Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Isn't there a requirement for the OBR to be involved and that added another 6-8 weeks to the timing?
The circs are a bit different but Hunt got a budget in a month after he became chancellor. I think Reeves should have done something in the summer rather than leaving it all till November. OK She announced the WFA cut but she should have had more prepped up than that ready to go.
Also very interesting to see that the CGT abolishment is being walked back with now a rise to 33% on residential property transactions and 25% on other gain being the limit of what is seen as possible. I think reality might be hitting Reeves very hard in the face right now with the extent to which taxes can rise without behaviour change among wealthy individuals that are being targeted for the extra taxes.
Fair play if she can walk it back to only upping the rate on residential property.
After HMRC said that a 10pp increase in CGT *costs* £2bn, does she have any other options? Presumably the OBR will reach a similar conclusion, of massive capital fight from the UK.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Isn't there a requirement for the OBR to be involved and that added another 6-8 weeks to the timing?
The circs are a bit different but Hunt got a budget in a month after he became chancellor. I think Reeves should have done something in the summer rather than leaving it all till November. OK She announced the WFA cut but she should have had more prepped up than that ready to go.
Also very interesting to see that the CGT abolishment is being walked back with now a rise to 33% on residential property transactions and 25% on other gain being the limit of what is seen as possible. I think reality might be hitting Reeves very hard in the face right now with the extent to which taxes can rise without behaviour change among wealthy individuals that are being targeted for the extra taxes.
I am amazed anyone takes/took the CGT scare stories at face value. Yes those rates will increase, but modestly rather than dramatically.
The stories suit both the govt style (underpromise, over deliver is their style - obviously wait and see on the second part) and the media companies pushing panic to their wealthy readership.
Someone in I know in the energy industry was at drinks last night and he seems wholly unimpressed with the GB Energy scheme. He said it looks and sounds like a rehash of PFI with projects being build by the private sector and then purchased over 30-50 year periods by the state. What is it with Labour and PFI, they absolutely torched the finances last time with huge current spending required to fund all of these schemes and they just don't seem to have learned any lessons from it.
That is disturbing. It would have been far better just to insist on the state having a percentage stake in (for example) the wind farms being financed. At least then some of the profits would stay in the UK economy.
Europe’s largest electricity company set out plans last year to invest £12bn in the UK before 2028 to rewire Britain’s ageing power grids, and build new renewable energy projects. But on Thursday it added a further £12bn to the investment plan over the same period after winning a government contract to build a new multibillion-pound offshore windfarm and agreeing to buy Electricity North West for just over £4bn...
On balance these investments are probably good for the country - but it would be far better for the UK if a lot more of the capital being invested (and profits flowing from that investment) stayed in the UK.
As it is, we're going to spend £20 odd billion on subsidising a scheme to make fossil fuels more expensive (carbon capture). That is effectively burning the money.
I'm given to understand that the carbon capture scheme will also be PFI so not only are we burning money, we're going to spend 30-50 years doing it.
Ed Miliband is going to bankrupt this country while not actually generating enough energy to keep the lights on. He is the most dangerous minister in the government and Starmer should axe him asap.
Otoh Ed Miliband is the only minister doing anything whatsoever and might be a good bet if Starmer falls under the Downing Street bus. But only in the next few weeks as this will soon change once Reeves delivers the budget, and Angela Rayner's measures kick in.
Angela Rayner's measures are to go out for consultation in 2025 and will not come into force before 2026 at the earliest
It is interesting how she is being sidelined by Starmer and Reeves
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
It's a bit of a concern that the entire UK economy can be influenced by some bad vibes from the CofE. Even more worrying that so many people were blissfully unaware of the fiscal difficulties the government finds itself in until Reeves pointed it out.
I understand why people are worried about tax rises, and can see why that could slow the economy. But that's 10x better than a Truss situation where the government simply ignores reality. You'd hope that if there are tax rises and additional borrowing, that cash is used for investment rather than current spending - the key thing to watch is the NHS. If that continues to gulp down cash on secondary care then I'd start to concur with your view.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
'the consensus'... hmm. I suspect Rachel will be happy with the technicality of... the economy actually returning to growth, rather than chit-chat.
Returning after she killed it off, despite inheriting a growth rate of 2.5%, you don't like to hear it but she's useless and so is Starmer. By the end of this 5 years you will have the same buyer's remorse as @Leon, he's just got the cojones to admit it now, you're just in a constant state of denial about how badly everything is going.
It's bizarre that you are writing her off before she has even published her Budget. Give her a chance for crying out loud.
I have been listening to her and gave her a chance. She fucked it from day one by talking about the "£22bn fiscal black hole" that was entirely made up and then linked it to tax rises and austerity. Both of those words should only ever be used when they are specifically associated to action. She's the chancellor so when she says taxes are gong to rise but doesn't outline what that actually means businesses turn off the taps, households turn off the taps and the economy stops working properly. It's exactly what we saw happen in the aftermath of the election, July and August saw no growth because business investment and household spending suddenly dropped.
She has utterly failed to understand the responsibility of being the most powerful accountant in the country and her early language has had real and very poor outcomes for the nation. I hold out very little hope that the budget can remedy it because the damage has been done, the UK is now seen as anti-success and high tax across the world.
Someone in I know in the energy industry was at drinks last night and he seems wholly unimpressed with the GB Energy scheme. He said it looks and sounds like a rehash of PFI with projects being build by the private sector and then purchased over 30-50 year periods by the state. What is it with Labour and PFI, they absolutely torched the finances last time with huge current spending required to fund all of these schemes and they just don't seem to have learned any lessons from it.
Some of us have been saying this for ages. The whole sovereign growth fund is just massive centralises PFI, it isn't as some might think from the name Norway or Saudi style wealth fund.
There has been some talk of changing the accounting rules to include state assets, so that if Keir spends £1 billion on nationalising British Spectacles, there will be an asset worth £1 billion recorded, and not just the amount spent. This was proposed some years back in the Corbyn/McDonnell years.
Instinctively, that seems right. Any other organisation has assets and liabilities. Schools and hospitals etc are capital assets – they should be recorded as such. (Full disclosure, I only learned yesterday that they weren't).
It was interesting an economist said last night, it is an error to consider schools and hospitals as capital assets as they cannot be sold
Ooh, missed this one earlier. Crimean oil terminal bombed by Ukraine four days ago exploded again last night, with a fireball several hundred feet high. There’s going to be very little left of it, and the enemy can’t put out the fire.
Clay Cross is South of Chesterfield near the M1 and close to Bolsover / Ashfield Constituencies, across the M1 from Hardwick Hall. I'm not aware of it being well-off, unlike say somewhere like Ashover.
I wonder why there was no RefUK candidate. That should be heartland, if they are going anywhere. Perhaps it's too early.
None of the other Conservative results quoted have RefUK candidates; but a couple have Independents. They need to get into these contests PDQ or risk losing momentum perhaps.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Isn't there a requirement for the OBR to be involved and that added another 6-8 weeks to the timing?
The circs are a bit different but Hunt got a budget in a month after he became chancellor. I think Reeves should have done something in the summer rather than leaving it all till November. OK She announced the WFA cut but she should have had more prepped up than that ready to go.
Why?
More certainty for business & the markets. Makes Labour look on top of things. T'was done well, T'was done quickly.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
It's a bit of a concern that the entire UK economy can be influenced by some bad vibes from the CofE. Even more worrying that so many people were blissfully unaware of the fiscal difficulties the government finds itself in until Reeves pointed it out.
I understand why people are worried about tax rises, and can see why that could slow the economy. But that's 10x better than a Truss situation where the government simply ignores reality. You'd hope that if there are tax rises and additional borrowing, that cash is used for investment rather than current spending - the key thing to watch is the NHS. If that continues to gulp down cash on secondary care then I'd start to concur with your view.
Of course it can, she's the person who sets the tone of the economy. If she's negative then businesses will take notice and people will read the headlines and put money into the bank rather than go out for dinner.
I don't disagree wrt Truss but it's a very low bar, so far Reeves is a huge downgrade on Hunt.
Robert Jenrick makes pitch to Tory centre with Cleverly frontbench offer
Cleverly would be wise to tell him to get effed.
On the contary, they need to unite behind the new leader whoever that is
Some of us with long memories remember the last leadership election, where the loser and his backers never accepted the result and, following a short pause to bury Her Majesty, worked very hard to undermine the government until the leader resigned.
Hopefully, in Opposition, Jenrick’s backers won’t be similarly undermining next month.
Robert Jenrick makes pitch to Tory centre with Cleverly frontbench offer
Cleverly would be wise to tell him to get effed.
On the contary, they need to unite behind the new leader whoever that is
Some of us with long memories remember the last leadership election, where the loser and his backers never accepted the result and, following a short pause to bury Her Majesty, worked very hard to undermine the government until the leader resigned.
It was the winner who undermined HMG and the UK the most.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
'the consensus'... hmm. I suspect Rachel will be happy with the technicality of... the economy actually returning to growth, rather than chit-chat.
Returning after she killed it off, despite inheriting a growth rate of 2.5%, you don't like to hear it but she's useless and so is Starmer. By the end of this 5 years you will have the same buyer's remorse as @Leon, he's just got the cojones to admit it now, you're just in a constant state of denial about how badly everything is going.
It's bizarre that you are writing her off before she has even published her Budget. Give her a chance for crying out loud.
The Tories... what can you do, eh? Their little helpers in the press also keep dropping buckets of shit all over the government, but it is all a bit Boy who cried "Wolf!".
No one is listening, the polls reflect how "meh" politics has been for a while. The only determined thing the voters wanted was to get rid of the Tory mess. There was no great tide of enthusiasm for Labour, to say the least, so the barrage of negativity on the right is not changing the political weather.
Meanwhile the Tory leadership fiasco is not exactly going to light the fiery cross for an early return of the Blues either.
Maybe Labour can improve a few things, and in the eyes of many, that would be a distinct improvement on the past 14 years of relentless fuck up.
Someone in I know in the energy industry was at drinks last night and he seems wholly unimpressed with the GB Energy scheme. He said it looks and sounds like a rehash of PFI with projects being build by the private sector and then purchased over 30-50 year periods by the state. What is it with Labour and PFI, they absolutely torched the finances last time with huge current spending required to fund all of these schemes and they just don't seem to have learned any lessons from it.
That is disturbing. It would have been far better just to insist on the state having a percentage stake in (for example) the wind farms being financed. At least then some of the profits would stay in the UK economy.
Europe’s largest electricity company set out plans last year to invest £12bn in the UK before 2028 to rewire Britain’s ageing power grids, and build new renewable energy projects. But on Thursday it added a further £12bn to the investment plan over the same period after winning a government contract to build a new multibillion-pound offshore windfarm and agreeing to buy Electricity North West for just over £4bn...
