-convincing dreams the other night that Fulham had beaten Man U 6-1 in the opening game on Friday. When I woke up it took me ages to convince myself it was still only Wednesday.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
Consider availablity, though.
There are about 60 thousand young people who do A Level Chemistry each year, which is the core qualification to go on to do a medical degree.
We currently have about 7500 places on medical degree courses each year, with plans to increase that. So as it stands, we're taking a bit more than ten percent of available eighteen year olds. (And trust me, there are many reasons why we don't want all of them doing medicine.) Besides, we need lots of them to do other things with their lives as well. The more you squeeze women out, the higher percentage of men you need. At some point, it stops being sensible.
It would be great to have more doctors, especially if you want to use a "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" model of management. But the time and cost of training and the human limit on people who can effectively practice medicine, put limits on that.
Besides, if the pay fails to keep up with the alternatives, why would people choose to study medicine?
That I think is part of the problem. Pay. For a long time, the highest status, best paid career open to scientifically-inclined sixth formers was medicine, and by a long way. Recently, working in computers or even more so in the City has taken over, so junior doctors now look at their old school chums and see how much better some are doing. They then are tempted by Australia for twice the money, or management consultancy.
As an aside, this might ease the path of those for whom medicine is a vocation not just a pay packet.
I personally think that this is the biggest economic story in the world right now. Construction/property is over 30% of China's GDP. That needs a massive correction. China has already built enough houses to home another 3bn people.
If construction grinds to a halt China's GDP will fall by more (in terms of value) than any economy in the history of the world. 2008 will be a rounding error by comparison. That would lead to massive unemployment and the reimpoverishment of much of the Chinese middle class.
Its not obvious how this can be prevented. Attempts to increase exports to create domestic demand is driving tariffs around the world already. Once again, the scale is incredible. China already exports more solar panels than the rest of the world needs by a large margin. Production simply cannot go on at the current rates. We are seeing similar problems with electric vehicles.
When will this strike? I am really not sure but when something cannot go on it eventually stops. And when it does it won't just be the China economy that gets hurt.
Interesting. Any views on how it might impact the wider world economy and more specifically the UK?
The risks are several as I see them. Firstly, there is a real risk of a 1930s tariff war to stop dumping from China. We are already seeing that. Secondly, a very large number of banks, including the 4 largest banks in the world (all Chinese) will collapse without huge recapitalisation. We face a risk of 2008 being repeated. Thirdly, there is the risk of serious instability in China and the possible threats to Taiwan that might generate. Fourthly, we might end up with the risk of a refugee crisis the likes of which we have never seen. Fifthly, the consequences for Africa and those who have been dependent on belt and road funding will be horrendous. Sixthly, it is very likely we will have shortages of things that we have stopped making for ourselves. Seventhly, a lot of our funding for infrastructure, including our new nuclear power stations, will disappear. Eighthly, the deflationary impact will hit us all with the collapse in asset prices not being restricted to China.
Its going to be rough. And it seems the next best thing to inevitable.
Er, and the bad news is...?
We're just in the process of selling our house and are going to rent for a year or two while we look for our next place. Think I might put the capital under the mattress.
I am not qualified or authorised to give financial advice but if I had a nest egg right now I would be looking for a very safe home for it. Gilts or top ranked commercial bonds. This is not really a time to be brave.
Last time I tried gilts I got stung badly - interest rate fluctuations can seriously affect the capital value of gilts and bonds.
I think we'll be keeping it on deposit wherever we can get the best rates.
I had one of those ultra-convincing dreams the other night that Fulham had beaten Man U 6-1 in the opening game on Friday. When I woke up it took me ages to convince myself it was still only Wednesday.
(I'm hoping it was a dream, not a premonition.)
Not ready for Fulham? Sometimes I wonder if Ten Hag would have preferred a pay off this summer. We held a weakened Man City to a draw last week.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Edit. And btw why are advocates depute not on that list??
Meanwhile, if you want to make Ronald Reagan turn in his grave:
$35trn and counting, rising by an average of $11bn a day so far this month.
Bidenomics in action.
See that you too have bought the BS about St Ronald, the Patron Saint of Fiscal Conservatism?
That sound you're hearing, is the ghost of Reagan laughing what's left of his ass!
I'm not worried about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.
Ronald Reagan.
It was of course a deliberate strategy to massively increase the deficit and thereby the American burden of debt, as part of his scheme to spend the Soviet Union into the ground during the Cold War. Which worked, after a fashion.
It was also designed to tie the hands of any subsequent Democratic administration by ensuring that most of the tax raised was spent on debt interest and not on new programs of benefits. That hasn't worked quite so well.
