Pumping up your pension is sound personal advice. In fact, I might even give the link to my son as a valuable but relatively inexpensive birthday present. But from a political perspective the creation of an ever-expanding, ever-richer rentier class dependent on an ever-expanding, ever-poorer proletarian workforce cannot possibly last forever.
Can it?
That depends somewhat on whether the capital can be channelled into productive investment in the UK. For now the vast majority of pension fund capital isn't. Government coercion is likely to be unproductive, so it's not an simple problem.
The govt have also dropped the plans for the Brit ISA. I am not sure what this would have achieved anyway.
The UK is not a good environment to invest in in my view. If it was people would already be investing far more than they already are.
I am happy for my Pensions and ISA to have minimal exposure to the UK and be more US and Global based.
Nothing I have heard from Kamala Harris so far concerns me a great deal about the USA if she wins. She seems to be to the right of Biden
Excl: Prisoners should "jump the queue" for housing to stop them reoffending, Sadiq Khan has said.
The mayor of London told @thetimes Crime & Justice Commission that while there is “a big shortage of housing in London", there needs to be an "honest conversation" about the need for some prisoners to be prioritised. @RSylvesterTimes@daisyeastlake
There is a big shortage of housing in London
If only there was an obvious solution rather than playing one group of people off against another ?
The obvious way would be supported accommodation, which I hope will expand as James Timpson gets his feet under the desk.
Currently in addition to ~17000 "innocent not yet found guilty" people in prison on remand, there are a further ~12500 who have been recalled to prison for violation of release conditions.
There are ~50k admissions per year (not including recalls).
As long as they don't just, as councils do with some families (problem or otherwise) ship them off to other parts of the country where property is cheap and dump them there in already deprived communities.
I agree there.
If Timpson's ideas are going to work, it will have to be done one-by-one carefully enough to avoid all such crude answers imo.
I sometimes look at other people's profiles for various reasons. Today for instance because I wanted to see if a particular person had replied to me so instead of trawling through all the last few day's threads (even using 'Find') I could much more quickly look through their posts on their profile (That set is significantly smaller)
I can't do that if the profile is private. Now unless I am missing something there is nothing private in a profile whatsoever. It just makes life easier if you want to find a post.
So why do we have private profiles and why do people make them private (just in case there is a good reason for me to do so that I am not aware of)?
Fear of being cancelled apparently. Wouldn't be great for someone with any sort of public profile if they were on record as lauding Putin just before his SMO for example.
Edit: past comments only go back for a few posts now, so it's a bit academic.
So they do. When did that change? Is that another of the great Vanilla upgrades @rcs1000 ?
It does rather make my request academic I agree. How annoying.
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
The point is, it works *this time*. In 1997 calling Brown worst chancellor ever or Blair a gloomy technocrat would have been so obviously untrue nobody bothered to say it.
We didn’t know in 1997 that Brown would turn out to be the worst Chancellor of all time. Perhaps Mr Meeks spotted the significance of the pension changes that year, but the rest of us didn’t. It didn’t become really obvious until about a decade later, just how much of a mess the public finances were in.
I don't think that's true. Brown's pension raid was widely criticised at the time - on PB, as much as elsewhere,
Pumping up your pension is sound personal advice. In fact, I might even give the link to my son as a valuable but relatively inexpensive birthday present. But from a political perspective the creation of an ever-expanding, ever-richer rentier class dependent on an ever-expanding, ever-poorer proletarian workforce cannot possibly last forever.
Can it?
That depends somewhat on whether the capital can be channelled into productive investment in the UK. For now the vast majority of pension fund capital isn't. Government coercion is likely to be unproductive, so it's not an simple problem.
The govt have also dropped the plans for the Brit ISA. I am not sure what this would have achieved anyway.
The UK is not a good environment to invest in in my view. If it was people would already be investing far more than they already are.
I am happy for my Pensions and ISA to have minimal exposure to the UK and be more US and Global based.
Nothing I have heard from Kamala Harris so far concerns me a great deal about the USA if she wins. She seems to be to the right of Biden
Pretty similar to Biden which imo is why her primary campaign failed to gather steam last time around.
But re investments and the Presidential election it is curious you mention her and not the one threatening 100% import duties on everything and the end of NATO and the Western democractic alliance.
Mr. Eagles, I don't watch the preamble and post-race stuff, but can confirm the commentary from Croft is shit. Yes, we know Verstappen stayed up late with eSports there's no need to tell us a dozen times.
I did like when Rosberg disagreed with him on everything, though.
Best commentary, since Murray Walker, was the one season Brundle and Coulthard were together.
Coulthard's trousers were always too tight imo. No need for that.
Pumping up your pension is sound personal advice. In fact, I might even give the link to my son as a valuable but relatively inexpensive birthday present. But from a political perspective the creation of an ever-expanding, ever-richer rentier class dependent on an ever-expanding, ever-poorer proletarian workforce cannot possibly last forever.
Can it?
That depends somewhat on whether the capital can be channelled into productive investment in the UK. For now the vast majority of pension fund capital isn't. Government coercion is likely to be unproductive, so it's not an simple problem.
The govt have also dropped the plans for the Brit ISA. I am not sure what this would have achieved anyway.
The UK is not a good environment to invest in in my view. If it was people would already be investing far more than they already are.
I am happy for my Pensions and ISA to have minimal exposure to the UK and be more US and Global based.
Nothing I have heard from Kamala Harris so far concerns me a great deal about the USA if she wins. She seems to be to the right of Biden
Pretty similar to Biden which imo is why her primary campaign failed to gather steam last time around.
But re investments and the Presidential election it is curious you mention her and not the one threatening 100% import duties on everything and the end of NATO and the Western democractic alliance.
Median (US) voter: Inflation is my number one issue. To fix it, I want the US government to raise taxes on 1/3 of everything I buy and kick off a massive trade war with our closest allies. https://x.com/JosephPolitano/status/1834018321714352514
Why is Starmer wasting his time on the NHS when he still hasnt sorted out Oasis tickets ?
A man can walk and chew gum at the same time, you know.
I thought the plan was to reward NHS staff with cheap Oasis tickets?
Listen up, some might say the NHS staff should be getting freebies to see a rock'n'roll star or two but little by little those dreams are going to slide away. Whatever.
Pumping up your pension is sound personal advice. In fact, I might even give the link to my son as a valuable but relatively inexpensive birthday present. But from a political perspective the creation of an ever-expanding, ever-richer rentier class dependent on an ever-expanding, ever-poorer proletarian workforce cannot possibly last forever.
Can it?
That depends somewhat on whether the capital can be channelled into productive investment in the UK. For now the vast majority of pension fund capital isn't. Government coercion is likely to be unproductive, so it's not an simple problem.
The govt have also dropped the plans for the Brit ISA. I am not sure what this would have achieved anyway.
The UK is not a good environment to invest in in my view. If it was people would already be investing far more than they already are.
I am happy for my Pensions and ISA to have minimal exposure to the UK and be more US and Global based.
Nothing I have heard from Kamala Harris so far concerns me a great deal about the USA if she wins. She seems to be to the right of Biden
Pretty similar to Biden which imo is why her primary campaign failed to gather steam last time around.
But re investments and the Presidential election it is curious you mention her and not the one threatening 100% import duties on everything and the end of NATO and the Western democractic alliance.
I have mentioned the insanity of his tariff proposals previously.
I didn't know every time I mentioned Harris I have to counter with something bout Trump.
Why is Starmer wasting his time on the NHS when he still hasnt sorted out Oasis tickets ?
A man can walk and chew gum at the same time, you know.
I thought the plan was to reward NHS staff with cheap Oasis tickets?
Listen up, some might say the NHS staff should be getting freebies to see a rock'n'roll star or two but little by little those dreams are going to slide away. Whatever.
It's apt. If we shift the whole NHS focus upfront onto disease prevention, and it works, we will all be able to ...
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
FS you don't need to be connected with NHS or medicine to know that. No matter how much money they pour in it gets worse. They are only interested when people are at death's door, prior to that there is no interest whatsoever. Been crap for a long time.