On balance these investments are probably good for the country - but it would be far better for the UK if a lot more of the capital being invested (and profits flowing from that investment) stayed in the UK.
As it is, we're going to spend £20 odd billion on subsidising a scheme to make fossil fuels more expensive (carbon capture). That is effectively burning the money.
I'm given to understand that the carbon capture scheme will also be PFI so not only are we burning money, we're going to spend 30-50 years doing it.
Ed Miliband is going to bankrupt this country while not actually generating enough energy to keep the lights on. He is the most dangerous minister in the government and Starmer should axe him asap.
There's nothing wrong (in theory) with public/private partnerships, but it sounds awfully like we're walking into even more expensive versions of the Brown disasters.
To do so for carbon capture, which is literally of negative economic benefit in terms of what it delivers, is plain insanity.
Someone in I know in the energy industry was at drinks last night and he seems wholly unimpressed with the GB Energy scheme. He said it looks and sounds like a rehash of PFI with projects being build by the private sector and then purchased over 30-50 year periods by the state. What is it with Labour and PFI, they absolutely torched the finances last time with huge current spending required to fund all of these schemes and they just don't seem to have learned any lessons from it.
That is disturbing. It would have been far better just to insist on the state having a percentage stake in (for example) the wind farms being financed. At least then some of the profits would stay in the UK economy.
Europe’s largest electricity company set out plans last year to invest £12bn in the UK before 2028 to rewire Britain’s ageing power grids, and build new renewable energy projects. But on Thursday it added a further £12bn to the investment plan over the same period after winning a government contract to build a new multibillion-pound offshore windfarm and agreeing to buy Electricity North West for just over £4bn...
On balance these investments are probably good for the country - but it would be far better for the UK if a lot more of the capital being invested (and profits flowing from that investment) stayed in the UK.
As it is, we're going to spend £20 odd billion on subsidising a scheme to make fossil fuels more expensive (carbon capture). That is effectively burning the money.
I'm given to understand that the carbon capture scheme will also be PFI so not only are we burning money, we're going to spend 30-50 years doing it.
Ed Miliband is going to bankrupt this country while not actually generating enough energy to keep the lights on. He is the most dangerous minister in the government and Starmer should axe him asap.
There's nothing wrong (in theory) with public/private partnerships, but it sounds awfully like we're walking into even more expensive versions of the Brown disasters.
To do so for carbon capture, which is literally of negative economic benefit in terms of what it delivers, is plain insanity.
PPP as a concept isn’t a bad idea, the problem is that the public side has no idea how to negotiate such contracts so that the risk is shared between the public and private entities.
Oh, and if you effectively ban the use of 20’ ladders, it’s going to start costing £500 to change a light bulb.
To do so for carbon capture, which is literally of negative economic benefit in terms of what it delivers, is plain insanity.
Who on earth has managed to get in the Gov'ts ear about carbon capture ? Even the eco-left likes of Monbiot and Dale Vince think it's a non starter, along with everyone else.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
It's a bit of a concern that the entire UK economy can be influenced by some bad vibes from the CofE. Even more worrying that so many people were blissfully unaware of the fiscal difficulties the government finds itself in until Reeves pointed it out.
I understand why people are worried about tax rises, and can see why that could slow the economy. But that's 10x better than a Truss situation where the government simply ignores reality. You'd hope that if there are tax rises and additional borrowing, that cash is used for investment rather than current spending - the key thing to watch is the NHS. If that continues to gulp down cash on secondary care then I'd start to concur with your view.
Of course it can, she's the person who sets the tone of the economy. If she's negative then businesses will take notice and people will read the headlines and put money into the bank rather than go out for dinner.
I don't disagree wrt Truss but it's a very low bar, so far Reeves is a huge downgrade on Hunt.
To be generous, I'd guess the 'bad vibe" cost to the economy is probably necessary to facilitate additional borrowing for investment. If she'd gone into the budget all bouncy optimism, you can see the markets panicking.
I just find it difficult that criticise a finance minister who is a bit glum. It's hard not to be, and any other mood is disingenuous.
Clay Cross is South of Chesterfield near the M1 and close to Bolsover / Ashfield Constituencies, across the M1 from Hardwick Hall. I'm not aware of it being well-off, unlike say somewhere like Ashover.
I wonder why there was no RefUK candidate. That should be heartland, if they are going anywhere. Perhaps it's too early.
None of the other Conservative results quoted have RefUK candidates; but a couple have Independents. They need to get into these contests PDQ or risk losing momentum perhaps.
Further reflection.
RefUk's first big chance to build up a local Government base is May 2025 (I think that's the date), and Ashfield is a huge opportunity for them - especially if Jason Zadrozny goes to prison in March after his trial. The only other active party will likely be Labour, unless the Tories do a resurrection from the dead.
Lee Anderson should have been all over that Clay Cross seat, as a win would feed in to local press narrative for next year.
To do so for carbon capture, which is literally of negative economic benefit in terms of what it delivers, is plain insanity.
Who on earth has managed to get in the Gov'ts ear about carbon capture ? Even the eco-left likes of Monbiot and Dale Vince think it's a non starter, along with everyone else.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
It's a bit of a concern that the entire UK economy can be influenced by some bad vibes from the CofE. Even more worrying that so many people were blissfully unaware of the fiscal difficulties the government finds itself in until Reeves pointed it out.
I understand why people are worried about tax rises, and can see why that could slow the economy. But that's 10x better than a Truss situation where the government simply ignores reality. You'd hope that if there are tax rises and additional borrowing, that cash is used for investment rather than current spending - the key thing to watch is the NHS. If that continues to gulp down cash on secondary care then I'd start to concur with your view.
Of course it can, she's the person who sets the tone of the economy. If she's negative then businesses will take notice and people will read the headlines and put money into the bank rather than go out for dinner.
I don't disagree wrt Truss but it's a very low bar, so far Reeves is a huge downgrade on Hunt.
It's certainly true that a lot of investment decisions have been postponed. But it's also possible that there's something of a bounce post budget if it's less draconian than feared.
After being out of office for a decade, it's not entirely surprising they're experiencing a learning curve problem. We'll see post budget whether it's likely to be one they can get on top of. Or not.
To do so for carbon capture, which is literally of negative economic benefit in terms of what it delivers, is plain insanity.
Who on earth has managed to get in the Gov'ts ear about carbon capture ? Even the eco-left likes of Monbiot and Dale Vince think it's a non starter, along with everyone else.
First Tory gain from the Lib Dems since the election IIRC.
Clearly it was our lunch last week wot won it.
Perhaps you should have lunched with James Cleverley instead
I have been offered dinner with Bobby J.
Are you involved with a development that needs planning permission?
He's been inoculated by @BartholomewRoberts , and he's building a weekend gin palace on Kinder Scout with the biggest shoe wardrobe in the world outside Manila.
Someone in I know in the energy industry was at drinks last night and he seems wholly unimpressed with the GB Energy scheme. He said it looks and sounds like a rehash of PFI with projects being build by the private sector and then purchased over 30-50 year periods by the state. What is it with Labour and PFI, they absolutely torched the finances last time with huge current spending required to fund all of these schemes and they just don't seem to have learned any lessons from it.
That is disturbing. It would have been far better just to insist on the state having a percentage stake in (for example) the wind farms being financed. At least then some of the profits would stay in the UK economy.
Europe’s largest electricity company set out plans last year to invest £12bn in the UK before 2028 to rewire Britain’s ageing power grids, and build new renewable energy projects. But on Thursday it added a further £12bn to the investment plan over the same period after winning a government contract to build a new multibillion-pound offshore windfarm and agreeing to buy Electricity North West for just over £4bn...
On balance these investments are probably good for the country - but it would be far better for the UK if a lot more of the capital being invested (and profits flowing from that investment) stayed in the UK.
As it is, we're going to spend £20 odd billion on subsidising a scheme to make fossil fuels more expensive (carbon capture). That is effectively burning the money.
I'm given to understand that the carbon capture scheme will also be PFI so not only are we burning money, we're going to spend 30-50 years doing it.
Ed Miliband is going to bankrupt this country while not actually generating enough energy to keep the lights on. He is the most dangerous minister in the government and Starmer should axe him asap.
As Jacob Rees-Mogg said, policies to make the country poorer and colder. Why is it that the UK government, of whatever stripe, keeps generating people that I think should be shot? Excepting the lovely @JohnO, of course - congrats on your election, sir. Now please stop f***** around with culture war and turn the Conservatives back into a patriotic wealth-creating scheme, I would be so grateful.
To do so for carbon capture, which is literally of negative economic benefit in terms of what it delivers, is plain insanity.
Who on earth has managed to get in the Gov'ts ear about carbon capture ? Even the eco-left likes of Monbiot and Dale Vince think it's a non starter, along with everyone else.
The petrochemical industry.
And others.
Bit like the Hydrogen thing - sold as "Instead of throwing away everything, the oil companies will make and sell hydrogen instead of petrol. Simples, yes?"
Carbon capture gives the illusory idea "Instead of inventing new processes, simply stick the tail pipe down the North Sea. Simples, yes?"
So the producing industries can just say "We are waiting for carbon capture" - no need to invest, themselves....
Robert Jenrick makes pitch to Tory centre with Cleverly frontbench offer
Cleverly would be wise to tell him to get effed.
On the contary, they need to unite behind the new leader whoever that is
Some of us with long memories remember the last leadership election, where the loser and his backers never accepted the result and, following a short pause to bury Her Majesty, worked very hard to undermine the government until the leader resigned.
It was the winner who undermined HMG and the UK the most.
On this point I agree, they should have stuck with Truss until the GE. It probably would have been November 2022 or Jan/Feb 2023, Starmer would have an even bigger majority, Davey would be LOTO and there'd be far fewer Conservative MPs.
To do so for carbon capture, which is literally of negative economic benefit in terms of what it delivers, is plain insanity.
Who on earth has managed to get in the Gov'ts ear about carbon capture ? Even the eco-left likes of Monbiot and Dale Vince think it's a non starter, along with everyone else.
The petrochemical industry.
Ed Miliband is emphatically the most anti petro energy secretary the country's ever had though !
So, continuing bad news for Labour and good news for the Tories.
I thought it also useful to look at some of the SPLORGs in more detail. Reform UK hadn't stood in any of these seats last time, but stood in 6 this time. That's only a third of seats, but it's some progress for the party. Their average result was 13.5% (range 3.1-24.4%), so good results when they stand.