Nice to read a news article about Monkeypox in Stockholm half an hour after the taking the most packed bus ride I've ever experienced in that very city. Wish me luck!
At least as patient zero (one?) I can provide a running commentary on PB as I expire.
In the 2022-3 mpox outbreak, there were recorded to be 99,518 cases and 207 deaths. Fatality is low, especially with access to good medical care. (That said, 2022-3 was Clade II and the new outbreak is Clade I, which tends to be more severe.)
Also, the official name is now mpox. The natural reservoir for the virus is probably not monkeys, but rather rodents.
At New Road, Kasey Aldridge is doing his chances of playing Tests this summer no harm at all. 1-20 off six overs and an excellent 78 off 96 to lift England Lions from 190-6 to 324 all out.
New Road was a wonderful ground. Almost like a village green and then they stuck up that God awful stand on New Road. I hear Ashley Giles is talking about moving "New Road" out of the city due to flooding, and they are already playing in Kiddy for the early season games.
Yes.
Can't blame them for wanting to move either. I think the square was under water for all bar about three weeks of the winter. That's not fair on the club. Kidderminster isn't a bad ground but it's not got the facilities or the access of New Road. Better to sell the land for car parking and move to the east of the city, near the M5 and the railway.
A shame, because it's an iconic ground, but an iconic ground that's constantly under two feet of water is no good to man nor ECB.
Glos are looking at moving too, for the slightly different reason that the ground's very cramped, access is terrible and the pitch is desperately slow.
Putting it in Norton would make some sense. Just off Junction 7 of the M5 and handy for the new "railway station from nowhere".
Essex keep talking about moving too. Current ground's small, but bang in the middle of Chelmsford.
Presumably they could make tens of millions selling off the ground for blocks of river view apartments to be built on the site, and find another site that’s currently a random field a mile out of town? Not an easy decision to make, especially when the money is being dangled in front of you.
It's access that's the big issue. At the moment it's good for bus, train and car, and foot from the City centre.
Maybe they should move back to London, the centre of gravity has moved that way rather than the north Essex and Suffolk villages
See what you mean, but I think that moving to London would mean that that the cricket mandarins would say "Ah, but Lords ...."
Essex looked at moving but I don't think they could afford to build a new ground. They'd probably have an even better talent stream if they moved some games back towards Ilford.
Ilford is London now not Essex
And is where Nasser Hussain is from. Until 1933 Essex's HQ was in Leyton. The East End East of the Lea is Essex in cricketing terms and full of Carribeans and Asians
The Oval is not in Surrey and Lords isn't in Middlesex which ceased to exist in 1965.
It didn't 'cease to exist'. It just stopped having any official status.
I've seen £1 billion as the cost of paying the junior doctors' salary increase over the next two years.
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
The problem is that junior doctors are only a small part of government payroll, let alone government spending. If junior doctors get that sort of increase, why not nurses? Police? Firemen? A billion here; a billion there... it all adds up.
Was it not Ronald Reagan (the only American President to have an economics degree) who said a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking serious money?
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Edit. And btw why are advocates depute not on that list??
Meanwhile, if you want to make Ronald Reagan turn in his grave:
$35trn and counting, rising by an average of $11bn a day so far this month.
Bidenomics in action.
See that you too have bought the BS about St Ronald, the Patron Saint of Fiscal Conservatism?
That sound you're hearing, is the ghost of Reagan laughing what's left of his ass!
I'm not worried about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.
Ronald Reagan.
It was of course a deliberate strategy to massively increase the deficit and thereby the American burden of debt, as part of his scheme to spend the Soviet Union into the ground during the Cold War. Which worked, after a fashion.
If you're the reserve currency are you too big to fail, I wonder?
I personally think that this is the biggest economic story in the world right now. Construction/property is over 30% of China's GDP. That needs a massive correction. China has already built enough houses to home another 3bn people.
If construction grinds to a halt China's GDP will fall by more (in terms of value) than any economy in the history of the world. 2008 will be a rounding error by comparison. That would lead to massive unemployment and the reimpoverishment of much of the Chinese middle class.
Its not obvious how this can be prevented. Attempts to increase exports to create domestic demand is driving tariffs around the world already. Once again, the scale is incredible. China already exports more solar panels than the rest of the world needs by a large margin. Production simply cannot go on at the current rates. We are seeing similar problems with electric vehicles.
When will this strike? I am really not sure but when something cannot go on it eventually stops. And when it does it won't just be the China economy that gets hurt.
Interesting. Any views on how it might impact the wider world economy and more specifically the UK?