Good morning Malc
We are spending 40% on the NHS with some suggesting it will rise to 50% which is simply not sustainable
Listening to Starmer quoting a report by an ex Labour health minister produced in just a few weeks (if you believe that) suggesting it is entirely the failing of the conservative politicians when we have worse problems in a Wales NHS run for 25 years by Labour
It is true the NHS is broken but the solution is as far away today as it has ever been notwithstanding Starmer’s doom and gloom
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
Yup. And on the politics of it SKS has shown he knows how to devise and execute a long term plan. If his 'govern and get reelected' project is even half as successful as his 'make Labour win again' project was, that will do nicely, I'd have thought. But we'll see. Can't get too excited about it right now tbh. It's way too early to judge results and the next GE is yonks away. All about Nov 5th for me. The most important election in the history of elections. C'mon c'mon you polls. Move, ffs, move. You know you want to.
He does not have Tories helping him big time though, they gifted it to him rather than any great plan of his winning it
Why is Starmer wasting his time on the NHS when he still hasnt sorted out Oasis tickets ?
A man can walk and chew gum at the same time, you know.
I thought the plan was to reward NHS staff with cheap Oasis tickets?
Listen up, some might say the NHS staff should be getting freebies to see a rock'n'roll star or two but little by little those dreams are going to slide away. Whatever.
It's apt. If we shift the whole NHS focus upfront onto disease prevention, and it works, we will all be able to ...
There is a lot to be said for improving the health of the nation to reduce the pressure on the NHS. But it will only get so far.
Take cancer. There has been a huge push in recent years to suggest that cancer is all about lifestyle (don't be overweight, don't drink alcohol, don't smoke etc) and it is true that many cancers are strongly linked to lifestyle. But many are not. My leukeamia has no link to healthstyle and at the time I was a 39 year old in good health, running three times a week, non smoker, possibly a touch overweight but not significantly. Not all disease will be preventable.
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
FS you don't need to be connected with NHS or medicine to know that. No matter how much money they pour in it gets worse. They are only interested when people are at death's door, prior to that there is no interest whatsoever. Been crap for a long time.
Good morning Malc
We are spending 40% on the NHS with some suggesting it will rise to 50% which is simply not sustainable
Listening to Starmer quoting a report by an ex Labour health minister produced in just a few weeks (if you believe that) suggesting it is entirely the failing of the conservative politicians when we have worse problems in a Wales NHS run for 25 years by Labour
It is true the NHS is broken but the solution is as far away today as it has ever been notwithstanding Starmer’s doom and gloom
What do you mean by "spending 40% on the NHS"?
40% of what?
There was a figure posted on the BBC which is a bit misleading:
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
Yup. And on the politics of it SKS has shown he knows how to devise and execute a long term plan. If his 'govern and get reelected' project is even half as successful as his 'make Labour win again' project was, that will do nicely, I'd have thought. But we'll see. Can't get too excited about it right now tbh. It's way too early to judge results and the next GE is yonks away. All about Nov 5th for me. The most important election in the history of elections. C'mon c'mon you polls. Move, ffs, move. You know you want to.
He does not have Tories helping him big time though, they gifted it to him rather than any great plan of his winning it
Oh they helped bigtime. That is true. But he did devise and patiently execute a 5 year plan. It takes certain qualities to do that.
Pumping up your pension is sound personal advice. In fact, I might even give the link to my son as a valuable but relatively inexpensive birthday present. But from a political perspective the creation of an ever-expanding, ever-richer rentier class dependent on an ever-expanding, ever-poorer proletarian workforce cannot possibly last forever.
Can it?
That depends somewhat on whether the capital can be channelled into productive investment in the UK. For now the vast majority of pension fund capital isn't. Government coercion is likely to be unproductive, so it's not an simple problem.
The govt have also dropped the plans for the Brit ISA. I am not sure what this would have achieved anyway.
The UK is not a good environment to invest in in my view. If it was people would already be investing far more than they already are.
I am happy for my Pensions and ISA to have minimal exposure to the UK and be more US and Global based.
Nothing I have heard from Kamala Harris so far concerns me a great deal about the USA if she wins. She seems to be to the right of Biden
Pretty similar to Biden which imo is why her primary campaign failed to gather steam last time around.
But re investments and the Presidential election it is curious you mention her and not the one threatening 100% import duties on everything and the end of NATO and the Western democractic alliance.
I have mentioned the insanity of his tariff proposals previously.
I didn't know every time I mentioned Harris I have to counter with something bout Trump.
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
Yup. And on the politics of it SKS has shown he knows how to devise and execute a long term plan. If his 'govern and get reelected' project is even half as successful as his 'make Labour win again' project was, that will do nicely, I'd have thought. But we'll see. Can't get too excited about it right now tbh. It's way too early to judge results and the next GE is yonks away. All about Nov 5th for me. The most important election in the history of elections. C'mon c'mon you polls. Move, ffs, move. You know you want to.
Can you explain the four main points in Starmer's successful "make Labour win again" project?
As far as I can work out the four most important elements were:
1. Have Boris Johnson break his own Covid rules. 2. Make Truss PM, crash the economy, and be replaced within 7 weeks. 3. Persuade Russia to invade Ukraine, creating a huge spike in inflation, massively eroding living standards. 4. Kick Corbyn out of the Labour Party, thereby making it clear that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated, and, er, losing Islington North.
Starmer has been extremely fortunate, and that has taken him to Number Ten. Now that he's there, can he make his own luck?
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
Yup. And on the politics of it SKS has shown he knows how to devise and execute a long term plan. If his 'govern and get reelected' project is even half as successful as his 'make Labour win again' project was, that will do nicely, I'd have thought. But we'll see. Can't get too excited about it right now tbh. It's way too early to judge results and the next GE is yonks away. All about Nov 5th for me. The most important election in the history of elections. C'mon c'mon you polls. Move, ffs, move. You know you want to.
Can you explain the four main points in Starmer's successful "make Labour win again" project?
As far as I can work out the four most important elements were:
1. Have Boris Johnson break his own Covid rules. 2. Make Truss PM, crash the economy, and be replaced within 7 weeks. 3. Persuade Russia to invade Ukraine, creating a huge spike in inflation, massively eroding living standards. 4. Kick Corbyn out of the Labour Party, thereby making it clear that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated, and, er, losing Islington North.
Starmer has been extremely fortunate, and that has taken him to Number Ten. Now that he's there, can he make his own luck?
The core of it was:
Purge the left Foster 'time for a change' Make Labour the 'safe' receptacle of anti tory votes Target the right voters in the right places for FPTP efficiency
He was lucky, yes, with Johnson and (esp) Truss, and he was also ruthless, disciplined and skilful. That combination of things led to where we are.
Now? It depends on the usual. Events and performance/delivery.
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
FS you don't need to be connected with NHS or medicine to know that. No matter how much money they pour in it gets worse. They are only interested when people are at death's door, prior to that there is no interest whatsoever. Been crap for a long time.
Good morning Malc
We are spending 40% on the NHS with some suggesting it will rise to 50% which is simply not sustainable
Listening to Starmer quoting a report by an ex Labour health minister produced in just a few weeks (if you believe that) suggesting it is entirely the failing of the conservative politicians when we have worse problems in a Wales NHS run for 25 years by Labour
It is true the NHS is broken but the solution is as far away today as it has ever been notwithstanding Starmer’s doom and gloom
What do you mean by "spending 40% on the NHS"?
40% of what?
40% of day to day spending from government departments
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
Yup. And on the politics of it SKS has shown he knows how to devise and execute a long term plan. If his 'govern and get reelected' project is even half as successful as his 'make Labour win again' project was, that will do nicely, I'd have thought. But we'll see. Can't get too excited about it right now tbh. It's way too early to judge results and the next GE is yonks away. All about Nov 5th for me. The most important election in the history of elections. C'mon c'mon you polls. Move, ffs, move. You know you want to.
Can you explain the four main points in Starmer's successful "make Labour win again" project?
As far as I can work out the four most important elements were:
1. Have Boris Johnson break his own Covid rules. 2. Make Truss PM, crash the economy, and be replaced within 7 weeks. 3. Persuade Russia to invade Ukraine, creating a huge spike in inflation, massively eroding living standards. 4. Kick Corbyn out of the Labour Party, thereby making it clear that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated, and, er, losing Islington North.
Starmer has been extremely fortunate, and that has taken him to Number Ten. Now that he's there, can he make his own luck?