The Greens stood in 13 of these seats, so much more organised. There were 3 seats where they hadn't stood previously, where they averaged 6.5%. In most seats, they had stood previously, and their average change was a fall of 3.8%. So, they did well gaining a seat, but more broadly they're not making much progress. But under FPTP, one seat gain matters much more than some loss of vote share elsewhere.
The LibDems also stood in 13 of these seats. There were 4 where they hadn't stood previously, where they averaged 12.8%. Where they had stood previously, they averaged a gain of 6.1% (ranging from a 9.1% fall to a 25.6% gain). Those are good results. Will the party just continue to make up gains unnoticed by the media? Interesting to see that the biggest fall in Starmer's favourability ratings in a recent poll was among LibDem voters.
First Tory gain from the Lib Dems since the election IIRC.
Clearly it was our lunch last week wot won it.
Perhaps you should have lunched with James Cleverley instead
I have been offered dinner with Bobby J.
Are you involved with a development that needs planning permission?
He's been inoculated by @BartholomewRoberts , and he's building a weekend gin palace on Kinder Scout with the biggest shoe wardrobe in the world outside Manila.
The planning for @TheScreamingEagles standalone shoe closet includes this 3D render
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
'the consensus'... hmm. I suspect Rachel will be happy with the technicality of... the economy actually returning to growth, rather than chit-chat.
Returning after she killed it off, despite inheriting a growth rate of 2.5%, you don't like to hear it but she's useless and so is Starmer. By the end of this 5 years you will have the same buyer's remorse as @Leon, he's just got the cojones to admit it now, you're just in a constant state of denial about how badly everything is going.
It's bizarre that you are writing her off before she has even published her Budget. Give her a chance for crying out loud.
I have been listening to her and gave her a chance. She fucked it from day one by talking about the "£22bn fiscal black hole" that was entirely made up and then linked it to tax rises and austerity. Both of those words should only ever be used when they are specifically associated to action. She's the chancellor so when she says taxes are gong to rise but doesn't outline what that actually means businesses turn off the taps, households turn off the taps and the economy stops working properly. It's exactly what we saw happen in the aftermath of the election, July and August saw no growth because business investment and household spending suddenly dropped.
She has utterly failed to understand the responsibility of being the most powerful accountant in the country and her early language has had real and very poor outcomes for the nation. I hold out very little hope that the budget can remedy it because the damage has been done, the UK is now seen as anti-success and high tax across the world.
Yes. Its a bit like a fortune teller at the local funfair saying to everyone “something bad will happen to you at the funfair” and then the funfair notices a disturbing drop in custom
Iran 🇮🇷 suspects that the IRGC officer who interrogated Esmail Qaani (Head of IRGC Quds Forces) on suspicion of being an Israeli 🇮🇱 agent, and caused him to suffer a heart attack, is the real Israeli agent. He is now being interrogated by another IRGC officer.
I’m off to Germany and on a totally unrelated point
Naked lesbian nuns, sex and mutilation – hardcore opera that made German theatre-goers ill
Audience members suffer nausea with 18 needing medical treatment after seeing performance that offended Catholics with its shocking imagery
More than a dozen theatre-goers in Germany needed medical treatment after viewing a radical feminist opera which features naked nuns on rollerskates, a lascivious depiction of Jesus Christ and the grilling of human flesh.
The “Sancta” opera, which has an age restriction of over-18s and numerous content warnings about sex and mutilation, proved to be too intense for some audience members at the Stuttgart opera house.
According to the Stuttgarter Zeitung, a local newspaper, a total of 18 audience members came down with nausea, requiring first aid and even a doctor in some cases, while viewing the show.
Robert Jenrick makes pitch to Tory centre with Cleverly frontbench offer
Cleverly would be wise to tell him to get effed.
On the contary, they need to unite behind the new leader whoever that is
If either Jenrick or Badenoch can get Cleverly onboard that'd be a massive boon. He's the clear frontrunner for shadow Chancellor I think.
Shadow Chancellors are usually less unifying picks because they need to work in tandem with the leadership and preferably with exactly the same vision. I think Cleverly will get FS or HS (the former more likely Id imagine, as I imagine HS might well be reserved for the runner up ).
Robert Jenrick makes pitch to Tory centre with Cleverly frontbench offer
Cleverly would be wise to tell him to get effed.
On the contary, they need to unite behind the new leader whoever that is
If either Jenrick or Badenoch can get Cleverly onboard that'd be a massive boon. He's the clear frontrunner for shadow Chancellor I think.
Shadow Chancellors are usually less unifying picks because they need to work in tandem with the leadership and preferably with exactly the same vision. I think Cleverly will get FS or HS (the former more likely Id imagine, as I imagine HS might well be reserved for the runner up ).
Cannot make Cleverly Foreign Secretary with his Chagos past.
So, continuing bad news for Labour and good news for the Tories.
I thought it also useful to look at some of the SPLORGs in more detail. Reform UK hadn't stood in any of these seats last time, but stood in 6 this time. That's only a third of seats, but it's some progress for the party. Their average result was 13.5% (range 3.1-24.4%), so good results when they stand.
The Greens stood in 13 of these seats, so much more organised. There were 3 seats where they hadn't stood previously, where they averaged 6.5%. In most seats, they had stood previously, and their average change was a fall of 3.8%. So, they did well gaining a seat, but more broadly they're not making much progress. But under FPTP, one seat gain matters much more than some loss of vote share elsewhere.
The LibDems also stood in 13 of these seats. There were 4 where they hadn't stood previously, where they averaged 12.8%. Where they had stood previously, they averaged a gain of 6.1% (ranging from a 9.1% fall to a 25.6% gain). Those are good results. Will the party just continue to make up gains unnoticed by the media? Interesting to see that the biggest fall in Starmer's favourability ratings in a recent poll was among LibDem voters.
Clay Cross is South of Chesterfield near the M1 and close to Bolsover / Ashfield Constituencies, across the M1 from Hardwick Hall. I'm not aware of it being well-off, unlike say somewhere like Ashover.
I wonder why there was no RefUK candidate. That should be heartland, if they are going anywhere. Perhaps it's too early.
None of the other Conservative results quoted have RefUK candidates; but a couple have Independents. They need to get into these contests PDQ or risk losing momentum perhaps.
Further reflection.
RefUk's first big chance to build up a local Government base is May 2025 (I think that's the date), and Ashfield is a huge opportunity for them - especially if Jason Zadrozny goes to prison in March after his trial. The only other active party will likely be Labour, unless the Tories do a resurrection from the dead.
Lee Anderson should have been all over that Clay Cross seat, as a win would feed in to local press narrative for next year.
I used to visit Clay Cross occasionally for work purposes twenty years ago and it was most certainly not well off at all at that time. Very run down.
Robert Jenrick makes pitch to Tory centre with Cleverly frontbench offer
Cleverly would be wise to tell him to get effed.
On the contary, they need to unite behind the new leader whoever that is
If either Jenrick or Badenoch can get Cleverly onboard that'd be a massive boon. He's the clear frontrunner for shadow Chancellor I think.
Why would they give their chief rival such a powerful position? Anyone who thinks the factions of the PCP are about to play Happy Families hasn’t learned the lessons of history.
So Sue Gray will be missing from todays Regional Conference because she is "taking a break".
Understandable I guess given her unceremonious dumping last week but it begs the question will she actually end up doing the role ?
Anyone want to guess she quietly ends up there but in a non-exec role, turning up for a couple of meetings a month but still with the full £170k salary?
It's only Taxpayers money.
Trebles all round
Did we ever get to the bottom of what exactly 1,160 people do at Ofgem, as mentioned yesterday?
I’m rapidly becoming of the opinion that there needs to be a zero-based Budget, and that whole departments should be torn up and either rebuilt from scratch or their functions transferred elsewhere.
I posted two recent activities by OfGem yesterday, helping consumers get refunds and smoothing some forthcoming technical transitions. You can see plenty more here: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/news-and-views/press-releases
I see eight press releases in the last three months on that page, and only 22 so far this year. An organisation of more than 1,000 people should surely be announcing something at least weekly?
There was a bit in the Telegraph article (re people being out of office) about site visits etc. Do OfGem get involved in any physical inspections of things etc/engineering compliance? If so then I can well see the staffing levels. If it's just market regulation then it's harder to see exactly what that many people do - there could be an awful lot of paperwork being shuffled around between companies and OfGem, but the utility of that might be questioned.
This is part of the problem, we're not really sure what a lot of the regulators do. Do OfWat do site inspections, water testing etc, water quality in rivers near outflows etc?
I see lots of people bitching about these bodies. The PB assumption seems to be that if one doesn't immediately know what an agency is doing, then that must mean they're all layabouts wasting taxpayers' money. Well, might I suggest if people aren't sure what a lot of the regulators do, they do some basic research? They all have detailed websites. They are all covered by FOI rules. (You can request under FOI minutes of every meeting held in Ofgem or Ofwat if you want.) They are all discussed in Parliamentary meetings, as detailed in Hansard.
I don't know whether Ofgem are doing a good job or not, but I also don't know where Sandpit gets a rule that 2.4 press releases per month is insufficient work for an organisation of >1000 people! Is there some look-up table for how many press releases per month organisations of different sizes are meant to produce?
I’m off to Germany and on a totally unrelated point
Naked lesbian nuns, sex and mutilation – hardcore opera that made German theatre-goers ill
Audience members suffer nausea with 18 needing medical treatment after seeing performance that offended Catholics with its shocking imagery
More than a dozen theatre-goers in Germany needed medical treatment after viewing a radical feminist opera which features naked nuns on rollerskates, a lascivious depiction of Jesus Christ and the grilling of human flesh.
The “Sancta” opera, which has an age restriction of over-18s and numerous content warnings about sex and mutilation, proved to be too intense for some audience members at the Stuttgart opera house.
According to the Stuttgarter Zeitung, a local newspaper, a total of 18 audience members came down with nausea, requiring first aid and even a doctor in some cases, while viewing the show.
So, continuing bad news for Labour and good news for the Tories.
I thought it also useful to look at some of the SPLORGs in more detail. Reform UK hadn't stood in any of these seats last time, but stood in 6 this time. That's only a third of seats, but it's some progress for the party. Their average result was 13.5% (range 3.1-24.4%), so good results when they stand.
The Greens stood in 13 of these seats, so much more organised. There were 3 seats where they hadn't stood previously, where they averaged 6.5%. In most seats, they had stood previously, and their average change was a fall of 3.8%. So, they did well gaining a seat, but more broadly they're not making much progress. But under FPTP, one seat gain matters much more than some loss of vote share elsewhere.
The LibDems also stood in 13 of these seats. There were 4 where they hadn't stood previously, where they averaged 12.8%. Where they had stood previously, they averaged a gain of 6.1% (ranging from a 9.1% fall to a 25.6% gain). Those are good results. Will the party just continue to make up gains unnoticed by the media? Interesting to see that the biggest fall in Starmer's favourability ratings in a recent poll was among LibDem voters.