The risks are several as I see them. Firstly, there is a real risk of a 1930s tariff war to stop dumping from China. We are already seeing that. Secondly, a very large number of banks, including the 4 largest banks in the world (all Chinese) will collapse without huge recapitalisation. We face a risk of 2008 being repeated. Thirdly, there is the risk of serious instability in China and the possible threats to Taiwan that might generate. Fourthly, we might end up with the risk of a refugee crisis the likes of which we have never seen. Fifthly, the consequences for Africa and those who have been dependent on belt and road funding will be horrendous. Sixthly, it is very likely we will have shortages of things that we have stopped making for ourselves. Seventhly, a lot of our funding for infrastructure, including our new nuclear power stations, will disappear. Eighthly, the deflationary impact will hit us all with the collapse in asset prices not being restricted to China.
Its going to be rough. And it seems the next best thing to inevitable.
Er, and the bad news is...?
We're just in the process of selling our house and are going to rent for a year or two while we look for our next place. Think I might put the capital under the mattress.
I am not qualified or authorised to give financial advice but if I had a nest egg right now I would be looking for a very safe home for it. Gilts or top ranked commercial bonds. This is not really a time to be brave.
Last time I tried gilts I got stung badly - interest rate fluctuations can seriously affect the capital value of gilts and bonds.
I think we'll be keeping it on deposit wherever we can get the best rates.
Gilts should be an obvious investment route. They have been for centuries. Somehow the BoE decided that they're bond issuance was too flighty for the common man.
I had one of those ultra-convincing dreams the other night that Fulham had beaten Man U 6-1 in the opening game on Friday. When I woke up it took me ages to convince myself it was still only Wednesday.
(I'm hoping it was a dream, not a premonition.)
Not ready for Fulham? Sometimes I wonder if Ten Hag would have preferred a pay off this summer. We held a weakened Man City to a draw last week.
It didn't 'cease to exist'. It just stopped having any official status.
59 years is a fair while. A lot of geopolitical entities have come and gone since then.
So, how many years without official status does it take for somewhere to cease to exist?
Does East Germany still exist, given that it lost official status 25 years after Middlesex?
Do the kingdoms Wessex and Mercia still 'exist' in some form?
Is any land anywhere that was ever designated a name and status have a guarantee to exist in perpetuity?
It's not a "guarantee to exist in perpetuity" it's just that a the loss of a particular function (as an administrative county or as a kingdom for instance) doesn't mean something loses all uses, or that the geographical description ceases to have meaning.
Wessex, Mercia and Middlesex are recognised as geographic entities. And they are in fact referenced officially still - Middlesex is used in postal addresses, West Mercia Police exist, Wessex Water is a water company. They are slightly hazy in terms of boundaries now, but they haven't ceased to exist.
Postal counties ceased to have functional meaning in the mid 1990s, no?
You can write 'Middlesex' in a postal address (indeed you can write whatever you want) but it won't mean anything to the robots that process it.
But this is my point really - if something exists, even if only in peoples minds, then it exists, at least on a conceptual/notional/philosophic level, and the definitions and boundaries can be as vague or inconsistent as one likes.
This is not the same as official entities which serve a specific purpose and whose boundaries are clearly defined, absolute and almost never up for negotiation.
There will always be those who confuse and conflate the two of course, whether through wistful longing for a specific point in the past, lack of awareness about recent administrative changes, general ignorance or just plain trolling.
The plain trolling ones are the best, obviously.
Postally speaking, we’re not in Essex, but in Colchester. Unquestionably, geographically, Colchester is in Essex, but not according to Royal Mail.
At New Road, Kasey Aldridge is doing his chances of playing Tests this summer no harm at all. 1-20 off six overs and an excellent 78 off 96 to lift England Lions from 190-6 to 324 all out.
New Road was a wonderful ground. Almost like a village green and then they stuck up that God awful stand on New Road. I hear Ashley Giles is talking about moving "New Road" out of the city due to flooding, and they are already playing in Kiddy for the early season games.
Yes.
Can't blame them for wanting to move either. I think the square was under water for all bar about three weeks of the winter. That's not fair on the club. Kidderminster isn't a bad ground but it's not got the facilities or the access of New Road. Better to sell the land for car parking and move to the east of the city, near the M5 and the railway.
A shame, because it's an iconic ground, but an iconic ground that's constantly under two feet of water is no good to man nor ECB.
Glos are looking at moving too, for the slightly different reason that the ground's very cramped, access is terrible and the pitch is desperately slow.
Putting it in Norton would make some sense. Just off Junction 7 of the M5 and handy for the new "railway station from nowhere".
Essex keep talking about moving too. Current ground's small, but bang in the middle of Chelmsford.