The core of it was:
Purge the left Foster 'time for a change' Make Labour the 'safe' receptacle of anti tory votes Target the right voters in the right places for FPTP efficiency
He was lucky, yes, with Johnson and (esp) Truss, and he was also ruthless, disciplined and skilful. That combination of things led to where we are.
Now? It depends on the usual. Events and performance/delivery.
The main part after purging the Corbynista's was realising the Tories were not only quite mad but divided and self destructive so Starmer could just do nothing and win. But doing nothing takes some discipline. Hopefully they have used that time wisely to plan for government, we shall see.
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
It's a long time since he treated patients himself, and medicine has changed. He is the last one whose advice we need. Try asking Foxy, or me, or anyone who tries to work through the treacle that is the NHS. Buildings falling down, hopeless IT, bullying managers, endless pointless but compulsory meetings, HR hiding at hope, claiming to be working...and patients expecting to be spoon fed rather than using any common sense or self reliance.
Meanwhile a lot of wonderful work being done by skilful and dedicated doctors and nurses, against overwhelming odds
I watched Biden bomb the last debate in front of a large, live audience. I was on a panel with a couple Dem pollster/operative types giving our post-debate reactions. They, too, argued, “Debates don’t matter.” https://x.com/SarahLongwell25/status/1833845029623791858
(FWIW, my response straight after the Biden performance was to post "there's no sugarcoating that".)
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
Yup. And on the politics of it SKS has shown he knows how to devise and execute a long term plan. If his 'govern and get reelected' project is even half as successful as his 'make Labour win again' project was, that will do nicely, I'd have thought. But we'll see. Can't get too excited about it right now tbh. It's way too early to judge results and the next GE is yonks away. All about Nov 5th for me. The most important election in the history of elections. C'mon c'mon you polls. Move, ffs, move. You know you want to.
Can you explain the four main points in Starmer's successful "make Labour win again" project?
As far as I can work out the four most important elements were:
1. Have Boris Johnson break his own Covid rules. 2. Make Truss PM, crash the economy, and be replaced within 7 weeks. 3. Persuade Russia to invade Ukraine, creating a huge spike in inflation, massively eroding living standards. 4. Kick Corbyn out of the Labour Party, thereby making it clear that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated, and, er, losing Islington North.
Starmer has been extremely fortunate, and that has taken him to Number Ten. Now that he's there, can he make his own luck?
I mean (4) was part of a more general strategy, to take away the obstacles that would prevent voters from voting for you when they got disappointed with the government. It's worth the expense of losing one seat to an independent because it allows you to win hundreds of seats from the government.
1-3 are more generally described as "wait for the government to fuck it up and for the voters to get sick of them", which seems to be about a 50/50 shot with any given government? There was a time when people here were saying Labour should get rid of Starmer and put somebody more exciting in instead because the voters still seemed to like the government and the base was uninspired by his various moderate party reforms, but he stuck with his strategy and it worked.
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
FS you don't need to be connected with NHS or medicine to know that. No matter how much money they pour in it gets worse. They are only interested when people are at death's door, prior to that there is no interest whatsoever. Been crap for a long time.
Good morning Malc
We are spending 40% on the NHS with some suggesting it will rise to 50% which is simply not sustainable
Listening to Starmer quoting a report by an ex Labour health minister produced in just a few weeks (if you believe that) suggesting it is entirely the failing of the conservative politicians when we have worse problems in a Wales NHS run for 25 years by Labour
It is true the NHS is broken but the solution is as far away today as it has ever been notwithstanding Starmer’s doom and gloom
What do you mean by "spending 40% on the NHS"?
40% of what?
40% of day to day spending from government departments
The issue with this is I have never, ever seen this figure quoted about anything. Its been chosen specifically to make it sound big (it is). A better measure is to compare health spend across our competitor nations (such as Germany, France, US etc).
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
The point is, it works *this time*. In 1997 calling Brown worst chancellor ever or Blair a gloomy technocrat would have been so obviously untrue nobody bothered to say it.
We didn’t know in 1997 that Brown would turn out to be the worst Chancellor of all time. Perhaps Mr Meeks spotted the significance of the pension changes that year, but the rest of us didn’t. It didn’t become really obvious until about a decade later, just how much of a mess the public finances were in.
I don't think that's true. Brown's pension raid was widely criticised at the time - on PB, as much as elsewhere,
I can't remember when the changes happened (restricting company contributions and the dividend tax change) so we might not have actually been here, but I was certainly aware of the significance at the time. The two changes I was aware of were cynical because it impacts individuals without them being aware at the time. People understand their tax rate going up, they don't see a raid on their pension fund. As a consequence many funds collapsed and there was no safety net. Subsequent to that the FAS and PPF were set up, but contrary to what people are told the net is not very good for many people who can still lose much of their pension.
The dividend change also hit a small number outside of the pension issue. If you were a non taxpayer (so poor) but had dividends you lost the refund of the withholding tax. I know that combination is rare, but you can image widows who on the death of their husband lost half of the company pension so were now getting a very small pension but had some privatisation shares. They then couldn't claim back the tax credit unlike taxpayers.
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
FS you don't need to be connected with NHS or medicine to know that. No matter how much money they pour in it gets worse. They are only interested when people are at death's door, prior to that there is no interest whatsoever. Been crap for a long time.
Good morning Malc
We are spending 40% on the NHS with some suggesting it will rise to 50% which is simply not sustainable
Listening to Starmer quoting a report by an ex Labour health minister produced in just a few weeks (if you believe that) suggesting it is entirely the failing of the conservative politicians when we have worse problems in a Wales NHS run for 25 years by Labour
It is true the NHS is broken but the solution is as far away today as it has ever been notwithstanding Starmer’s doom and gloom
What do you mean by "spending 40% on the NHS"?
40% of what?
40% of day to day spending from government departments
Is that a meaningful metric?
You could decrease it by spending a lot more on other government departments. Would that be better?
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
FS you don't need to be connected with NHS or medicine to know that. No matter how much money they pour in it gets worse. They are only interested when people are at death's door, prior to that there is no interest whatsoever. Been crap for a long time.
Good morning Malc
We are spending 40% on the NHS with some suggesting it will rise to 50% which is simply not sustainable
Listening to Starmer quoting a report by an ex Labour health minister produced in just a few weeks (if you believe that) suggesting it is entirely the failing of the conservative politicians when we have worse problems in a Wales NHS run for 25 years by Labour
It is true the NHS is broken but the solution is as far away today as it has ever been notwithstanding Starmer’s doom and gloom
What do you mean by "spending 40% on the NHS"?
40% of what?
40% of day to day spending from government departments
Is that a meaningful metric?
You could decrease it by spending a lot more on other government departments. Would that be better?
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
FS you don't need to be connected with NHS or medicine to know that. No matter how much money they pour in it gets worse. They are only interested when people are at death's door, prior to that there is no interest whatsoever. Been crap for a long time.
Good morning Malc
We are spending 40% on the NHS with some suggesting it will rise to 50% which is simply not sustainable
Listening to Starmer quoting a report by an ex Labour health minister produced in just a few weeks (if you believe that) suggesting it is entirely the failing of the conservative politicians when we have worse problems in a Wales NHS run for 25 years by Labour
It is true the NHS is broken but the solution is as far away today as it has ever been notwithstanding Starmer’s doom and gloom
What do you mean by "spending 40% on the NHS"?
40% of what?
40% of day to day spending from government departments
The issue with this is I have never, ever seen this figure quoted about anything. Its been chosen specifically to make it sound big (it is). A better measure is to compare health spend across our competitor nations (such as Germany, France, US etc).
It was the figure used by Burley on Sky and does not appear to be disputed
Whatever the figure is, we just cannot keep giving it more and where I do agree with Starmer radical change is needed
In his questions after his speech he was asked about the BMA being an obstacle, and his response was that he will encounter resistance from various quarters but will make the changes
It seems Streeting said this morning he is raiding parts of his budget and one of those was technology
That is the last thing that should see a cut in investment as that will be vital to leading change
As most of you know I have had nearly a year of serious health issues and even basics of the hospital accessing my GP records was not available to them which is beyond belief
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
It's a long time since he treated patients himself, and medicine has changed. He is the last one whose advice we need. Try asking Foxy, or me, or anyone who tries to work through the treacle that is the NHS. Buildings falling down, hopeless IT, bullying managers, endless pointless but compulsory meetings, HR hiding at hope, claiming to be working...and patients expecting to be spoon fed rather than using any common sense or self reliance.