Bit surprised Reform didn't have a serious go at Clay Cross North. Even if they didn't win, a Labour hold is much much better for them than a Tory win there. All the main parties know that in local by-elections, the last thing you want is a party closer to you in ideology winning a seat from someone on the other side. In fact I know for a fact in this very ward the Conservatives put in a real shift in 2017 to prevent the Lib Dems gaining the seat from Labour.
So Sue Gray will be missing from todays Regional Conference because she is "taking a break".
Understandable I guess given her unceremonious dumping last week but it begs the question will she actually end up doing the role ?
Anyone want to guess she quietly ends up there but in a non-exec role, turning up for a couple of meetings a month but still with the full £170k salary?
It's only Taxpayers money.
Trebles all round
Did we ever get to the bottom of what exactly 1,160 people do at Ofgem, as mentioned yesterday?
I’m rapidly becoming of the opinion that there needs to be a zero-based Budget, and that whole departments should be torn up and either rebuilt from scratch or their functions transferred elsewhere.
Perhaps but as always it won’t be as simple as “no unintended consequences”. People do rely on Ofgem to deal with complaints against energy suppliers and simply getting rid of them will likely make that process slower or more difficult which will be another example of British state infrastructure or services grinding to a halt.
Ofgem does not investigate complaints against energy suppliers, as I found when I tried to get them to look into these constant false bills from British Gas. They sent a email claiming - falsely - that although they could investigate under GDPR laws they could not notify me of the outcome of any such investigation. What they really meant was, they had no intention of investigating.
This is why energy companies can get away with what they do. Heck, even when it did investigate and found they were all keeping people waiting deliberately for an hour on the phone to force them to give up, it only put them all on 'notice to improve.' Which, I might add, they haven't.
It is an utter waste of time and money. Put the energy firms under Trading Standards and things would change rapidly.
When it comes to investigations of complaints, the Ombudsman does that, although again the energy companies make it as difficult as possible to refer them.
Trading Standards is just an arm of local government
IME Trading Standards has been pithed, like the rest of Local Government. I do not think I have seen one that will even deal with the public for some years.
So, continuing bad news for Labour and good news for the Tories.
I thought it also useful to look at some of the SPLORGs in more detail. Reform UK hadn't stood in any of these seats last time, but stood in 6 this time. That's only a third of seats, but it's some progress for the party. Their average result was 13.5% (range 3.1-24.4%), so good results when they stand.
The Greens stood in 13 of these seats, so much more organised. There were 3 seats where they hadn't stood previously, where they averaged 6.5%. In most seats, they had stood previously, and their average change was a fall of 3.8%. So, they did well gaining a seat, but more broadly they're not making much progress. But under FPTP, one seat gain matters much more than some loss of vote share elsewhere.
The LibDems also stood in 13 of these seats. There were 4 where they hadn't stood previously, where they averaged 12.8%. Where they had stood previously, they averaged a gain of 6.1% (ranging from a 9.1% fall to a 25.6% gain). Those are good results. Will the party just continue to make up gains unnoticed by the media? Interesting to see that the biggest fall in Starmer's favourability ratings in a recent poll was among LibDem voters.
So Sue Gray will be missing from todays Regional Conference because she is "taking a break".
Understandable I guess given her unceremonious dumping last week but it begs the question will she actually end up doing the role ?
Anyone want to guess she quietly ends up there but in a non-exec role, turning up for a couple of meetings a month but still with the full £170k salary?
It's only Taxpayers money.
Trebles all round
Did we ever get to the bottom of what exactly 1,160 people do at Ofgem, as mentioned yesterday?
I’m rapidly becoming of the opinion that there needs to be a zero-based Budget, and that whole departments should be torn up and either rebuilt from scratch or their functions transferred elsewhere.
Perhaps but as always it won’t be as simple as “no unintended consequences”. People do rely on Ofgem to deal with complaints against energy suppliers and simply getting rid of them will likely make that process slower or more difficult which will be another example of British state infrastructure or services grinding to a halt.
Ofgem does not investigate complaints against energy suppliers, as I found when I tried to get them to look into these constant false bills from British Gas. They sent a email claiming - falsely - that although they could investigate under GDPR laws they could not notify me of the outcome of any such investigation. What they really meant was, they had no intention of investigating.
This is why energy companies can get away with what they do. Heck, even when it did investigate and found they were all keeping people waiting deliberately for an hour on the phone to force them to give up, it only put them all on 'notice to improve.' Which, I might add, they haven't.
It is an utter waste of time and money. Put the energy firms under Trading Standards and things would change rapidly.
When it comes to investigations of complaints, the Ombudsman does that, although again the energy companies make it as difficult as possible to refer them.
Trading Standards is just an arm of local government
IME Trading Standards has been pithed, like the rest of Local Government. I do not think I have seen one that will even deal with the public for some years.
It is one of the less mentioned tragedies of austerity. We need good trading standards.
So Sue Gray will be missing from todays Regional Conference because she is "taking a break".
Understandable I guess given her unceremonious dumping last week but it begs the question will she actually end up doing the role ?
Anyone want to guess she quietly ends up there but in a non-exec role, turning up for a couple of meetings a month but still with the full £170k salary?
It's only Taxpayers money.
Trebles all round
Did we ever get to the bottom of what exactly 1,160 people do at Ofgem, as mentioned yesterday?
I’m rapidly becoming of the opinion that there needs to be a zero-based Budget, and that whole departments should be torn up and either rebuilt from scratch or their functions transferred elsewhere.
I posted two recent activities by OfGem yesterday, helping consumers get refunds and smoothing some forthcoming technical transitions. You can see plenty more here: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/news-and-views/press-releases
I see eight press releases in the last three months on that page, and only 22 so far this year. An organisation of more than 1,000 people should surely be announcing something at least weekly?
There was a bit in the Telegraph article (re people being out of office) about site visits etc. Do OfGem get involved in any physical inspections of things etc/engineering compliance? If so then I can well see the staffing levels. If it's just market regulation then it's harder to see exactly what that many people do - there could be an awful lot of paperwork being shuffled around between companies and OfGem, but the utility of that might be questioned.
This is part of the problem, we're not really sure what a lot of the regulators do. Do OfWat do site inspections, water testing etc, water quality in rivers near outflows etc?
I see lots of people bitching about these bodies. The PB assumption seems to be that if one doesn't immediately know what an agency is doing, then that must mean they're all layabouts wasting taxpayers' money. Well, might I suggest if people aren't sure what a lot of the regulators do, they do some basic research? They all have detailed websites. They are all covered by FOI rules. (You can request under FOI minutes of every meeting held in Ofgem or Ofwat if you want.) They are all discussed in Parliamentary meetings, as detailed in Hansard.
I don't know whether Ofgem are doing a good job or not, but I also don't know where Sandpit gets a rule that 2.4 press releases per month is insufficient work for an organisation of >1000 people! Is there some look-up table for how many press releases per month organisations of different sizes are meant to produce?
My question remains the same. What are they actually doing, and why do they need 1,160 people to do it?
Their public utterances suggest that they need a few dozen people at most, working on regulation and PR.
To do so for carbon capture, which is literally of negative economic benefit in terms of what it delivers, is plain insanity.
Who on earth has managed to get in the Gov'ts ear about carbon capture ? Even the eco-left likes of Monbiot and Dale Vince think it's a non starter, along with everyone else.
Dale Vince makes his money from wind farms and the like. He is never going to be a fan as it is aiding and abetting the competition for electricity generation. Monbiot neither as it simply will encourage further oil and gas exploitation.
I would personally pay heed to neither of them, especially Monbiot.
However there does seem to be rather alot of questions over both the ability of this project to deliver and the value for money. That should be our concern not the witterings of people naturally opposed to anything that helps the status quo, current methods of generation, simply mitigate their carbon.
So Sue Gray will be missing from todays Regional Conference because she is "taking a break".
Understandable I guess given her unceremonious dumping last week but it begs the question will she actually end up doing the role ?
Anyone want to guess she quietly ends up there but in a non-exec role, turning up for a couple of meetings a month but still with the full £170k salary?
It's only Taxpayers money.
Trebles all round
Did we ever get to the bottom of what exactly 1,160 people do at Ofgem, as mentioned yesterday?
I’m rapidly becoming of the opinion that there needs to be a zero-based Budget, and that whole departments should be torn up and either rebuilt from scratch or their functions transferred elsewhere.
I posted two recent activities by OfGem yesterday, helping consumers get refunds and smoothing some forthcoming technical transitions. You can see plenty more here: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/news-and-views/press-releases
I see eight press releases in the last three months on that page, and only 22 so far this year. An organisation of more than 1,000 people should surely be announcing something at least weekly?
There was a bit in the Telegraph article (re people being out of office) about site visits etc. Do OfGem get involved in any physical inspections of things etc/engineering compliance? If so then I can well see the staffing levels. If it's just market regulation then it's harder to see exactly what that many people do - there could be an awful lot of paperwork being shuffled around between companies and OfGem, but the utility of that might be questioned.
This is part of the problem, we're not really sure what a lot of the regulators do. Do OfWat do site inspections, water testing etc, water quality in rivers near outflows etc?
I see lots of people bitching about these bodies. The PB assumption seems to be that if one doesn't immediately know what an agency is doing, then that must mean they're all layabouts wasting taxpayers' money. Well, might I suggest if people aren't sure what a lot of the regulators do, they do some basic research? They all have detailed websites. They are all covered by FOI rules. (You can request under FOI minutes of every meeting held in Ofgem or Ofwat if you want.) They are all discussed in Parliamentary meetings, as detailed in Hansard.
I don't know whether Ofgem are doing a good job or not, but I also don't know where Sandpit gets a rule that 2.4 press releases per month is insufficient work for an organisation of >1000 people! Is there some look-up table for how many press releases per month organisations of different sizes are meant to produce?
My question remains the same. What are they actually doing, and why do they need 1,160 people to do it?
Their public utterances suggest that they need a few dozen people at most, working on regulation and PR.
My point remains the same: if you want to know what Ofgem do, you can go find out. Read all their press releases, read their website, look up their role in Hansard, send them FOI requests. Your lack of knowledge about what Ofgem does tells us absolutely nothing about whether they are doing a good job or not.
To do so for carbon capture, which is literally of negative economic benefit in terms of what it delivers, is plain insanity.
Who on earth has managed to get in the Gov'ts ear about carbon capture ? Even the eco-left likes of Monbiot and Dale Vince think it's a non starter, along with everyone else.
The petrochemical industry.