Presumably they could make tens of millions selling off the ground for blocks of river view apartments to be built on the site, and find another site that’s currently a random field a mile out of town? Not an easy decision to make, especially when the money is being dangled in front of you.
It's access that's the big issue. At the moment it's good for bus, train and car, and foot from the City centre.
Maybe they should move back to London, the centre of gravity has moved that way rather than the north Essex and Suffolk villages
See what you mean, but I think that moving to London would mean that that the cricket mandarins would say "Ah, but Lords ...."
Essex looked at moving but I don't think they could afford to build a new ground. They'd probably have an even better talent stream if they moved some games back towards Ilford.
Ilford is London now not Essex
And is where Nasser Hussain is from. Until 1933 Essex's HQ was in Leyton. The East End East of the Lea is Essex in cricketing terms and full of Carribeans and Asians
The Oval is not in Surrey and Lords isn't in Middlesex which ceased to exist in 1965.
It didn't 'cease to exist'. It just stopped having any official status.
It's still an 'official' cricket territory. That's hugely validating.
I personally think that this is the biggest economic story in the world right now. Construction/property is over 30% of China's GDP. That needs a massive correction. China has already built enough houses to home another 3bn people.
If construction grinds to a halt China's GDP will fall by more (in terms of value) than any economy in the history of the world. 2008 will be a rounding error by comparison. That would lead to massive unemployment and the reimpoverishment of much of the Chinese middle class.
Its not obvious how this can be prevented. Attempts to increase exports to create domestic demand is driving tariffs around the world already. Once again, the scale is incredible. China already exports more solar panels than the rest of the world needs by a large margin. Production simply cannot go on at the current rates. We are seeing similar problems with electric vehicles.
When will this strike? I am really not sure but when something cannot go on it eventually stops. And when it does it won't just be the China economy that gets hurt.
Interesting. Any views on how it might impact the wider world economy and more specifically the UK?
The risks are several as I see them. Firstly, there is a real risk of a 1930s tariff war to stop dumping from China. We are already seeing that. Secondly, a very large number of banks, including the 4 largest banks in the world (all Chinese) will collapse without huge recapitalisation. We face a risk of 2008 being repeated. Thirdly, there is the risk of serious instability in China and the possible threats to Taiwan that might generate. Fourthly, we might end up with the risk of a refugee crisis the likes of which we have never seen. Fifthly, the consequences for Africa and those who have been dependent on belt and road funding will be horrendous. Sixthly, it is very likely we will have shortages of things that we have stopped making for ourselves. Seventhly, a lot of our funding for infrastructure, including our new nuclear power stations, will disappear. Eighthly, the deflationary impact will hit us all with the collapse in asset prices not being restricted to China.
Its going to be rough. And it seems the next best thing to inevitable.
Er, and the bad news is...?
We're just in the process of selling our house and are going to rent for a year or two while we look for our next place. Think I might put the capital under the mattress.
I am not qualified or authorised to give financial advice but if I had a nest egg right now I would be looking for a very safe home for it. Gilts or top ranked commercial bonds. This is not really a time to be brave.
Last time I tried gilts I got stung badly - interest rate fluctuations can seriously affect the capital value of gilts and bonds.
I think we'll be keeping it on deposit wherever we can get the best rates.
raisin.co.uk is a handy way of spreading it about so as not to worry about the 85k limit
I personally think that this is the biggest economic story in the world right now. Construction/property is over 30% of China's GDP. That needs a massive correction. China has already built enough houses to home another 3bn people.
If construction grinds to a halt China's GDP will fall by more (in terms of value) than any economy in the history of the world. 2008 will be a rounding error by comparison. That would lead to massive unemployment and the reimpoverishment of much of the Chinese middle class.
Its not obvious how this can be prevented. Attempts to increase exports to create domestic demand is driving tariffs around the world already. Once again, the scale is incredible. China already exports more solar panels than the rest of the world needs by a large margin. Production simply cannot go on at the current rates. We are seeing similar problems with electric vehicles.
When will this strike? I am really not sure but when something cannot go on it eventually stops. And when it does it won't just be the China economy that gets hurt.
Interesting. Any views on how it might impact the wider world economy and more specifically the UK?
The risks are several as I see them. Firstly, there is a real risk of a 1930s tariff war to stop dumping from China. We are already seeing that. Secondly, a very large number of banks, including the 4 largest banks in the world (all Chinese) will collapse without huge recapitalisation. We face a risk of 2008 being repeated. Thirdly, there is the risk of serious instability in China and the possible threats to Taiwan that might generate. Fourthly, we might end up with the risk of a refugee crisis the likes of which we have never seen. Fifthly, the consequences for Africa and those who have been dependent on belt and road funding will be horrendous. Sixthly, it is very likely we will have shortages of things that we have stopped making for ourselves. Seventhly, a lot of our funding for infrastructure, including our new nuclear power stations, will disappear. Eighthly, the deflationary impact will hit us all with the collapse in asset prices not being restricted to China.