Meanwhile a lot of wonderful work being done by skilful and dedicated doctors and nurses, against overwhelming odds
One thing that I've noticed after many hospital experiences over the years - if you have an active family, asking questions and questioning things, better outcomes.
My wife caught mistakes on several occasions for medicines, for example. My father would have died without some fairly aggressive pushback to the shoulder shrugging.....
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
Yup. And on the politics of it SKS has shown he knows how to devise and execute a long term plan. If his 'govern and get reelected' project is even half as successful as his 'make Labour win again' project was, that will do nicely, I'd have thought. But we'll see. Can't get too excited about it right now tbh. It's way too early to judge results and the next GE is yonks away. All about Nov 5th for me. The most important election in the history of elections. C'mon c'mon you polls. Move, ffs, move. You know you want to.
Can you explain the four main points in Starmer's successful "make Labour win again" project?
As far as I can work out the four most important elements were:
1. Have Boris Johnson break his own Covid rules. 2. Make Truss PM, crash the economy, and be replaced within 7 weeks. 3. Persuade Russia to invade Ukraine, creating a huge spike in inflation, massively eroding living standards. 4. Kick Corbyn out of the Labour Party, thereby making it clear that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated, and, er, losing Islington North.
Starmer has been extremely fortunate, and that has taken him to Number Ten. Now that he's there, can he make his own luck?
The core of it was:
Purge the left Foster 'time for a change' Make Labour the 'safe' receptacle of anti tory votes Target the right voters in the right places for FPTP efficiency
He was lucky, yes, with Johnson and (esp) Truss, and he was also ruthless, disciplined and skilful. That combination of things led to where we are.
Now? It depends on the usual. Events and performance/delivery.
The main part after purging the Corbynista's was realising the Tories were not only quite mad but divided and self destructive so Starmer could just do nothing and win. But doing nothing takes some discipline. Hopefully they have used that time wisely to plan for government, we shall see.
Yes, in essence, but it was slightly more than 'do nothing'. It was essential to create an identity for Labour centred on 'we can be trusted with the purse strings'. This plus forging a solid image for himself which meant floating voters could 'see' him as a PM 'sealed the deal' and the GE win. Neither were a slam dunk. Eg the previous 2 Labour leaders failed on both fronts.
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
That of course supposes that there is any jam in Year 4, which given Labour's extraordinary anti-growth policies on tax, Net Zero, regulation, well everything except a bit on housing, is very unlikely. And that's assuming there aren't any large external shocks.
Also it's by no means even certain, as the Conservatives found out in 1997, that the electorate will thank you for good economic news. If the narrative has set in that you're crap, it's incredibly difficult to shift.
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
It's a long time since he treated patients himself, and medicine has changed. He is the last one whose advice we need. Try asking Foxy, or me, or anyone who tries to work through the treacle that is the NHS. Buildings falling down, hopeless IT, bullying managers, endless pointless but compulsory meetings, HR hiding at hope, claiming to be working...and patients expecting to be spoon fed rather than using any common sense or self reliance.
Meanwhile a lot of wonderful work being done by skilful and dedicated doctors and nurses, against overwhelming odds
My brother is senior NHS management. He too says money is spent in the wrong places and systems are poor.
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
The point is, it works *this time*. In 1997 calling Brown worst chancellor ever or Blair a gloomy technocrat would have been so obviously untrue nobody bothered to say it.
We didn’t know in 1997 that Brown would turn out to be the worst Chancellor of all time. Perhaps Mr Meeks spotted the significance of the pension changes that year, but the rest of us didn’t. It didn’t become really obvious until about a decade later, just how much of a mess the public finances were in.
I don't think that's true. Brown's pension raid was widely criticised at the time - on PB, as much as elsewhere,
Pumping up your pension is sound personal advice. In fact, I might even give the link to my son as a valuable but relatively inexpensive birthday present. But from a political perspective the creation of an ever-expanding, ever-richer rentier class dependent on an ever-expanding, ever-poorer proletarian workforce cannot possibly last forever.
Can it?
That depends somewhat on whether the capital can be channelled into productive investment in the UK. For now the vast majority of pension fund capital isn't. Government coercion is likely to be unproductive, so it's not an simple problem.
The govt have also dropped the plans for the Brit ISA. I am not sure what this would have achieved anyway.
The UK is not a good environment to invest in in my view. If it was people would already be investing far more than they already are.
I am happy for my Pensions and ISA to have minimal exposure to the UK and be more US and Global based.
Nothing I have heard from Kamala Harris so far concerns me a great deal about the USA if she wins. She seems to be to the right of Biden
Surely it is because UK investments are ordinarily less attractive than others, that the government should incentivise investment here?
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
That of course supposes that there is any jam in Year 4, which given Labour's extraordinary anti-growth policies on tax, Net Zero, regulation, well everything except a bit on housing, is very unlikely. And that's assuming there aren't any large external shocks.
Also it's by no means even certain, as the Conservatives found out in 1997, that the electorate will thank you for good economic news. If the narrative has set in that you're crap, it's incredibly difficult to shift.
Why do you think they've made growth politically totemic if their policies are anti growth?
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
That of course supposes that there is any jam in Year 4, which given Labour's extraordinary anti-growth policies on tax, Net Zero, regulation, well everything except a bit on housing, is very unlikely. And that's assuming there aren't any large external shocks.
Also it's by no means even certain, as the Conservatives found out in 1997, that the electorate will thank you for good economic news. If the narrative has set in that you're crap, it's incredibly difficult to shift.
Partly true but better than the alternative head in the sand, chasing tomorrows media headlines, inertia in tackling anything serious whilst smiling blithely about how wonderful things are. Give them a chance, there is no guarantee they will be either successful or re-elected but unlike the last lot, they at least have a chance.
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
That of course supposes that there is any jam in Year 4, which given Labour's extraordinary anti-growth policies on tax, Net Zero, regulation, well everything except a bit on housing, is very unlikely. And that's assuming there aren't any large external shocks.
Also it's by no means even certain, as the Conservatives found out in 1997, that the electorate will thank you for good economic news. If the narrative has set in that you're crap, it's incredibly difficult to shift.
Why do you think they've made growth politically totemic if their policies are anti growth?
Well yes - it's something of a mystery. It's a pretty remarkable turnaround from 'vote for us - we'll try really hard to grow the economy' to 'let's ramp up taxes, discourage investment and scare all the capital away' in 2 months or so.
Granted we haven't had the budget yet and it might turn out to be totally different from the mood music.
Can I add to PBers recent experience with the NHS. I started suffering from sciatica in February and after much pushing got a MRI scan in June. I was then referred by my GP to a consultant. Early in August I had a letter from the consultant stating that there was no surgical solution to my problems. I wrote a formal letter back explaining why he was wrong. At the end of August I received another letter thanking me for my very helpful letter and offering me the relevant surgery ( although with a long waiting list). The issue was the pain was in my left leg; the consultant though it was in my right leg!
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
FS you don't need to be connected with NHS or medicine to know that. No matter how much money they pour in it gets worse. They are only interested when people are at death's door, prior to that there is no interest whatsoever. Been crap for a long time.
Good morning Malc
We are spending 40% on the NHS with some suggesting it will rise to 50% which is simply not sustainable
Listening to Starmer quoting a report by an ex Labour health minister produced in just a few weeks (if you believe that) suggesting it is entirely the failing of the conservative politicians when we have worse problems in a Wales NHS run for 25 years by Labour
It is true the NHS is broken but the solution is as far away today as it has ever been notwithstanding Starmer’s doom and gloom
What do you mean by "spending 40% on the NHS"?
40% of what?
40% of day to day spending from government departments
The issue with this is I have never, ever seen this figure quoted about anything. Its been chosen specifically to make it sound big (it is). A better measure is to compare health spend across our competitor nations (such as Germany, France, US etc).
It was the figure used by Burley on Sky and does not appear to be disputed
Whatever the figure is, we just cannot keep giving it more and where I do agree with Starmer radical change is needed
In his questions after his speech he was asked about the BMA being an obstacle, and his response was that he will encounter resistance from various quarters but will make the changes
It seems Streeting said this morning he is raiding parts of his budget and one of those was technology
That is the last thing that should see a cut in investment as that will be vital to leading change
As most of you know I have had nearly a year of serious health issues and even basics of the hospital accessing my GP records was not available to them which is beyond belief
You are wrong about radical change but right about change, including better access to health records (although I'd want the experts to think about security too). Just from a few days of urgent and outpatient and GP care, I'd say there are a lot of small things that can be fixed.