I don't know much about this area, but it is notable to me that it's not just industry that wants this. The Committee on Climate Change are supportive of carbon capture, the IPCC also etc. Ed Miliband might be wrong, but I find it hard to believe he is captured by industry.
Also very interesting to see that the CGT abolishment is being walked back with now a rise to 33% on residential property transactions and 25% on other gain being the limit of what is seen as possible. I think reality might be hitting Reeves very hard in the face right now with the extent to which taxes can rise without behaviour change among wealthy individuals that are being targeted for the extra taxes.
Is that walking back?
I'd say that's obvious, and is just less than the scary fairy-stories in the meeja.
So Sue Gray will be missing from todays Regional Conference because she is "taking a break".
Understandable I guess given her unceremonious dumping last week but it begs the question will she actually end up doing the role ?
Anyone want to guess she quietly ends up there but in a non-exec role, turning up for a couple of meetings a month but still with the full £170k salary?
It's only Taxpayers money.
Trebles all round
Did we ever get to the bottom of what exactly 1,160 people do at Ofgem, as mentioned yesterday?
I’m rapidly becoming of the opinion that there needs to be a zero-based Budget, and that whole departments should be torn up and either rebuilt from scratch or their functions transferred elsewhere.
Perhaps but as always it won’t be as simple as “no unintended consequences”. People do rely on Ofgem to deal with complaints against energy suppliers and simply getting rid of them will likely make that process slower or more difficult which will be another example of British state infrastructure or services grinding to a halt.
Ofgem does not investigate complaints against energy suppliers, as I found when I tried to get them to look into these constant false bills from British Gas. They sent a email claiming - falsely - that although they could investigate under GDPR laws they could not notify me of the outcome of any such investigation. What they really meant was, they had no intention of investigating.
This is why energy companies can get away with what they do. Heck, even when it did investigate and found they were all keeping people waiting deliberately for an hour on the phone to force them to give up, it only put them all on 'notice to improve.' Which, I might add, they haven't.
It is an utter waste of time and money. Put the energy firms under Trading Standards and things would change rapidly.
When it comes to investigations of complaints, the Ombudsman does that, although again the energy companies make it as difficult as possible to refer them.
Trading Standards is just an arm of local government
IME Trading Standards has been pithed, like the rest of Local Government. I do not think I have seen one that will even deal with the public for some years.
Local government funding is totally screwed up, council tax needs to be allowed to rise. It appears to be totally strangled by bin collections and social care at the moment, with almost nothing else being funded.
So, continuing bad news for Labour and good news for the Tories.
I thought it also useful to look at some of the SPLORGs in more detail. Reform UK hadn't stood in any of these seats last time, but stood in 6 this time. That's only a third of seats, but it's some progress for the party. Their average result was 13.5% (range 3.1-24.4%), so good results when they stand.
The Greens stood in 13 of these seats, so much more organised. There were 3 seats where they hadn't stood previously, where they averaged 6.5%. In most seats, they had stood previously, and their average change was a fall of 3.8%. So, they did well gaining a seat, but more broadly they're not making much progress. But under FPTP, one seat gain matters much more than some loss of vote share elsewhere.
The LibDems also stood in 13 of these seats. There were 4 where they hadn't stood previously, where they averaged 12.8%. Where they had stood previously, they averaged a gain of 6.1% (ranging from a 9.1% fall to a 25.6% gain). Those are good results. Will the party just continue to make up gains unnoticed by the media? Interesting to see that the biggest fall in Starmer's favourability ratings in a recent poll was among LibDem voters.
I’m off to Germany and on a totally unrelated point
Naked lesbian nuns, sex and mutilation – hardcore opera that made German theatre-goers ill
Audience members suffer nausea with 18 needing medical treatment after seeing performance that offended Catholics with its shocking imagery
More than a dozen theatre-goers in Germany needed medical treatment after viewing a radical feminist opera which features naked nuns on rollerskates, a lascivious depiction of Jesus Christ and the grilling of human flesh.
The “Sancta” opera, which has an age restriction of over-18s and numerous content warnings about sex and mutilation, proved to be too intense for some audience members at the Stuttgart opera house.
According to the Stuttgarter Zeitung, a local newspaper, a total of 18 audience members came down with nausea, requiring first aid and even a doctor in some cases, while viewing the show.
I was disappointed that your link described as "the full piece" was to the full Telegraph article, and not to the full opera...
Since it's based on a 1921 piece, there may be a 1.5 minute extract on Movietone, Pathe or Gaumont, somewhere. Or in the USA, where some early pre-censorship stuff was quite fruity.
So Sue Gray will be missing from todays Regional Conference because she is "taking a break".
Understandable I guess given her unceremonious dumping last week but it begs the question will she actually end up doing the role ?
Anyone want to guess she quietly ends up there but in a non-exec role, turning up for a couple of meetings a month but still with the full £170k salary?
It's only Taxpayers money.
Trebles all round
Did we ever get to the bottom of what exactly 1,160 people do at Ofgem, as mentioned yesterday?
I’m rapidly becoming of the opinion that there needs to be a zero-based Budget, and that whole departments should be torn up and either rebuilt from scratch or their functions transferred elsewhere.
I posted two recent activities by OfGem yesterday, helping consumers get refunds and smoothing some forthcoming technical transitions. You can see plenty more here: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/news-and-views/press-releases
I see eight press releases in the last three months on that page, and only 22 so far this year. An organisation of more than 1,000 people should surely be announcing something at least weekly?
There was a bit in the Telegraph article (re people being out of office) about site visits etc. Do OfGem get involved in any physical inspections of things etc/engineering compliance? If so then I can well see the staffing levels. If it's just market regulation then it's harder to see exactly what that many people do - there could be an awful lot of paperwork being shuffled around between companies and OfGem, but the utility of that might be questioned.
This is part of the problem, we're not really sure what a lot of the regulators do. Do OfWat do site inspections, water testing etc, water quality in rivers near outflows etc?
I see lots of people bitching about these bodies. The PB assumption seems to be that if one doesn't immediately know what an agency is doing, then that must mean they're all layabouts wasting taxpayers' money. Well, might I suggest if people aren't sure what a lot of the regulators do, they do some basic research? They all have detailed websites. They are all covered by FOI rules. (You can request under FOI minutes of every meeting held in Ofgem or Ofwat if you want.) They are all discussed in Parliamentary meetings, as detailed in Hansard.
I don't know whether Ofgem are doing a good job or not, but I also don't know where Sandpit gets a rule that 2.4 press releases per month is insufficient work for an organisation of >1000 people! Is there some look-up table for how many press releases per month organisations of different sizes are meant to produce?
My question remains the same. What are they actually doing, and why do they need 1,160 people to do it?
Their public utterances suggest that they need a few dozen people at most, working on regulation and PR.
My point remains the same: if you want to know what Ofgem do, you can go find out. Read all their press releases, read their website, look up their role in Hansard, send them FOI requests. Your lack of knowledge about what Ofgem does tells us absolutely nothing about whether they are doing a good job or not.
I’ve read their press releases, their website etc, and still don’t understand why there’s not 116 people there, rather than ten times that number.
So Sue Gray will be missing from todays Regional Conference because she is "taking a break".
Understandable I guess given her unceremonious dumping last week but it begs the question will she actually end up doing the role ?
Anyone want to guess she quietly ends up there but in a non-exec role, turning up for a couple of meetings a month but still with the full £170k salary?
It's only Taxpayers money.
Trebles all round
Did we ever get to the bottom of what exactly 1,160 people do at Ofgem, as mentioned yesterday?
I’m rapidly becoming of the opinion that there needs to be a zero-based Budget, and that whole departments should be torn up and either rebuilt from scratch or their functions transferred elsewhere.
I posted two recent activities by OfGem yesterday, helping consumers get refunds and smoothing some forthcoming technical transitions. You can see plenty more here: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/news-and-views/press-releases
I see eight press releases in the last three months on that page, and only 22 so far this year. An organisation of more than 1,000 people should surely be announcing something at least weekly?
There was a bit in the Telegraph article (re people being out of office) about site visits etc. Do OfGem get involved in any physical inspections of things etc/engineering compliance? If so then I can well see the staffing levels. If it's just market regulation then it's harder to see exactly what that many people do - there could be an awful lot of paperwork being shuffled around between companies and OfGem, but the utility of that might be questioned.
This is part of the problem, we're not really sure what a lot of the regulators do. Do OfWat do site inspections, water testing etc, water quality in rivers near outflows etc?
I see lots of people bitching about these bodies. The PB assumption seems to be that if one doesn't immediately know what an agency is doing, then that must mean they're all layabouts wasting taxpayers' money. Well, might I suggest if people aren't sure what a lot of the regulators do, they do some basic research? They all have detailed websites. They are all covered by FOI rules. (You can request under FOI minutes of every meeting held in Ofgem or Ofwat if you want.) They are all discussed in Parliamentary meetings, as detailed in Hansard.
I don't know whether Ofgem are doing a good job or not, but I also don't know where Sandpit gets a rule that 2.4 press releases per month is insufficient work for an organisation of >1000 people! Is there some look-up table for how many press releases per month organisations of different sizes are meant to produce?
OFGEM are also an important player in the REMA, which is probably the most interesting and consequential reform the government will make in the next 5 years.
To do so for carbon capture, which is literally of negative economic benefit in terms of what it delivers, is plain insanity.
Who on earth has managed to get in the Gov'ts ear about carbon capture ? Even the eco-left likes of Monbiot and Dale Vince think it's a non starter, along with everyone else.
The petrochemical industry.
I don't know much about this area, but it is notable to me that it's not just industry that wants this. The Committee on Climate Change are supportive of carbon capture, the IPCC also etc. Ed Miliband might be wrong, but I find it hard to believe he is captured by industry.
CoCC lead by Emma Pinchbeck: She's obviously intelligent (Oxford Classics) & concerned about climate change but doesn't have a science background.
So Sue Gray will be missing from todays Regional Conference because she is "taking a break".
Understandable I guess given her unceremonious dumping last week but it begs the question will she actually end up doing the role ?
Anyone want to guess she quietly ends up there but in a non-exec role, turning up for a couple of meetings a month but still with the full £170k salary?
It's only Taxpayers money.
Trebles all round
Did we ever get to the bottom of what exactly 1,160 people do at Ofgem, as mentioned yesterday?
I’m rapidly becoming of the opinion that there needs to be a zero-based Budget, and that whole departments should be torn up and either rebuilt from scratch or their functions transferred elsewhere.
I posted two recent activities by OfGem yesterday, helping consumers get refunds and smoothing some forthcoming technical transitions. You can see plenty more here: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/news-and-views/press-releases
I see eight press releases in the last three months on that page, and only 22 so far this year. An organisation of more than 1,000 people should surely be announcing something at least weekly?