Its going to be rough. And it seems the next best thing to inevitable.
Er, and the bad news is...?
We're just in the process of selling our house and are going to rent for a year or two while we look for our next place. Think I might put the capital under the mattress.
I am not qualified or authorised to give financial advice but if I had a nest egg right now I would be looking for a very safe home for it. Gilts or top ranked commercial bonds. This is not really a time to be brave.
Last time I tried gilts I got stung badly - interest rate fluctuations can seriously affect the capital value of gilts and bonds.
I think we'll be keeping it on deposit wherever we can get the best rates.
You can have a real problem if interest rates are going the wrong way. But interest rates are likely to fall anyway and may fall a lot if economic Armageddon breaks out. If that happens the value of gilts or bonds with a 4% return will increase substantially.
I personally think that this is the biggest economic story in the world right now. Construction/property is over 30% of China's GDP. That needs a massive correction. China has already built enough houses to home another 3bn people.
If construction grinds to a halt China's GDP will fall by more (in terms of value) than any economy in the history of the world. 2008 will be a rounding error by comparison. That would lead to massive unemployment and the reimpoverishment of much of the Chinese middle class.
Its not obvious how this can be prevented. Attempts to increase exports to create domestic demand is driving tariffs around the world already. Once again, the scale is incredible. China already exports more solar panels than the rest of the world needs by a large margin. Production simply cannot go on at the current rates. We are seeing similar problems with electric vehicles.
When will this strike? I am really not sure but when something cannot go on it eventually stops. And when it does it won't just be the China economy that gets hurt.
Interesting. Any views on how it might impact the wider world economy and more specifically the UK?
The risks are several as I see them. Firstly, there is a real risk of a 1930s tariff war to stop dumping from China. We are already seeing that. Secondly, a very large number of banks, including the 4 largest banks in the world (all Chinese) will collapse without huge recapitalisation. We face a risk of 2008 being repeated. Thirdly, there is the risk of serious instability in China and the possible threats to Taiwan that might generate. Fourthly, we might end up with the risk of a refugee crisis the likes of which we have never seen. Fifthly, the consequences for Africa and those who have been dependent on belt and road funding will be horrendous. Sixthly, it is very likely we will have shortages of things that we have stopped making for ourselves. Seventhly, a lot of our funding for infrastructure, including our new nuclear power stations, will disappear. Eighthly, the deflationary impact will hit us all with the collapse in asset prices not being restricted to China.
Its going to be rough. And it seems the next best thing to inevitable.
Er, and the bad news is...?
We're just in the process of selling our house and are going to rent for a year or two while we look for our next place. Think I might put the capital under the mattress.
I am not qualified or authorised to give financial advice but if I had a nest egg right now I would be looking for a very safe home for it. Gilts or top ranked commercial bonds. This is not really a time to be brave.
Last time I tried gilts I got stung badly - interest rate fluctuations can seriously affect the capital value of gilts and bonds.
I think we'll be keeping it on deposit wherever we can get the best rates.
raisin.co.uk is a handy way of spreading it about so as not to worry about the 85k limit
It didn't 'cease to exist'. It just stopped having any official status.
59 years is a fair while. A lot of geopolitical entities have come and gone since then.
So, how many years without official status does it take for somewhere to cease to exist?
Does East Germany still exist, given that it lost official status 25 years after Middlesex?
Do the kingdoms Wessex and Mercia still 'exist' in some form?
Is any land anywhere that was ever designated a name and status have a guarantee to exist in perpetuity?
It's not a "guarantee to exist in perpetuity" it's just that a the loss of a particular function (as an administrative county or as a kingdom for instance) doesn't mean something loses all uses, or that the geographical description ceases to have meaning.
Wessex, Mercia and Middlesex are recognised as geographic entities. And they are in fact referenced officially still - Middlesex is used in postal addresses, West Mercia Police exist, Wessex Water is a water company. They are slightly hazy in terms of boundaries now, but they haven't ceased to exist.
Postal counties ceased to have functional meaning in the mid 1990s, no?
You can write 'Middlesex' in a postal address (indeed you can write whatever you want) but it won't mean anything to the robots that process it.
But this is my point really - if something exists, even if only in peoples minds, then it exists, at least on a conceptual/notional/philosophic level, and the definitions and boundaries can be as vague or inconsistent as one likes.
This is not the same as official entities which serve a specific purpose and whose boundaries are clearly defined, absolute and almost never up for negotiation.