Nurses wandering the corridors to summon patients by name, for instance, rather than use electronic signs. Finding the right department is often near-impossible for newcomers because hospital signage is aimed at professionals, and is inconsistent at best. Why do I have to visit my GP surgery to collect a blood test form rather than it being sent electronically to the clinic? And why is my GP selecting individual tests rather than have one box for a standard set until the blood runs out? Why are nurses spending minutes at a time searching for equipment in unlabelled cupboards without glass doors?
There are doubtless other examples of small fixes that could be applied at a local level by any manager with discretionary sign-off of a few thousand pounds at a time.
Instead we'll go down the big fix route and, since this is New New Labour, privatise a bunch of services that end up costing the NHS more, and spaffing another squillion pounds on a failed IT project to link Aberdeen and Westminster for the sole benefit of one MP and two SpAds who commute between the two.
Is Speaker going to be annoyed that ministerial statement on NHS is being made in Commons now - after the statement was effectively made to the media earlier this morning?
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
It's a long time since he treated patients himself, and medicine has changed. He is the last one whose advice we need. Try asking Foxy, or me, or anyone who tries to work through the treacle that is the NHS. Buildings falling down, hopeless IT, bullying managers, endless pointless but compulsory meetings, HR hiding at hope, claiming to be working...and patients expecting to be spoon fed rather than using any common sense or self reliance.
Meanwhile a lot of wonderful work being done by skilful and dedicated doctors and nurses, against overwhelming odds
“patients expecting to be spoon fed rather than using any common sense or self reliance.” @franklyn
I had an op last week, and was sent home with minimal instructions on caring for the wound: don’t get it wet for five days was about it. I’m now back in hospital seeing if I need another op to deal with the complications arising.
Is Speaker going to be annoyed that ministerial statement on NHS is being made in Commons now - after the statement was effectively made to the media earlier this morning?
Probably, though I doubt anyone else cares very much.
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
That's a rather odd summary of an interview where he castigated the last government for running down NHS capital budgets leaving it with inadequate equipment and decrepit buildings.
His criticism of the BMA was based on GPs refusing additional work unless they got paid to deliver it. Best of luck with expecting a private system to be doing extra work for free.
Half-formed thought.
When people say pay rises should follow productivity, productivity becomes a function of the morality of staff- it's about how hard and effectively they work.
The other way of thinking about productivity is as a function of capital spending and task selection.
Do healthcare productivity discussions become unproductive because of people talking at cross-purposes?
Productivity increases come from two actual things. Nearly always.
1) People in an organisation waiting to do work. Because of resources/work queues. 2) Doing more work with the same effort. Better tools/techniques.
Very often 2 feeds into 1
Nearly no one has achieved productivity gains by getting the serfs to pick cotton faster, with threats.
That last bit's not quite true. Plantation slavery did just that. Though strictly speaking that was slaves rather than serfs, and they were deliberately worked to death in the sugar plantations.
Even then, it was probably less efficient than free, paid, labour would have been. Of course, the reasons why slave owners want to keep slaves are not purely economic ones.
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
The point is, it works *this time*. In 1997 calling Brown worst chancellor ever or Blair a gloomy technocrat would have been so obviously untrue nobody bothered to say it.
We didn’t know in 1997 that Brown would turn out to be the worst Chancellor of all time. Perhaps Mr Meeks spotted the significance of the pension changes that year, but the rest of us didn’t. It didn’t become really obvious until about a decade later, just how much of a mess the public finances were in.
I don't think that's true. Brown's pension raid was widely criticised at the time - on PB, as much as elsewhere,
PB has only been around since 2004, hasn't it?
True that.
I'm conflating the early PB years discussion of Brown's failings, with the actual events. And that probably would have been nearly a decade on. But I do think it was apparent just how bad Brown was for UK investment quite early on - certainly as early as the first mobile phone auction in the spring of 2000, which effectively denuded an at the time world leading UK industry of an extremely large amount of capital. Which was then used to finance current spending by the government.
I can distinctly recall the pensions raid coming up again in the arguments over that auction which I had with friends, who thought Brown was a financial genius for raising so much money.
Is Speaker going to be annoyed that ministerial statement on NHS is being made in Commons now - after the statement was effectively made to the media earlier this morning?
Can I add to PBers recent experience with the NHS. I started suffering from sciatica in February and after much pushing got a MRI scan in June. I was then referred by my GP to a consultant. Early in August I had a letter from the consultant stating that there was no surgical solution to my problems. I wrote a formal letter back explaining why he was wrong. At the end of August I received another letter thanking me for my very helpful letter and offering me the relevant surgery ( although with a long waiting list). The issue was the pain was in my left leg; the consultant though it was in my right leg!
It could be early onset dementia if you are putting your trousers on backwards.
Fascinating interview with Sor John Bell just now on R4 re the NHS. Worth listening to - he is brutal about the BMA and makes huge sense about the fact that there isn’t a money problem but a structural problem.
FS you don't need to be connected with NHS or medicine to know that. No matter how much money they pour in it gets worse. They are only interested when people are at death's door, prior to that there is no interest whatsoever. Been crap for a long time.
Good morning Malc
We are spending 40% on the NHS with some suggesting it will rise to 50% which is simply not sustainable
Listening to Starmer quoting a report by an ex Labour health minister produced in just a few weeks (if you believe that) suggesting it is entirely the failing of the conservative politicians when we have worse problems in a Wales NHS run for 25 years by Labour
It is true the NHS is broken but the solution is as far away today as it has ever been notwithstanding Starmer’s doom and gloom
What do you mean by "spending 40% on the NHS"?
40% of what?
40% of day to day spending from government departments
The issue with this is I have never, ever seen this figure quoted about anything. Its been chosen specifically to make it sound big (it is). A better measure is to compare health spend across our competitor nations (such as Germany, France, US etc).
It was the figure used by Burley on Sky and does not appear to be disputed
Whatever the figure is, we just cannot keep giving it more and where I do agree with Starmer radical change is needed
In his questions after his speech he was asked about the BMA being an obstacle, and his response was that he will encounter resistance from various quarters but will make the changes
It seems Streeting said this morning he is raiding parts of his budget and one of those was technology
That is the last thing that should see a cut in investment as that will be vital to leading change
As most of you know I have had nearly a year of serious health issues and even basics of the hospital accessing my GP records was not available to them which is beyond belief
You are wrong about radical change but right about change, including better access to health records (although I'd want the experts to think about security too). Just from a few days of urgent and outpatient and GP care, I'd say there are a lot of small things that can be fixed.
Nurses wandering the corridors to summon patients by name, for instance, rather than use electronic signs. Finding the right department is often near-impossible for newcomers because hospital signage is aimed at professionals, and is inconsistent at best. Why do I have to visit my GP surgery to collect a blood test form rather than it being sent electronically to the clinic? And why is my GP selecting individual tests rather than have one box for a standard set until the blood runs out? Why are nurses spending minutes at a time searching for equipment in unlabelled cupboards without glass doors?
There are doubtless other examples of small fixes that could be applied at a local level by any manager with discretionary sign-off of a few thousand pounds at a time.
Instead we'll go down the big fix route and, since this is New New Labour, privatise a bunch of services that end up costing the NHS more, and spaffing another squillion pounds on a failed IT project to link Aberdeen and Westminster for the sole benefit of one MP and two SpAds who commute between the two.
I expect the biggest resistance to change will be the unions as we see from the railways which have their pay award without any conditions on changing out dated practices
17% increase in staff and yet nhs productivity went backwards.
Wes giving it hard to the Tories.
The Tories can’t reform the NHS: anything meaningful they proposed would result in uproar and headlines about moving directly to the US system.
Only Labour has the political cover to actually do what needs to be done: look at how the best health systems in the world (so mostly Europe) do it and try to emulate them.
17% increase in staff and yet nhs productivity went backwards.
Wes giving it hard to the Tories.
The Tories can’t reform the NHS: anything meaningful they proposed would result in uproar and headlines about moving directly to the US system.