There was a bit in the Telegraph article (re people being out of office) about site visits etc. Do OfGem get involved in any physical inspections of things etc/engineering compliance? If so then I can well see the staffing levels. If it's just market regulation then it's harder to see exactly what that many people do - there could be an awful lot of paperwork being shuffled around between companies and OfGem, but the utility of that might be questioned.
This is part of the problem, we're not really sure what a lot of the regulators do. Do OfWat do site inspections, water testing etc, water quality in rivers near outflows etc?
I see lots of people bitching about these bodies. The PB assumption seems to be that if one doesn't immediately know what an agency is doing, then that must mean they're all layabouts wasting taxpayers' money. Well, might I suggest if people aren't sure what a lot of the regulators do, they do some basic research? They all have detailed websites. They are all covered by FOI rules. (You can request under FOI minutes of every meeting held in Ofgem or Ofwat if you want.) They are all discussed in Parliamentary meetings, as detailed in Hansard.
I don't know whether Ofgem are doing a good job or not, but I also don't know where Sandpit gets a rule that 2.4 press releases per month is insufficient work for an organisation of >1000 people! Is there some look-up table for how many press releases per month organisations of different sizes are meant to produce?
OFGEM are also an important player in the REMA, which is probably the most interesting and consequential reform the government will make in the next 5 years.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
'the consensus'... hmm. I suspect Rachel will be happy with the technicality of... the economy actually returning to growth, rather than chit-chat.
Returning after she killed it off, despite inheriting a growth rate of 2.5%, you don't like to hear it but she's useless and so is Starmer. By the end of this 5 years you will have the same buyer's remorse as @Leon, he's just got the cojones to admit it now, you're just in a constant state of denial about how badly everything is going.
It's bizarre that you are writing her off before she has even published her Budget. Give her a chance for crying out loud.
How disingenuous of PB posters to claim Labour has inherited a grown rate of 2.5%. Hasn't there also been a downgrading of growth since Labour came to power for May and June?
This golden legacy guff is utter nonsense. It was also widely accepted that Sunak went early because the economic KPIs were predicted to trend South.
Now Labour's start has been painfully slow and there is not much to write home about yet, but claiming the "golden legacy" has been blown in 100 days, when Reeves hasn't done ANYTHING of note yet is just an enormous pair of hairy bollocks.
PB Tories may be able to come back in a year or two and gloat, but bellyaching about policy that hasn't yet been announced is ludicrous.
So Sue Gray will be missing from todays Regional Conference because she is "taking a break".
Understandable I guess given her unceremonious dumping last week but it begs the question will she actually end up doing the role ?
Anyone want to guess she quietly ends up there but in a non-exec role, turning up for a couple of meetings a month but still with the full £170k salary?
It's only Taxpayers money.
Trebles all round
Did we ever get to the bottom of what exactly 1,160 people do at Ofgem, as mentioned yesterday?
I’m rapidly becoming of the opinion that there needs to be a zero-based Budget, and that whole departments should be torn up and either rebuilt from scratch or their functions transferred elsewhere.
I posted two recent activities by OfGem yesterday, helping consumers get refunds and smoothing some forthcoming technical transitions. You can see plenty more here: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/news-and-views/press-releases
I see eight press releases in the last three months on that page, and only 22 so far this year. An organisation of more than 1,000 people should surely be announcing something at least weekly?
There was a bit in the Telegraph article (re people being out of office) about site visits etc. Do OfGem get involved in any physical inspections of things etc/engineering compliance? If so then I can well see the staffing levels. If it's just market regulation then it's harder to see exactly what that many people do - there could be an awful lot of paperwork being shuffled around between companies and OfGem, but the utility of that might be questioned.
This is part of the problem, we're not really sure what a lot of the regulators do. Do OfWat do site inspections, water testing etc, water quality in rivers near outflows etc?
I see lots of people bitching about these bodies. The PB assumption seems to be that if one doesn't immediately know what an agency is doing, then that must mean they're all layabouts wasting taxpayers' money. Well, might I suggest if people aren't sure what a lot of the regulators do, they do some basic research? They all have detailed websites. They are all covered by FOI rules. (You can request under FOI minutes of every meeting held in Ofgem or Ofwat if you want.) They are all discussed in Parliamentary meetings, as detailed in Hansard.
I don't know whether Ofgem are doing a good job or not, but I also don't know where Sandpit gets a rule that 2.4 press releases per month is insufficient work for an organisation of >1000 people! Is there some look-up table for how many press releases per month organisations of different sizes are meant to produce?
My question remains the same. What are they actually doing, and why do they need 1,160 people to do it?
Their public utterances suggest that they need a few dozen people at most, working on regulation and PR.
My point remains the same: if you want to know what Ofgem do, you can go find out. Read all their press releases, read their website, look up their role in Hansard, send them FOI requests. Your lack of knowledge about what Ofgem does tells us absolutely nothing about whether they are doing a good job or not.
I’ve read their press releases, their website etc, and still don’t understand why there’s not 116 people there, rather than ten times that number.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
'the consensus'... hmm. I suspect Rachel will be happy with the technicality of... the economy actually returning to growth, rather than chit-chat.
Returning after she killed it off, despite inheriting a growth rate of 2.5%, you don't like to hear it but she's useless and so is Starmer. By the end of this 5 years you will have the same buyer's remorse as @Leon, he's just got the cojones to admit it now, you're just in a constant state of denial about how badly everything is going.
It's bizarre that you are writing her off before she has even published her Budget. Give her a chance for crying out loud.
How disingenuous of PB posters to claim Labour has inherited a grown rate of 2.5%. Hasn't there also been a downgrading of growth since Labour came to power for May and June?
This golden legacy guff is utter nonsense. It was also widely accepted that Sunak went early because the economic KPIs were predicted to trend South.
Now Labour's start has been painfully slow and there is not much to write home about yet, but claiming the "golden legacy" has been blown in 100 days, when Reeves hasn't done ANYTHING of note yet is just an enormous pair of hairy bollocks.
PB Tories may be able to come back in a year or two and gloat, but bellyaching about policy that hasn't yet been announced is ludicrous.
It is. And the spectacle this morning of the PB Tories talking Britain down when one would hope they would celebrate a return to growth is unedifying, to put it mildly. One worries about the poor lambs.
When I went to the Netherlands I was fascinated by the prevalence of the grocer's apostrophe. It was everywhere. On further research, it became apparent that the role of the apostrophe in Dutch is to preserve the integrity of the pronunciation - so if a word ends in a vowel, to pluralise it you add 's rather than just s. (e.g. a pack of rolo's - to avoid you pronouncing it 'roloss'.) I wondered if there was some folk memory of this in Britain. Many people are clearly uncomfortable pluralising a word which ends in a vowel.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Isn't there a requirement for the OBR to be involved and that added another 6-8 weeks to the timing?
The circs are a bit different but Hunt got a budget in a month after he became chancellor. I think Reeves should have done something in the summer rather than leaving it all till November. OK She announced the WFA cut but she should have had more prepped up than that ready to go.
In principle you are right, although the Truss/Kwarteng fiasco is possibly a lesson learned.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
'the consensus'... hmm. I suspect Rachel will be happy with the technicality of... the economy actually returning to growth, rather than chit-chat.
Returning after she killed it off, despite inheriting a growth rate of 2.5%, you don't like to hear it but she's useless and so is Starmer. By the end of this 5 years you will have the same buyer's remorse as @Leon, he's just got the cojones to admit it now, you're just in a constant state of denial about how badly everything is going.
It's bizarre that you are writing her off before she has even published her Budget. Give her a chance for crying out loud.
How disingenuous of PB posters to claim Labour has inherited a grown rate of 2.5%. Hasn't there also been a downgrading of growth since Labour came to power for May and June?
This golden legacy guff is utter nonsense. It was also widely accepted that Sunak went early because the economic KPIs were predicted to trend South.
Now Labour's start has been painfully slow and there is not much to write home about yet, but claiming the "golden legacy" has been blown in 100 days, when Reeves hasn't done ANYTHING of note yet is just an enormous pair of hairy bollocks.
PB Tories may be able to come back in a year or two and gloat, but bellyaching about policy that hasn't yet been announced is ludicrous.
She certainly didn’t inherit a “golden economic legacy” that is indeed bollocks. But it is also true she has made a bad situation WORSE by spooking everyone
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
'the consensus'... hmm. I suspect Rachel will be happy with the technicality of... the economy actually returning to growth, rather than chit-chat.
Returning after she killed it off, despite inheriting a growth rate of 2.5%, you don't like to hear it but she's useless and so is Starmer. By the end of this 5 years you will have the same buyer's remorse as @Leon, he's just got the cojones to admit it now, you're just in a constant state of denial about how badly everything is going.
It's bizarre that you are writing her off before she has even published her Budget. Give her a chance for crying out loud.
How disingenuous of PB posters to claim inheriting a grown rate of 2.5%. Hasn't there also been a downgrading of growth since Labour came to power for May and June?
This golden legacy guff is utter nonsense. It was also widely accepted that Sunak went early because the economic KPIs were predicted to trend South.
Now Labour's start has been painfully slow and there is not much to write home about yet, but claiming the "golden legacy" has been blown in 100 days, when Reeves hasn't ✅ me ANYTHING of note yet is just an enormous pair of hairy bollocks.
PB Tories may be able to come back in a year or two and gloat, but bellyaching about policy that hasn't yet been announced is ludicrous.
Weren't the pre-election projections that, whoever won, the spring spurt was going to fade away? As indeed it seemed to do in June, when Reeves wasn't saying anything as Chancellor.
Counterfactuals are a fun but pointless game, but what was meant to happen if, somehow, Rishi had pulled it off?
Will it make the average person in western countries better off?
Elon Musk (for it is he that makes these incredible robots) said last night “there’s an 80% chance of a utopian outcome” - or words to that effect. ie global superabundance. A robot worker for everyone. All boring tasks automated
Let’s not think about the 20% downside risk. Not pleasant
However, it will be quite a change and painful in some ways. Many millions of jobs are about to disappear
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Isn't there a requirement for the OBR to be involved and that added another 6-8 weeks to the timing?
The circs are a bit different but Hunt got a budget in a month after he became chancellor. I think Reeves should have done something in the summer rather than leaving it all till November. OK She announced the WFA cut but she should have had more prepped up than that ready to go.
In principle you are right, although the Truss/Kwarteng fiasco is possibly a lesson learned.
One thing Labour has got right is not u-turning on the WFA withdrawal. They should probably have got more pain out the way very early though having identified a £22 Bn hole (Reeves' own words). I do sincerely hope Reeves has *some* idea of where to find serious money when she became chancellor (Not just a billion here or there) and hasn't been thinking about this only since she got the gig...