There will always be those who confuse and conflate the two of course, whether through wistful longing for a specific point in the past, lack of awareness about recent administrative changes, general ignorance or just plain trolling.
The plain trolling ones are the best, obviously.
Fair point. However the sharp eyed will have noticed that your point is about ontology, not about Middlesex. PB is notoriously bad at discussing the philosophy of ontology, which like the problem of universals tends to generate more heat than light. Middlesex exists. I was born in it. Floreat.
As for 'almost never up for negotiation', the area I shall designate as Cumbria is on its third try since the 60's.
Once upon a time we were Cumberland, Westmorland and the Furness part of Lancashire. Then we were Cumbria. Now we are Cumberland (but different boundaries from the old one) and Westmorland and Furness (ditto).
Penrith is now in Westmorland. Wars have been fought on lesser grounds.
I had one of those ultra-convincing dreams the other night that Fulham had beaten Man U 6-1 in the opening game on Friday. When I woke up it took me ages to convince myself it was still only Wednesday.
(I'm hoping it was a dream, not a premonition.)
Have judged use a free bet to back 6-1 (well any other away win, but whatever).
I had one of those ultra-convincing dreams the other night that Fulham had beaten Man U 6-1 in the opening game on Friday. When I woke up it took me ages to convince myself it was still only Wednesday.
(I'm hoping it was a dream, not a premonition.)
Have judged use a free bet to back 6-1 (well any other away win, but whatever).
It didn't 'cease to exist'. It just stopped having any official status.
59 years is a fair while. A lot of geopolitical entities have come and gone since then.
So, how many years without official status does it take for somewhere to cease to exist?
Does East Germany still exist, given that it lost official status 25 years after Middlesex?
Do the kingdoms Wessex and Mercia still 'exist' in some form?
Is any land anywhere that was ever designated a name and status have a guarantee to exist in perpetuity?
It's not a "guarantee to exist in perpetuity" it's just that a the loss of a particular function (as an administrative county or as a kingdom for instance) doesn't mean something loses all uses, or that the geographical description ceases to have meaning.
Wessex, Mercia and Middlesex are recognised as geographic entities. And they are in fact referenced officially still - Middlesex is used in postal addresses, West Mercia Police exist, Wessex Water is a water company. They are slightly hazy in terms of boundaries now, but they haven't ceased to exist.
Postal counties ceased to have functional meaning in the mid 1990s, no?
You can write 'Middlesex' in a postal address (indeed you can write whatever you want) but it won't mean anything to the robots that process it.
But this is my point really - if something exists, even if only in peoples minds, then it exists, at least on a conceptual/notional/philosophic level, and the definitions and boundaries can be as vague or inconsistent as one likes.
This is not the same as official entities which serve a specific purpose and whose boundaries are clearly defined, absolute and almost never up for negotiation.
There will always be those who confuse and conflate the two of course, whether through wistful longing for a specific point in the past, lack of awareness about recent administrative changes, general ignorance or just plain trolling.
The plain trolling ones are the best, obviously.
Fair point. However the sharp eyed will have noticed that your point is about ontology, not about Middlesex. PB is notoriously bad at discussing the philosophy of ontology, which like the problem of universals tends to generate more heat than light. Middlesex exists. I was born in it. Floreat.
As for 'almost never up for negotiation', the area I shall designate as Cumbria is on its third try since the 60's.
Once upon a time we were Cumberland, Westmorland and the Furness part of Lancashire. Then we were Cumbria. Now we are Cumberland (but different boundaries from the old one) and Westmorland and Furness (ditto).
Penrith is now in Westmorland. Wars have been fought on lesser grounds.
PB pedantry compels me to point out that that bit of Lancashire is the Hundred of Lonsdale (north of the sands). Furness is just the peninsula bit.
Comments
A lot of money? Yes and no - for any of us it's a lot of money but set against what the Government spends in its entirety it's nothing. OTOH, the fact remains there's a deficit. As of June, the Government had borrowed nearly £50 billion in the current financial year, ahead of the OBR forecast by about £3.5 billion.
In 2023-24, the Government borrowed £122 billion which is a serious number. The OBR has forecasted a 24/25 borrowing number of £87 billion but it seems unlikely the Government will be able to keep within that number as it stands for all total borrowing should be down on 23/24.
I agree with those who say we should be seeking to reduce the deficit and all we differ on are the means not the ends.
China has built enough homes to house 3 billion people?
Who on Earth came up with Rwanda in that case?
At least as patient zero (one?) I can provide a running commentary on PB as I expire.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1824142559406338405
"I told her I would campaign for her or against her, whichever would help the most."