Only Labour has the political cover to actually do what needs to be done: look at how the best health systems in the world (so mostly Europe) do it and try to emulate them.
The Tories did reform the NHS but the Lansley reforms were so ham-fisted even the government resiled from them. If we are to emulate Europe, step 1 would be spend more money.
A bumper crop of local by-elections today, There are Lab defences in Cambridge, Gateshead, Hackneyx2, Milton Keynes, and Tower Hamlets. There is a Con defence in North Ayrshire and Lib Dem defences in Newcastle and Norfolk. In North Norfolk there is an unusual situation where a Lib Dem seat is not being defended but the Lib Dems are supporting an Independent
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
Yup. And on the politics of it SKS has shown he knows how to devise and execute a long term plan. If his 'govern and get reelected' project is even half as successful as his 'make Labour win again' project was, that will do nicely, I'd have thought. But we'll see. Can't get too excited about it right now tbh. It's way too early to judge results and the next GE is yonks away. All about Nov 5th for me. The most important election in the history of elections. C'mon c'mon you polls. Move, ffs, move. You know you want to.
Can you explain the four main points in Starmer's successful "make Labour win again" project?
As far as I can work out the four most important elements were:
1. Have Boris Johnson break his own Covid rules. 2. Make Truss PM, crash the economy, and be replaced within 7 weeks. 3. Persuade Russia to invade Ukraine, creating a huge spike in inflation, massively eroding living standards. 4. Kick Corbyn out of the Labour Party, thereby making it clear that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated, and, er, losing Islington North.
Starmer has been extremely fortunate, and that has taken him to Number Ten. Now that he's there, can he make his own luck?
The core of it was:
Purge the left Foster 'time for a change' Make Labour the 'safe' receptacle of anti tory votes Target the right voters in the right places for FPTP efficiency
He was lucky, yes, with Johnson and (esp) Truss, and he was also ruthless, disciplined and skilful. That combination of things led to where we are.
Now? It depends on the usual. Events and performance/delivery.
The main part after purging the Corbynista's was realising the Tories were not only quite mad but divided and self destructive so Starmer could just do nothing and win. But doing nothing takes some discipline. Hopefully they have used that time wisely to plan for government, we shall see.
Yes, in essence, but it was slightly more than 'do nothing'. It was essential to create an identity for Labour centred on 'we can be trusted with the purse strings'. This plus forging a solid image for himself which meant floating voters could 'see' him as a PM 'sealed the deal' and the GE win. Neither were a slam dunk. Eg the previous 2 Labour leaders failed on both fronts.
Labour received less than 35% of the vote. That feels to me like a vote share that indicates that Starmer did not "seal the deal."
17% increase in staff and yet nhs productivity went backwards.
Wes giving it hard to the Tories.
The Tories can’t reform the NHS: anything meaningful they proposed would result in uproar and headlines about moving directly to the US system.
Only Labour has the political cover to actually do what needs to be done: look at how the best health systems in the world (so mostly Europe) do it and try to emulate them.
The Tories did reform the NHS but the Lansley reforms were so ham-fisted even the government resiled from them. If we are to emulate Europe, step 1 would be spend more money.
My impression (and I’d be delighted to be corrected on this) is that most European systems in comparable economies don’t spend much more than us out of taxation, but have a significant private insurance contribution on top.
Edit to add: and you are right; I should have specified meaningful or effective reform.
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
That of course supposes that there is any jam in Year 4, which given Labour's extraordinary anti-growth policies on tax, Net Zero, regulation, well everything except a bit on housing, is very unlikely. And that's assuming there aren't any large external shocks.
Also it's by no means even certain, as the Conservatives found out in 1997, that the electorate will thank you for good economic news. If the narrative has set in that you're crap, it's incredibly difficult to shift.
Why do you think they've made growth politically totemic if their policies are anti growth?
Well yes - it's something of a mystery. It's a pretty remarkable turnaround from 'vote for us - we'll try really hard to grow the economy' to 'let's ramp up taxes, discourage investment and scare all the capital away' in 2 months or so.
Granted we haven't had the budget yet and it might turn out to be totally different from the mood music.
It could be that the policies we see over the next few years are not "anti-growth", they are just not the sort of economics favoured by the right. That's where my money would be. This is a Labour government after all. We had the Cons for 14 years and now we have Labour.
Course we don't know how we'll do on growth in this parliament yet. If it turns out it's poor Labour will have a hell of a job getting re-elected. They know this better than anyone. Which is why, succeed or fail, we can be pretty sure their policies will on the whole be intended to boost growth not depress it.
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
Yup. And on the politics of it SKS has shown he knows how to devise and execute a long term plan. If his 'govern and get reelected' project is even half as successful as his 'make Labour win again' project was, that will do nicely, I'd have thought. But we'll see. Can't get too excited about it right now tbh. It's way too early to judge results and the next GE is yonks away. All about Nov 5th for me. The most important election in the history of elections. C'mon c'mon you polls. Move, ffs, move. You know you want to.
Can you explain the four main points in Starmer's successful "make Labour win again" project?
As far as I can work out the four most important elements were:
1. Have Boris Johnson break his own Covid rules. 2. Make Truss PM, crash the economy, and be replaced within 7 weeks. 3. Persuade Russia to invade Ukraine, creating a huge spike in inflation, massively eroding living standards. 4. Kick Corbyn out of the Labour Party, thereby making it clear that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated, and, er, losing Islington North.
Starmer has been extremely fortunate, and that has taken him to Number Ten. Now that he's there, can he make his own luck?
The core of it was:
Purge the left Foster 'time for a change' Make Labour the 'safe' receptacle of anti tory votes Target the right voters in the right places for FPTP efficiency
He was lucky, yes, with Johnson and (esp) Truss, and he was also ruthless, disciplined and skilful. That combination of things led to where we are.
Now? It depends on the usual. Events and performance/delivery.
The main part after purging the Corbynista's was realising the Tories were not only quite mad but divided and self destructive so Starmer could just do nothing and win. But doing nothing takes some discipline. Hopefully they have used that time wisely to plan for government, we shall see.
Yes, in essence, but it was slightly more than 'do nothing'. It was essential to create an identity for Labour centred on 'we can be trusted with the purse strings'. This plus forging a solid image for himself which meant floating voters could 'see' him as a PM 'sealed the deal' and the GE win. Neither were a slam dunk. Eg the previous 2 Labour leaders failed on both fronts.
Labour received less than 35% of the vote. That feels to me like a vote share that indicates that Starmer did not "seal the deal."
Let's say he sealed the FPTP deal then. That would have been the priority.
I was watching one of the (short) videos and his movement seems very strange. Is there some mobility issue with the suit?
It’s the first time they’ve flown this new design of suit on an EVA, so they’re going through a bunch of mobility tests with it. It’s supposed to be the thinnest and most mobile suit ever designed, certainly looks an awful lot easier to move around than the old Shuttle-era suits.
I was watching one of the (short) videos and his movement seems very strange. Is there some mobility issue with the suit?
All space suits have low mobility. If you see the ISS operations you will see the same.
This is because they are a pressurised bag. Getting even limited movement is a serious design issue.
There are two possible answers to this - 100% hard suits and mechanical counter pressure.
The hard suits are a bit like the diving armour - see the AX5. NASA have been very resistant to these designs.
The mechanical counter pressure (AKA skin suits) have no air *inside* (apart from the helmet). They apply pressure to the body (think insane lycra). Again. NASA, really doesn't like the idea.
The SpaceX suits are the non-bulkiest space suits that offer some mobility, to date.
"On her record so far, Reeves is quickly turning out to be the worst Chancellor of modern times – and it won’t be long before there is talk about replacing her."
Says the Telegraph. Let's wait until she does cockups which inevitably will happen. You have a budget in a month. Honestly the impatience of people to show Labour are failing is laughable. There are 4 to 5 years to go. Can we not wait a few more months until something really happens.
I voted Labour and have a bit of Buyers remorse at the moment but it is far too early to castigate Rachel Reeves.
I agree with the WFA cut, I do not see that she has done anything wrong so far apart from, possibly, the way it was handled.
TBH I get why the Tories and their supporters cannot wait to try to show labour is failing us. If would be no different if the boot was on the other foot.