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
'the consensus'... hmm. I suspect Rachel will be happy with the technicality of... the economy actually returning to growth, rather than chit-chat.
Returning after she killed it off, despite inheriting a growth rate of 2.5%, you don't like to hear it but she's useless and so is Starmer. By the end of this 5 years you will have the same buyer's remorse as @Leon, he's just got the cojones to admit it now, you're just in a constant state of denial about how badly everything is going.
It's bizarre that you are writing her off before she has even published her Budget. Give her a chance for crying out loud.
How disingenuous of PB posters to claim inheriting a grown rate of 2.5%. Hasn't there also been a downgrading of growth since Labour came to power for May and June?
This golden legacy guff is utter nonsense. It was also widely accepted that Sunak went early because the economic KPIs were predicted to trend South.
Now Labour's start has been painfully slow and there is not much to write home about yet, but claiming the "golden legacy" has been blown in 100 days, when Reeves hasn't ✅ me ANYTHING of note yet is just an enormous pair of hairy bollocks.
PB Tories may be able to come back in a year or two and gloat, but bellyaching about policy that hasn't yet been announced is ludicrous.
Weren't the pre-election projections that, whoever won, the spring spurt was going to fade away? As indeed it seemed to do in June, when Reeves wasn't saying anything as Chancellor.
Counterfactuals are a fun but pointless game, but what was meant to happen if, somehow, Rishi had pulled it off?
The other thing Max regularly complains about is the ONS being too pessimistic about UK GDP figures. I'm not qualified to offer an opinion, but it's odd that the same doesn't apply when Labour are in power.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
'the consensus'... hmm. I suspect Rachel will be happy with the technicality of... the economy actually returning to growth, rather than chit-chat.
Returning after she killed it off, despite inheriting a growth rate of 2.5%, you don't like to hear it but she's useless and so is Starmer. By the end of this 5 years you will have the same buyer's remorse as @Leon, he's just got the cojones to admit it now, you're just in a constant state of denial about how badly everything is going.
It's bizarre that you are writing her off before she has even published her Budget. Give her a chance for crying out loud.
How disingenuous of PB posters to claim Labour has inherited a grown rate of 2.5%. Hasn't there also been a downgrading of growth since Labour came to power for May and June?
This golden legacy guff is utter nonsense. It was also widely accepted that Sunak went early because the economic KPIs were predicted to trend South.
Now Labour's start has been painfully slow and there is not much to write home about yet, but claiming the "golden legacy" has been blown in 100 days, when Reeves hasn't done ANYTHING of note yet is just an enormous pair of hairy bollocks.
PB Tories may be able to come back in a year or two and gloat, but bellyaching about policy that hasn't yet been announced is ludicrous.
She certainly didn’t inherit a “golden economic legacy” that is indeed bollocks. But it is also true she has made a bad situation WORSE by spooking everyone
Except the reality is one of Daily Telegraph hacks making up shit rather than Reeves misspeaking.
I find it interesting again that Timpson is basically invisible from this.
It refers to less than 6 month sentences.
One aspect of that is what happens to drivers (of whatever vehicles) who kill or seriously injure. They tend to receive sentences less than, that, often suspended, and jail is one of very few serious deterrents.
Will it also mean no suspended sentences less than 6 months?
It was inevitable. The chaos would have been catastrophic. Watching people go through passport control last week, undoubtably this system would lead to half empty flights and misery. Needs a complete rethink.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
'the consensus'... hmm. I suspect Rachel will be happy with the technicality of... the economy actually returning to growth, rather than chit-chat.
Returning after she killed it off, despite inheriting a growth rate of 2.5%, you don't like to hear it but she's useless and so is Starmer. By the end of this 5 years you will have the same buyer's remorse as @Leon, he's just got the cojones to admit it now, you're just in a constant state of denial about how badly everything is going.
It's bizarre that you are writing her off before she has even published her Budget. Give her a chance for crying out loud.
How disingenuous of PB posters to claim inheriting a grown rate of 2.5%. Hasn't there also been a downgrading of growth since Labour came to power for May and June?
This golden legacy guff is utter nonsense. It was also widely accepted that Sunak went early because the economic KPIs were predicted to trend South.
Now Labour's start has been painfully slow and there is not much to write home about yet, but claiming the "golden legacy" has been blown in 100 days, when Reeves hasn't ✅ me ANYTHING of note yet is just an enormous pair of hairy bollocks.
PB Tories may be able to come back in a year or two and gloat, but bellyaching about policy that hasn't yet been announced is ludicrous.
Weren't the pre-election projections that, whoever won, the spring spurt was going to fade away? As indeed it seemed to do in June, when Reeves wasn't saying anything as Chancellor.
Counterfactuals are a fun but pointless game, but what was meant to happen if, somehow, Rishi had pulled it off?
If you don't want the spurts to fade away, you need Boris Johnson.
We’re expanding Meta AI to more countries, including Brazil and the UK. Unfortunately, we still can't roll it out in the EU because of the regulatory uncertainty we face there. I hope the new Commission looks afresh at these issues, consistent with President Von Der Leyen’s aim of completing the EU’s digital Single Market, so Europeans can benefit from this new wave of technologies.
I find it interesting again that Timpson is basically invisible from this.
It refers to less than 6 month sentences.
One aspect of that is what happens to drivers (of whatever vehicles) who kill or seriously injure. They tend to receive sentences less than, that, often suspended, and jail is one of very few serious deterrents.
Will it also mean no suspended sentences less than 6 months?
Could be easily solved by increasing their sentences, that would at least keep them off the road for a bit before some of them are driving despite being disqualified.
I'm going thru my YouTubes. As I've pointed out I prefer the 20-60 min video essay or lecture to podcasts, and I'm trying to fill in the gaps. My current ones are:
I'm missing one on the current British left and the current British right. I'm filling in the gaps in the latter by cherrypicking from the PopCon and NatCon lectures, but I'm stuck on the former. Has anybody got any recommendations? No podcasts or twats looking at the camera with a mike please, I want 20-60min essays please so I can listen whilst I work.
Anybody mentioning Jordan Peterson will be shot. Grow up.
We’re expanding Meta AI to more countries, including Brazil and the UK. Unfortunately, we still can't roll it out in the EU because of the regulatory uncertainty we face there. I hope the new Commission looks afresh at these issues, consistent with President Von Der Leyen’s aim of completing the EU’s digital Single Market, so Europeans can benefit from this new wave of technologies.
I was unable to use Advanced Voice Mode in Switzerland this week. Needed to reboot and go via a glitchy VPN
Will it make the average person in western countries better off?
Elon Musk (for it is he that makes these incredible robots) said last night “there’s an 80% chance of a utopian outcome” - or words to that effect. ie global superabundance. A robot worker for everyone. All boring tasks automated
Let’s not think about the 20% downside risk. Not pleasant
However, it will be quite a change and painful in some ways. Many millions of jobs are about to disappear
So what is the utopian outcome? That the robot does all my ironing and manages to put the duvet cover on the duvet without the cat getting in there? This strikes me as a relatively small upside, even if it is 80% likely, for a downside of robots which wipe out humanity. And call me a flinty old northern class warrior, but I don't really like the idea of having a slave, even a robot one. I still blanche at the concept of using Siri or any of its brethren. I'm not even 100% comfortable about interacting with waiters.
We’re expanding Meta AI to more countries, including Brazil and the UK. Unfortunately, we still can't roll it out in the EU because of the regulatory uncertainty we face there. I hope the new Commission looks afresh at these issues, consistent with President Von Der Leyen’s aim of completing the EU’s digital Single Market, so Europeans can benefit from this new wave of technologies.
He has a point and there are even some in the EU complaining about the EU. Like Mario Draghi.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
'the consensus'... hmm. I suspect Rachel will be happy with the technicality of... the economy actually returning to growth, rather than chit-chat.
Returning after she killed it off, despite inheriting a growth rate of 2.5%, you don't like to hear it but she's useless and so is Starmer. By the end of this 5 years you will have the same buyer's remorse as @Leon, he's just got the cojones to admit it now, you're just in a constant state of denial about how badly everything is going.
It's bizarre that you are writing her off before she has even published her Budget. Give her a chance for crying out loud.
How disingenuous of PB posters to claim Labour has inherited a grown rate of 2.5%. Hasn't there also been a downgrading of growth since Labour came to power for May and June?
This golden legacy guff is utter nonsense. It was also widely accepted that Sunak went early because the economic KPIs were predicted to trend South.
Now Labour's start has been painfully slow and there is not much to write home about yet, but claiming the "golden legacy" has been blown in 100 days, when Reeves hasn't done ANYTHING of note yet is just an enormous pair of hairy bollocks.
PB Tories may be able to come back in a year or two and gloat, but bellyaching about policy that hasn't yet been announced is ludicrous.
She certainly didn’t inherit a “golden economic legacy” that is indeed bollocks. But it is also true she has made a bad situation WORSE by spooking everyone
So much so that the economy has er, returned to growth under her watch. You proved last night (as if there was much lingering doubt) that mathematics isn't your strong point. I suggest you similarly steer clear of economics. Your holiday reviews are good. Stick to that.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
'the consensus'... hmm. I suspect Rachel will be happy with the technicality of... the economy actually returning to growth, rather than chit-chat.
Returning after she killed it off, despite inheriting a growth rate of 2.5%, you don't like to hear it but she's useless and so is Starmer. By the end of this 5 years you will have the same buyer's remorse as @Leon, he's just got the cojones to admit it now, you're just in a constant state of denial about how badly everything is going.
It's bizarre that you are writing her off before she has even published her Budget. Give her a chance for crying out loud.
How disingenuous of PB posters to claim Labour has inherited a grown rate of 2.5%. Hasn't there also been a downgrading of growth since Labour came to power for May and June?
This golden legacy guff is utter nonsense. It was also widely accepted that Sunak went early because the economic KPIs were predicted to trend South.
Now Labour's start has been painfully slow and there is not much to write home about yet, but claiming the "golden legacy" has been blown in 100 days, when Reeves hasn't done ANYTHING of note yet is just an enormous pair of hairy bollocks.
PB Tories may be able to come back in a year or two and gloat, but bellyaching about policy that hasn't yet been announced is ludicrous.
She certainly didn’t inherit a “golden economic legacy” that is indeed bollocks. But it is also true she has made a bad situation WORSE by spooking everyone
Except the reality is one of Daily Telegraph hacks making up shit rather than Reeves misspeaking.
Indeed the Trashygraph is now on its 16th budget, since Labour came to power.
