Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
I think the greatest consequence of the NI change is that it removes an incentive that meant employers kept many workers below 16 hours a week.
My Super Simple (TM) idea for immigration is to create a cap based on three key factors. You could call it a "triple lock" if you like.
The rule is simple - immigration can never exceed the following:
New houses built (absolute) Proportion of beds available in the NHS expressed as a percentage of the general population % Increase in transport capacity
So if we build 300,000 new homes in 2025, the maximum amount of immigration in 2025 is 300,000.
But. If NHS capacity only rises by 0.1%, immigration would be capped at 0.1% of the current population, so 68,000.
Same for transport. Which I've picked as it takes time and planning and works as a proxy for 'general levels of infrastructure spending needed to support a growing population'.
Such a policy would please the likes of Reform voters, as they would imagine it would bring immigration down to, say, 68,000. I happen to believe the opposite is the case - we'd start building a f--kton more houses, hospitals, and roads.
And for anybody who thinks this idea is bonkers, I put the opposite to you:
What kind of madness leads a country to welcome hundreds of thousands of new immigrants each year while building a fraction of the number of houses, hospitals and roads needed to support them?
Exactly. The NHS operates at near capacity, we have a terrible housing stock and low rate of new building, our infrastructure projects are an absolute joke. Only someone who has lost their marbles would think that a rapidly expanding population, mainly due to immigration, would be a good thing in such circumstances. But that's where the UK has been for essentially 25+ years now. So it's no surprise that a lot of problems have got worse.
You Super Simple idea might not be entirely practical but it is definitely along the lines of what we should be doing.
One problem with that is that NHS beds spare or not are not a measure of capacity. And immigrants do not have a similar propensity to use the NHS as resident population.
eg In the 1980s I went in overnight for an ingrowing toe nail; in the 2010s I had an ingrowing toenail done in 30 minutes at the GP surgery.
Similarly on housing, immigrant family structures may well be different.
And the same goes for transport capacity. How on earth does one measure that?
What I am saying is that it is not a simple thing, and that is inherent. It also makes assumptions about demand vs supply - both of which can be influenced.
Great news for ordinary people in London trying to find affordable property.
"Ultra-wealthy Democrats race to buy London boltholes after Trump win Enquiries from American buyers seeking ‘safety net’ second homes have doubled, says removals boss"
Its alright they can just swap with all the elites apparently leaving because CGT for higher rate taxpayers has moved from 20% to 24%. Probably a net win to have less moaners here.
*Fewer* moaners, surely? Unless it seems sometimes - quite understandably - that they come in bulk lorryloads.
And the main CGT liability for most people is, of course, property, which hasn't changed at all (unless one is a farmer, and they moan more than a midden emits, erm, hot air, and have done so for centuries.)
On topic: that looks like a decent result for you, given you might have been squeezed. There must be potential for your party locally?
You can't actually be "squeezed" in an STV election. The LDs already have a councillor in the ward, but they are unlikely to win 2 in all-out elections.
Great news for ordinary people in London trying to find affordable property.
"Ultra-wealthy Democrats race to buy London boltholes after Trump win Enquiries from American buyers seeking ‘safety net’ second homes have doubled, says removals boss"
A better question might be: why do you do what you do in the way that you do it?
Because on most of the conventional metrics, Kamala should have won. She had more money than Trump's campaign; a stronger ground game with more activists; more adverts.
And here in July, Reform picked up more votes than the LibDems despite a shambolic campaign.
So maybe you are wasting time as well as blood delivering leaflets.
72 LD MPs to 5 Reform suggest it wasn't wasted time.
Not sure that is a direct correlation. What do door knockers and leafleters achieve? Reform got 600,000 more votes than the Lib Dems. Yes the Lib Dems got far more seats which is what matters but I don't see how you can say that is due to more leaflets and door knockers.
Great news for ordinary people in London trying to find affordable property.