And he didn't have those incompetent pedants in the OBR imposing a lot of completely fatuous restrictions on him based on forecasts which are so far out as to be laughable.
Edit. And btw why are advocates depute not on that list??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#/media/File:Budget_Deficit_1971_to_2001.png
Briefly.
“Beat the hell out of them. I mean it.”
NY Times blog
Don't touch anyone on that bus!
https://x.com/nationaldebt/status/1823831324701946066
$35trn and counting, rising by an average of $11bn a day so far this month.
Bidenomics in action.
On the plus side, the cake is fucking excellent here. Imagine fancy cakes which actually taste as good as they look.
Economic growth and presidential competence aren’t tightly correlated.
I know Twitter isn't necessarily representative but all three groups seem to be united in their Toryphobia, however inconsistent the collective rationale.
There is an almost unlimited stream of anecdata along the lines of 'I'm never voting Tory again because they are Labour-lite and Reform are the real Conservatives these days' on one side and 'I no longer recognise a party that has drifted so far to the Right' on t'other.
So in a sense, they just can't win. At least not for a while. Maybe in time some of these voters will decide there are things they hate more than the Tories.
It's a longstanding feature of politics. Lucky Generals can say one thing and do another and both groups are happy. Unlucky ones find themselves pissing off both sides. People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. The balancing act is choosing who to serve and who to fool.
That captures a few periods where the public sector pay was initially better protected (during COVID) and then more recently private sector pay has kept pace with inflation better.
Unless there's been significant productivity growth in the private sector then I'd expect there to be some catch up or else retention and recruitment will become a bigger issue.
So, how many years without official status does it take for somewhere to cease to exist?
Does East Germany still exist, given that it lost official status 25 years after Middlesex?
Do the kingdoms Wessex and Mercia still 'exist' in some form?
Is any land anywhere that was ever designated a name and status have a guarantee to exist in perpetuity?
then in my opinion fill your boots. Deficit spending has been a bipartisan effort. Trump and the Republican congress did it from 2016 and the Dems have continued.
The US GDP per capita performance in recent years is stellar. They have their problems, but their economy has blasted past ours in Europe several times over in the last decade.
The generation or two that have had the Conservative governments of 2010-24 and post 2016 in particular as the defining one of their adult lives to date won't be voting for them in a hurry, in the same way you get people in their 70s who still bring up the late 70s as a reason to not vote Labour.
Things went seriously pear shaped under GW Bush, who really was an awful President, and have never really recovered.
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris is emphasizing her middle-class bona fides, and one of the lines she’s coming to rely on in public appearances to make that case is a lesser-known entry on her résumé: former McDonald’s worker.
In an ad that debuted Friday, the Harris campaign highlighted her stint at the Golden Arches. As the camera pans across a set of vintage family photos, the narrator intones: “She grew up in a middle-class home. She was the daughter of a working mom. And she worked at McDonald’s while she got her degree.”
Harris also mentioned the job at Saturday’s rally in Las Vegas, where she told an enthusiastic crowd that “only in America” could two middle-class kids — referring to herself and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz — grow up to be on a ballot for the nation’s highest offices. “I had a summer job at McDonald’s,” she said, by way of underscoring her humble background. . . .
. . . . [McDonald's] said it surveyed a representative sample of American adults and found that 13.7% of people said they had worked or currently work for the chain. . . .
Of course, Trump is no stranger to McDonald’s, although his experience is on the other side of the register. . . . Campaign-finance disclosures have shown Trump’s presidential campaign is spending heavily at the chain. He had delivery orders brought in during both his fraud trial in October and his hush-money trial in April. And he famously served Big Macs several times to athletes visiting the White House. . . .
SSI - Can anyone produce ANY evidence, that Donald Trump has ever done a honest day's work in his entire life?'
Don't bet on it!
The problem is that their determination of what falls within the rules or not depends on the quality of their own forecasts which have been, to use a technical term, shite. In May of this year they forecast that GDP growth would be 0.8% for the year. This was after 0.7% growth in Q1. Basically, they were saying the economy was going to flat line for the rest of the year. That meant the budget was limited in what it could in terms of spending, investment or tax cuts. Q2, the first of those flat lining quarters, came in at 0.6% yesterday. So the determination of what met the fiscal rules and what did not were done on a seriously defective forecast tying the Chancellor's hands. My guess, FWIW, is that the GDP growth for the year will start with a 2. In a time of modest growth these are huge margins of error.
Global war on terror, and tax cuts for the richest, were economically dumb.
Biden’s infrastructure investment isn’t.
Also, the official name is now mpox. The natural reservoir for the virus is probably not monkeys, but rather rodents.