The Tory press is doing exactly what you’d expect it to do, and it’s perfectly within its rights to do so. Of course the Telegraph is going to say things like Reeves is the worse chancellor in history. It may well be working: Labour have lost the spin battles since July.
Equally it makes sense for supporters of Labour to position this as desperate bleating by a right wing press in denial. Which might also work a bit.
I don't have a great sense of spin battles being either lost or won atm.
Labour will dip a fair bit in the polls and Tories will claim success. Tories have forgotten how to govern. Year 1, clear the decks, announce anything bad. Year 4 spread the jam.
That of course supposes that there is any jam in Year 4, which given Labour's extraordinary anti-growth policies on tax, Net Zero, regulation, well everything except a bit on housing, is very unlikely. And that's assuming there aren't any large external shocks.
Also it's by no means even certain, as the Conservatives found out in 1997, that the electorate will thank you for good economic news. If the narrative has set in that you're crap, it's incredibly difficult to shift.
Why do you think they've made growth politically totemic if their policies are anti growth?
Well yes - it's something of a mystery. It's a pretty remarkable turnaround from 'vote for us - we'll try really hard to grow the economy' to 'let's ramp up taxes, discourage investment and scare all the capital away' in 2 months or so.
Granted we haven't had the budget yet and it might turn out to be totally different from the mood music.
It could be that the policies we see over the next few years are not "anti-growth", they are just not the sort of economics favoured by the right. That's where my money would be. This is a Labour government after all. We had the Cons for 14 years and now we have Labour.
Course we don't know how we'll do on growth in this parliament yet. If it turns out it's poor Labour will have a hell of a job getting re-elected. They know this better than anyone. Which is why, succeed or fail, we can be pretty sure their policies will on the whole be intended to boost growth not depress it.
Your last paragraph, could, logically be applied to government by any party. I look forward to this discussion again in five or ten or fifteen years time when government of another party is in and you can also assure us that their policies will necessarily be pro-growth
Of my many reservations about Labour, my biggest is that they seem unable to see that economic policies have consequences: if you increase a tax on x, the behaviour of people who do x changes, and less of x gets done. You don't just rake in the tax. So: people move from the private sector to the state sector in education; or billionaires move elsewhere in the world, or businesses stop hiring, or people stop investing in pensions. I had hoped that Rachel Reeves would not be like this, but early signs are not promising.
At the same time, are we actually investing the sorts of things that create growth, like infrastructure and education? Again, maybe we will. But early signs are not promising.
Pumping up your pension is sound personal advice. In fact, I might even give the link to my son as a valuable but relatively inexpensive birthday present. But from a political perspective the creation of an ever-expanding, ever-richer rentier class dependent on an ever-expanding, ever-poorer proletarian workforce cannot possibly last forever.
Can it?
That depends somewhat on whether the capital can be channelled into productive investment in the UK. For now the vast majority of pension fund capital isn't. Government coercion is likely to be unproductive, so it's not an simple problem.
The govt have also dropped the plans for the Brit ISA. I am not sure what this would have achieved anyway.
The UK is not a good environment to invest in in my view. If it was people would already be investing far more than they already are.
I am happy for my Pensions and ISA to have minimal exposure to the UK and be more US and Global based.
Nothing I have heard from Kamala Harris so far concerns me a great deal about the USA if she wins. She seems to be to the right of Biden
Surely it is because UK investments are ordinarily less attractive than others, that the government should incentivise investment here?
If they do that how does that make the UK investments more attractive as investments ? It is just whatever the UK govt offering the investor that makes them attractive be it tax relief or whatever else they come up with.
Surely they need to make the climate more business friendly ?
I was watching one of the (short) videos and his movement seems very strange. Is there some mobility issue with the suit?
All space suits have low mobility. If you see the ISS operations you will see the same.
This is because they are a pressurised bag. Getting even limited movement is a serious design issue.
There are two possible answers to this - 100% hard suits and mechanical counter pressure.
The hard suits are a bit like the diving armour - see the AX5. NASA have been very resistant to these designs.
The mechanical counter pressure (AKA skin suits) have no air *inside* (apart from the helmet). They apply pressure to the body (think insane lycra). Again. NASA, really doesn't like the idea.
The SpaceX suits are the non-bulkiest space suits that offer some mobility, to date.
Interesting that they're at 100% oxygen during EVA, if I heard right ?
17% increase in staff and yet nhs productivity went backwards.
Wes giving it hard to the Tories.
But apparently the massive increase in public sector employment in the last 5 years is critical to the running of the country and if we were to get rid of them all everything would collapse.
Pumping up your pension is sound personal advice. In fact, I might even give the link to my son as a valuable but relatively inexpensive birthday present. But from a political perspective the creation of an ever-expanding, ever-richer rentier class dependent on an ever-expanding, ever-poorer proletarian workforce cannot possibly last forever.
Can it?
That depends somewhat on whether the capital can be channelled into productive investment in the UK. For now the vast majority of pension fund capital isn't. Government coercion is likely to be unproductive, so it's not an simple problem.
The govt have also dropped the plans for the Brit ISA. I am not sure what this would have achieved anyway.
The UK is not a good environment to invest in in my view. If it was people would already be investing far more than they already are.
I am happy for my Pensions and ISA to have minimal exposure to the UK and be more US and Global based.
Nothing I have heard from Kamala Harris so far concerns me a great deal about the USA if she wins. She seems to be to the right of Biden
Surely it is because UK investments are ordinarily less attractive than others, that the government should incentivise investment here?
If they do that how does that make the UK investments more attractive as investments ? It is just whatever the UK govt offering the investor that makes them attractive be it tax relief or whatever else they come up with.
Surely they need to make the climate more business friendly ?
That too, but if the government incentivises UK investment, say via the tax system, then by definition that will make UK investments more attractive.
Surrender of 35,000 Zombie Knives in response to the broadened ban.
This is by a knife wholesaler. They will get £10 compensation per qualifying item - that may even be a profitable level, as they sell for about £15-20 each. I was not expecting it to be on that scale.
Meanwhile, the actual weapon used in most stabbings is a moderate sized kitchen knife.
There have been “martial art weapon” scares since I was a child. For a while, showing a *film* with nunchucks in it was crime.
What's your point?
35,000 deadly weapons not on our streets seems to me to be a good thing, regardless of whether it is a minority of majority of bladed articles used in crime.
At the very least it's a big disruption of easy supply.
This is not 35,000 zombie knives taken off the street, but taken out of a warehouse, and probably at a profit. It is a good thing in itself but there are shades of snakes being bred for the reward money in India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
Lord Vetinari's solution when a reward for rat tails was not having the desired effect in reducing the rat population in Ankh-Morpork: "tax the rat farms."
Pumping up your pension is sound personal advice. In fact, I might even give the link to my son as a valuable but relatively inexpensive birthday present. But from a political perspective the creation of an ever-expanding, ever-richer rentier class dependent on an ever-expanding, ever-poorer proletarian workforce cannot possibly last forever.
Can it?
That depends somewhat on whether the capital can be channelled into productive investment in the UK. For now the vast majority of pension fund capital isn't. Government coercion is likely to be unproductive, so it's not an simple problem.
The govt have also dropped the plans for the Brit ISA. I am not sure what this would have achieved anyway.
The UK is not a good environment to invest in in my view. If it was people would already be investing far more than they already are.
I am happy for my Pensions and ISA to have minimal exposure to the UK and be more US and Global based.
Nothing I have heard from Kamala Harris so far concerns me a great deal about the USA if she wins. She seems to be to the right of Biden
Surely it is because UK investments are ordinarily less attractive than others, that the government should incentivise investment here?
If they do that how does that make the UK investments more attractive as investments ? It is just whatever the UK govt offering the investor that makes them attractive be it tax relief or whatever else they come up with.
Surely they need to make the climate more business friendly ?
That too, but if the government incentivises UK investment, say via the tax system, then by definition that will make UK investments more attractive.
How much can they possibly incentivise it over a bog-standard investment in an S&P500 tracker?
Comments
The UK is not a good environment to invest in in my view. If it was people would already be investing far more than they already are.
I am happy for my Pensions and ISA to have minimal exposure to the UK and be more US and Global based.
Nothing I have heard from Kamala Harris so far concerns me a great deal about the USA if she wins. She seems to be to the right of Biden
If Timpson's ideas are going to work, it will have to be done one-by-one carefully enough to avoid all such crude answers imo.