We’re expanding Meta AI to more countries, including Brazil and the UK. Unfortunately, we still can't roll it out in the EU because of the regulatory uncertainty we face there. I hope the new Commission looks afresh at these issues, consistent with President Von Der Leyen’s aim of completing the EU’s digital Single Market, so Europeans can benefit from this new wave of technologies.
Some of us may have said at the time, that the biggest benefit of leaving the EU was not having to go along with whatever was their next mad idea.
Comments
After HMRC said that a 10pp increase in CGT *costs* £2bn, does she have any other options? Presumably the OBR will reach a similar conclusion, of massive capital fight from the UK.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1960393/rachel-reeves-capital-gains-tax
The stories suit both the govt style (underpromise, over deliver is their style - obviously wait and see on the second part) and the media companies pushing panic to their wealthy readership.
It is interesting how she is being sidelined by Starmer and Reeves
I understand why people are worried about tax rises, and can see why that could slow the economy. But that's 10x better than a Truss situation where the government simply ignores reality. You'd hope that if there are tax rises and additional borrowing, that cash is used for investment rather than current spending - the key thing to watch is the NHS. If that continues to gulp down cash on secondary care then I'd start to concur with your view.
She has utterly failed to understand the responsibility of being the most powerful accountant in the country and her early language has had real and very poor outcomes for the nation. I hold out very little hope that the budget can remedy it because the damage has been done, the UK is now seen as anti-success and high tax across the world.
https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1844472439281164563
FPT Interesting: Clay Cross is South of Chesterfield near the M1 and close to Bolsover / Ashfield Constituencies, across the M1 from Hardwick Hall. I'm not aware of it being well-off, unlike say somewhere like Ashover.
I wonder why there was no RefUK candidate. That should be heartland, if they are going anywhere. Perhaps it's too early.
None of the other Conservative results quoted have RefUK candidates; but a couple have Independents. They need to get into these contests PDQ or risk losing momentum perhaps.
I don't disagree wrt Truss but it's a very low bar, so far Reeves is a huge downgrade on Hunt.
Hopefully, in Opposition, Jenrick’s backers won’t be similarly undermining next month.
No one is listening, the polls reflect how "meh" politics has been for a while. The only determined thing the voters wanted was to get rid of the Tory mess. There was no great tide of enthusiasm for Labour, to say the least, so the barrage of negativity on the right is not changing the political weather.
Meanwhile the Tory leadership fiasco is not exactly going to light the fiery cross for an early return of the Blues either.
Maybe Labour can improve a few things, and in the eyes of many, that would be a distinct improvement on the past 14 years of relentless fuck up.
To do so for carbon capture, which is literally of negative economic benefit in terms of what it delivers, is plain insanity.
The past is past
Oh, and if you effectively ban the use of 20’ ladders, it’s going to start costing £500 to change a light bulb.
I just find it difficult that criticise a finance minister who is a bit glum. It's hard not to be, and any other mood is disingenuous.
RefUk's first big chance to build up a local Government base is May 2025 (I think that's the date), and Ashfield is a huge opportunity for them - especially if Jason Zadrozny goes to prison in March after his trial. The only other active party will likely be Labour, unless the Tories do a resurrection from the dead.
Lee Anderson should have been all over that Clay Cross seat, as a win would feed in to local press narrative for next year.
But it's also possible that there's something of a bounce post budget if it's less draconian than feared.
After being out of office for a decade, it's not entirely surprising they're experiencing a learning curve problem. We'll see post budget whether it's likely to be one they can get on top of. Or not.
Jenrick suggests he regrets removing Disney murals from asylum-seeker centre
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/11/robert-jenrick-tory-leadership-james-cleverly-shadow-cabinet
Bit like the Hydrogen thing - sold as "Instead of throwing away everything, the oil companies will make and sell hydrogen instead of petrol. Simples, yes?"
Carbon capture gives the illusory idea "Instead of inventing new processes, simply stick the tail pipe down the North Sea. Simples, yes?"
So the producing industries can just say "We are waiting for carbon capture" - no need to invest, themselves....
It probably would have been November 2022 or Jan/Feb 2023, Starmer would have an even bigger majority, Davey would be LOTO and there'd be far fewer Conservative MPs.
LAB: 7 (-4)
CON: 7 (+4)
LDM: 2 (+1)
GRN: 2 (+1)
INDs: 0 (-2)
So, continuing bad news for Labour and good news for the Tories.
I thought it also useful to look at some of the SPLORGs in more detail. Reform UK hadn't stood in any of these seats last time, but stood in 6 this time. That's only a third of seats, but it's some progress for the party. Their average result was 13.5% (range 3.1-24.4%), so good results when they stand.
The Greens stood in 13 of these seats, so much more organised. There were 3 seats where they hadn't stood previously, where they averaged 6.5%. In most seats, they had stood previously, and their average change was a fall of 3.8%. So, they did well gaining a seat, but more broadly they're not making much progress. But under FPTP, one seat gain matters much more than some loss of vote share elsewhere.
The LibDems also stood in 13 of these seats. There were 4 where they hadn't stood previously, where they averaged 12.8%. Where they had stood previously, they averaged a gain of 6.1% (ranging from a 9.1% fall to a 25.6% gain). Those are good results. Will the party just continue to make up gains unnoticed by the media? Interesting to see that the biggest fall in Starmer's favourability ratings in a recent poll was among LibDem voters.
A touch modest, really.
Here's the full piece: https://archive.ph/SgAqL
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1844684047663915107?t=B8aJ1jEUZKsTxf9HuAvCXQ&s=19
What was noticeable last night that even in labour holds their vote share was down
Should be Labour heartland in normal times.
I don't know whether Ofgem are doing a good job or not, but I also don't know where Sandpit gets a rule that 2.4 press releases per month is insufficient work for an organisation of >1000 people! Is there some look-up table for how many press releases per month organisations of different sizes are meant to produce?
In fact I know for a fact in this very ward the Conservatives put in a real shift in 2017 to prevent the Lib Dems gaining the seat from Labour.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/07/germany-influence-of-english-idiots-apostrophe
Their public utterances suggest that they need a few dozen people at most, working on regulation and PR.
I would personally pay heed to neither of them, especially Monbiot.
However there does seem to be rather alot of questions over both the ability of this project to deliver and the value for money. That should be our concern not the witterings of people naturally opposed to anything that helps the status quo, current methods of generation, simply mitigate their carbon.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1844689032602619992?t=IMW3A7NehqetYHcB4dhMlg&s=19
LAB: 7 (-4)
CON: 9 (+4)
LDM: 2 (+1)
GRN: 2 (+1)
INDs: 0 (-2)
I'd say that's obvious, and is just less than the scary fairy-stories in the meeja.
It was a good result for the Greens but overall a very poor night for labour
A Tesla robot making a drink and serving it while chatting to the drinker
https://x.com/wholemarsblog/status/1844586137081319874?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
A Tesla robot simply chatting
https://x.com/cb_doge/status/1844610934670590184?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
@Benpointer once said to me “wake me up when a robot can empty my dishwasher”. Well, @Benpointer, that time is now
Note to @TSE - I’m talking specifically here about ROBOTS. This robot tech is going to transform the global economy - probably for the good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYekPdAUk0k
This golden legacy guff is utter nonsense. It was also widely accepted that Sunak went early because the economic KPIs were predicted to trend South.
Now Labour's start has been painfully slow and there is not much to write home about yet, but claiming the "golden legacy" has been blown in 100 days, when Reeves hasn't done ANYTHING of note yet is just an enormous pair of hairy bollocks.
PB Tories may be able to come back in a year or two and gloat, but bellyaching about policy that hasn't yet been announced is ludicrous.
"Energy suppliers pay a total of £10.8 million for not meeting smart meter installation targets for 2022"
That alone is £9310 per Ofgem employee. Looks like they're earning their keep.
Or from last October: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-release/ofgem-proposes-electricity-generator-epshb-pays-ps23m
"Ofgem proposes electricity generator EPSHB pays £23m"
I wondered if there was some folk memory of this in Britain. Many people are clearly uncomfortable pluralising a word which ends in a vowel.
Counterfactuals are a fun but pointless game, but what was meant to happen if, somehow, Rishi had pulled it off?
Let’s not think about the 20% downside risk. Not pleasant
However, it will be quite a change and painful in some ways. Many millions of jobs are about to disappear
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/11/eu-fingerprint-checks-delayed-indefinitely/
While the robots busy themselves becoming our overlords.
And then deciding that food production is an unneccessary distraction for them.
One aspect of that is what happens to drivers (of whatever vehicles) who kill or seriously injure. They tend to receive sentences less than, that, often suspended, and jail is one of very few serious deterrents.
Will it also mean no suspended sentences less than 6 months?
And on that gross image, I have bulbs to plant.
https://x.com/nickclegg/status/1844415308812939668
We’re expanding Meta AI to more countries, including Brazil and the UK. Unfortunately, we still can't roll it out in the EU because of the regulatory uncertainty we face there. I hope the new Commission looks afresh at these issues, consistent with President Von Der Leyen’s aim of completing the EU’s digital Single Market, so Europeans can benefit from this new wave of technologies.
* National Conservatism (European defn)/Monarchism: Lavader https://www.youtube.com/@Lavader_
* Current American Right: Monsieur Z/Dean Monsieur: https://www.youtube.com/@MonsieurDean
* Current American Left: Second Thought: https://www.youtube.com/@SecondThought
* Current British Deprivation: Danny Dorling https://www.youtube.com/@dannydorling
* National Conservatism (American defn): https://www.youtube.com/@NationalConservatism
* Former British Right: David Starkey: https://www.youtube.com/@davidstarkeytalks
* East Germany: https://www.youtube.com/@eastgermanyinvestigated
* Marxism: TheMarxistProject: https://www.youtube.com/@themarxistproject
* Soviet Union: possibly Setarko: https://www.youtube.com/@Setarko [1]
* Europe (general, not the EU): Kraut; https://www.youtube.com/@Kraut_the_Parrot
I'm missing one on the current British left and the current British right. I'm filling in the gaps in the latter by cherrypicking from the PopCon and NatCon lectures, but I'm stuck on the former. Has anybody got any recommendations? No podcasts or twats looking at the camera with a mike please, I want 20-60min essays please so I can listen whilst I work.
Anybody mentioning Jordan Peterson will be shot. Grow up.
[1] a better one may be Asianometry's Soviet Union playlist at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKtxx9TnH76QInvh7kQyDho9aq1-FPVFe
Soon as I landed in the UK - fine
This Brexit benefit is real
And call me a flinty old northern class warrior, but I don't really like the idea of having a slave, even a robot one. I still blanche at the concept of using Siri or any of its brethren. I'm not even 100% comfortable about interacting with waiters.