Wessex, Mercia and Middlesex are recognised as geographic entities. And they are in fact referenced officially still - Middlesex is used in postal addresses, West Mercia Police exist, Wessex Water is a water company. They are slightly hazy in terms of boundaries now, but they haven't ceased to exist.
Citing the politics & policy of that great conservative . . . wait for it . . . Ronald Reagan.
Women who were in positions where their employer didn't want to lose them and their skills, they were able to negotiate for part time work. And why shouldn't they? It's simple supply and demand.
Of course now women have rights to maternity leave, and to request part time and flexible work, and unpaid parental leave for family emergencies. I hear childless employees and male employees frequently complain about having to pick up the slack. But of course, men also have the right to paternity leave, request part time and flexible work etc, they just don't do it. (Some enlightened employers offer more flexible arrangements for all of their staff in the interests of fairness, job satisfaction and in some cases improved productivity)
The fundamental problem is cultural differences between men and women, for example, some people's minds are stuck in fixed gender roles where men go out to work and women do childcare. Some people think work should be at least 40 hours a week or 5 days a week, and anything less is not a proper job. Some people think paid work is the most important thing anyone does, and people who want to work part time to give them space in their lives to spend time with their children, pursue a hobby, travel, sleep or whatever the hell they want. It doesn't matter if someone works 3, 4, or 5 days a week or whatever as long as there are enough full time equivalents to get the job done and they are working enough hours to keep up their skills and not working so much that they are overtired and make mistakes. The important things are that the person knows how to do the job well, that they are paid an appropriate salary for the work that they do, and that the job gets done properly, not whether the staff are "part" or "full" time, are women or men or whatever, are parents or not parents, and so on.
Firstly, there is a real risk of a 1930s tariff war to stop dumping from China. We are already seeing that. Secondly, a very large number of banks, including the 4 largest banks in the world (all Chinese) will collapse without huge recapitalisation. We face a risk of 2008 being repeated.
Thirdly, there is the risk of serious instability in China and the possible threats to Taiwan that might generate. Fourthly, we might end up with the risk of a refugee crisis the likes of which we have never seen.
Fifthly, the consequences for Africa and those who have been dependent on belt and road funding will be horrendous. Sixthly, it is very likely we will have shortages of things that we have stopped making for ourselves.
Seventhly, a lot of our funding for infrastructure, including our new nuclear power stations, will disappear.
Eighthly, the deflationary impact will hit us all with the collapse in asset prices not being restricted to China.
Its going to be rough. And it seems the next best thing to inevitable.
Start buying it again. I have stuff published in almost every issue.
If you don't like this post you should move to France fortwith.
We're just in the process of selling our house and are going to rent for a year or two while we look for our next place. Think I might put the capital under the mattress.
That sound you're hearing, is the ghost of Reagan laughing what's left of his ass!
Ronald Reagan.
It was of course a deliberate strategy to massively increase the deficit and thereby the American burden of debt, as part of his scheme to spend the Soviet Union into the ground during the Cold War. Which worked, after a fashion.
You can write 'Middlesex' in a postal address (indeed you can write whatever you want) but it won't mean anything to the robots that process it.
But this is my point really - if something exists, even if only in peoples minds, then it exists, at least on a conceptual/notional/philosophic level, and the definitions and boundaries can be as vague or inconsistent as one likes.
This is not the same as official entities which serve a specific purpose and whose boundaries are clearly defined, absolute and almost never up for negotiation.
There will always be those who confuse and conflate the two of course, whether through wistful longing for a specific point in the past, lack of awareness about recent administrative changes, general ignorance or just plain trolling.
The plain trolling ones are the best, obviously.
Man Utd 'not ready' for Fulham - Ten Hag
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c5y8g814q3vo
I had one of those ultra-convincing dreams the other night that Fulham had beaten Man U 6-1 in the opening game on Friday. When I woke up it took me ages to convince myself it was still only Wednesday.
(I'm hoping it was a dream, not a premonition.)
As an aside, this might ease the path of those for whom medicine is a vocation not just a pay packet.
I think we'll be keeping it on deposit wherever we can get the best rates.
Landfill watchdog not fit for purpose, inquiry hears
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceq5j4xr273o
Badenoch and Jenrick go into a Members-only ballot. Who wins?
As for 'almost never up for negotiation', the area I shall designate as Cumbria is on its third try since the 60's.
Once upon a time we were Cumberland, Westmorland and the Furness part of Lancashire. Then we were Cumbria. Now we are Cumberland (but different boundaries from the old one) and Westmorland and Furness (ditto).
Penrith is now in Westmorland. Wars have been fought on lesser grounds.