It does rather make my request academic I agree. How annoying.
Brown's pension raid was widely criticised at the time - on PB, as much as elsewhere,
"Come on, mate. Don't do it. You're wanted ... alive not dead"
If he didn't say that I'd be disappointed.
But re investments and the Presidential election it is curious you mention her and not the one threatening 100% import duties on everything and the end of NATO and the Western democractic alliance.
No more money for the NHS without reform, Starmer says
https://x.com/JosephPolitano/status/1834018321714352514
Support For 10% Tariff On All Imported Goods:
Support: 45%
Oppose: 30%
Unsure: 26%
YouGov / Sept 10, 2024 / n=1620
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1833987362025783439
https://x.com/7Veritas4/status/1834026039913165231
I didn't know every time I mentioned Harris I have to counter with something bout Trump.
Noted.
40% of what?
Take cancer. There has been a huge push in recent years to suggest that cancer is all about lifestyle (don't be overweight, don't drink alcohol, don't smoke etc) and it is true that many cancers are strongly linked to lifestyle. But many are not. My leukeamia has no link to healthstyle and at the time I was a 39 year old in good health, running three times a week, non smoker, possibly a touch overweight but not significantly. Not all disease will be preventable.
https://bbc.co.uk/news/live/c0qejx03zjnt?page=2
It says that Health has 43% of the day-to-day public service spend. This is clearly not the same a % of GDP or of total government spend.
As far as I can work out the four most important elements were:
1. Have Boris Johnson break his own Covid rules.
2. Make Truss PM, crash the economy, and be replaced within 7 weeks.
3. Persuade Russia to invade Ukraine, creating a huge spike in inflation, massively eroding living standards.
4. Kick Corbyn out of the Labour Party, thereby making it clear that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated, and, er, losing Islington North.
Starmer has been extremely fortunate, and that has taken him to Number Ten. Now that he's there, can he make his own luck?
Purge the left
Foster 'time for a change'
Make Labour the 'safe' receptacle of anti tory votes
Target the right voters in the right places for FPTP efficiency
He was lucky, yes, with Johnson and (esp) Truss, and he was also ruthless, disciplined and skilful. That combination of things led to where we are.
Now? It depends on the usual. Events and performance/delivery.
Buildings falling down, hopeless IT, bullying managers, endless pointless but compulsory meetings, HR hiding at hope, claiming to be working...and patients expecting to be spoon fed rather than using any common sense or self reliance.
Meanwhile a lot of wonderful work being done by skilful and dedicated doctors and nurses, against overwhelming odds
I watched Biden bomb the last debate in front of a large, live audience. I was on a panel with a couple Dem pollster/operative types giving our post-debate reactions. They, too, argued, “Debates don’t matter.”
https://x.com/SarahLongwell25/status/1833845029623791858
(FWIW, my response straight after the Biden performance was to post "there's no sugarcoating that".)
1-3 are more generally described as "wait for the government to fuck it up and for the voters to get sick of them", which seems to be about a 50/50 shot with any given government? There was a time when people here were saying Labour should get rid of Starmer and put somebody more exciting in instead because the voters still seemed to like the government and the base was uninspired by his various moderate party reforms, but he stuck with his strategy and it worked.
The dividend change also hit a small number outside of the pension issue. If you were a non taxpayer (so poor) but had dividends you lost the refund of the withholding tax. I know that combination is rare, but you can image widows who on the death of their husband lost half of the company pension so were now getting a very small pension but had some privatisation shares. They then couldn't claim back the tax credit unlike taxpayers.
You could decrease it by spending a lot more on other government departments. Would that be better?
Why not just stick to percentage of GDP?
Whatever the figure is, we just cannot keep giving it more and where I do agree with Starmer radical change is needed
In his questions after his speech he was asked about the BMA being an obstacle, and his response was that he will encounter resistance from various quarters but will make the changes
It seems Streeting said this morning he is raiding parts of his budget and one of those was technology
That is the last thing that should see a cut in investment as that will be vital to leading change
As most of you know I have had nearly a year of serious health issues and even basics of the hospital accessing my GP records was not available to them which is beyond belief
My wife caught mistakes on several occasions for medicines, for example. My father would have died without some fairly aggressive pushback to the shoulder shrugging.....
Also it's by no means even certain, as the Conservatives found out in 1997, that the electorate will thank you for good economic news. If the narrative has set in that you're crap, it's incredibly difficult to shift.
https://x.com/spacex/status/1834154037606056327
"Worried about the cut to winter fuel payment? Talk to us about upgrades to your..."
So year 9 probably.
Granted we haven't had the budget yet and it might turn out to be totally different from the mood music.
Nurses wandering the corridors to summon patients by name, for instance, rather than use electronic signs. Finding the right department is often near-impossible for newcomers because hospital signage is aimed at professionals, and is inconsistent at best. Why do I have to visit my GP surgery to collect a blood test form rather than it being sent electronically to the clinic? And why is my GP selecting individual tests rather than have one box for a standard set until the blood runs out? Why are nurses spending minutes at a time searching for equipment in unlabelled cupboards without glass doors?
There are doubtless other examples of small fixes that could be applied at a local level by any manager with discretionary sign-off of a few thousand pounds at a time.
Instead we'll go down the big fix route and, since this is New New Labour, privatise a bunch of services that end up costing the NHS more, and spaffing another squillion pounds on a failed IT project to link Aberdeen and Westminster for the sole benefit of one MP and two SpAds who commute between the two.
I had an op last week, and was sent home with minimal instructions on caring for the wound: don’t get it wet for five days was about it.
I’m now back in hospital seeing if I need another op to deal with the complications arising.
A nice occasional reminder that, despite all that’s happening on Earth, humanity can occasionally achieve great things by working together.
The Olympics was the same feeling, that we can and should celebrate what we are good at doing, and leave the needless divisions behind.
I'm conflating the early PB years discussion of Brown's failings, with the actual events. And that probably would have been nearly a decade on. But I do think it was apparent just how bad Brown was for UK investment quite early on - certainly as early as the first mobile phone auction in the spring of 2000, which effectively denuded an at the time world leading UK industry of an extremely large amount of capital.
Which was then used to finance current spending by the government.
I can distinctly recall the pensions raid coming up again in the arguments over that auction which I had with friends, who thought Brown was a financial genius for raising so much money.
No airlock, so the entire crew is at risk, and first time in space test for the new suits.
Fingers crossed.
Wes giving it hard to the Tories.
Hatch is open.
If these reforms don't deliver then it is over and another government will introduce a mixed system more like the rest of europe.
https://x.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1833892321215066152
Only Labour has the political cover to actually do what needs to be done: look at how the best health systems in the world (so mostly Europe) do it and try to emulate them.
Edit to add: and you are right; I should have specified meaningful or effective reform.
Course we don't know how we'll do on growth in this parliament yet. If it turns out it's poor Labour will have a hell of a job getting re-elected. They know this better than anyone. Which is why, succeed or fail, we can be pretty sure their policies will on the whole be intended to boost growth not depress it.
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2K6D9PH/nasa-space-suit-shuttle-white-display-1981-2011-extravehicular-mobility-unit-emu-contains-dupont-inventions-hagley-museum-delaware-wilmingto-2K6D9PH.jpg
Breathes sigh of relief.
This is because they are a pressurised bag. Getting even limited movement is a serious design issue.
There are two possible answers to this - 100% hard suits and mechanical counter pressure.
The hard suits are a bit like the diving armour - see the AX5. NASA have been very resistant to these designs.
The mechanical counter pressure (AKA skin suits) have no air *inside* (apart from the helmet). They apply pressure to the body (think insane lycra). Again. NASA, really doesn't like the idea.
The SpaceX suits are the non-bulkiest space suits that offer some mobility, to date.
Of my many reservations about Labour, my biggest is that they seem unable to see that economic policies have consequences: if you increase a tax on x, the behaviour of people who do x changes, and less of x gets done. You don't just rake in the tax. So: people move from the private sector to the state sector in education; or billionaires move elsewhere in the world, or businesses stop hiring, or people stop investing in pensions. I had hoped that Rachel Reeves would not be like this, but early signs are not promising.
At the same time, are we actually investing the sorts of things that create growth, like infrastructure and education? Again, maybe we will. But early signs are not promising.
Surely they need to make the climate more business friendly ?