"Ultra-wealthy Democrats race to buy London boltholes after Trump win Enquiries from American buyers seeking ‘safety net’ second homes have doubled, says removals boss"
Its alright they can just swap with all the elites apparently leaving because CGT for higher rate taxpayers has moved from 20% to 24%. Probably a net win to have less moaners here.
*Fewer* moaners, surely? Unless it seems sometimes - quite understandably - that they come in bulk lorryloads.
And the main CGT liability for most people is, of course, property, which hasn't changed at all (unless one is a farmer, and they moan more than a midden emits, erm, hot air, and have done so for centuries.)
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
I am amused by people thinking that increasing business costs won’t result in higher prices.
When the cost of labour went up, due to post COVID pay rises, I don’t recall any claims that this wouldn’t result in price inflation. It did.
Now the cost of labour has gone up for a different reason.
It’s a desperate kind of populism to claim that this won’t have an effect.
Thank you, @RochdalePioneers for the article and for flying the flag at an election. I've stood three times but as a paper candidate each time so the "shock" would have been victory.
There is and has been a constant anti-politician undercurrent (even an anti-politics one on occasion). Politicians are held to standards most wouldn't hold themselves to - the slightest foible (lovely word) is exaggerated into a national scandal. Everything someone said 10 or 20 years is regurgitated and weaponised - yes, they thought that then but do they think it now?
In other countries, a politician having an affair is barely worth a mention - here it's a "scandal". Political opportunism dressed up as neo-puritanism. As Mr Goddard once offered "don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?".
Whether MPs or Councillors, elected representatives are in a strange existence - are they "public servants"? To a point but they aren't Council officers or civil servants though they work with them a lot. They have to do a lot themselves and I suspect the individual parties don't help as much as is neededso it becomes a calling for those with money and time which automatically excludes a large amount of potential from public office of any kind.
Councils are businesses, often very complex ones, but it's also about dealing with constituents on an individual level and I dread to think how much casework Stephen Timms for example has but all MPs will be the same. It's a constant treadmill of casework, visits, attending Parliament (which can be a significant logistical undertaking for those like Andrew George who aren;t exactly near London).
It's a system which you wouldn't start from if you are developing a democratic/parliamentary culture from scratch but we are where we are - with a Parliament building that will fall down in time (and, architectural marvel and tourist attraction notwithstanding), we need a legislative chamber for the 21st century not the 19th.
Two questions.
Is the contempt for politicians worse than in the past? It's always been present, but it does feel worse now. Starmer's dismal honeymoon is noteworthy, but it's been a while since a new PM has floated in on a tide of national goodwill.
If it is different, why? One thing I'd want to probe is the Paxman doctrine- "why is this lying (bad word) lying to me?" Often deserved, but a bad default setting. The other is that we've had fifteen or so years where our assumption that things would get noticeably better most years have been tested and failed that test. And the people in charge have got the blame. In which case, where's the problem- their failure or our flawed assumptions?
Answer to the first - not in the Press certainly (the old Punch cartoons weren't kind). Among the electorate, who were largely voiceless (except at elections) it may just be the old deference has gone. Look at X and some of the language used about individuals is horrendous.
Second, to an extent, if everything is going well and people feel things are getting better each year and they are getting richer, they'll be more tolerant of Government failure or incompetence (as they were in the Thatcher and Balir administrations, both of which had their share of scandal and disaster but presided over periods of growth and prosperity). When th,ings aren't going well, people look to Government for solutions (even if in a global economy there's probably little individual Governments can do) and when they don't see them, they look elsewhere.
I'm actually fairly gloomy - on immigration, for example, let's say you bring in a quota or points-based system to reduce the numbers, tighten up the legal routes and close down the illegal routes (assuming you could), the anti-immigration position would shift to deportations of those already here. That's the problem - if you run to the extremes, the extremes will run quicker and further away from you. That's the price of populism.
You seem to be assuming that any reduction in immigration is “extreme”.
Why is that?
We have a simple issue in the U.K. either we are a growing population. Or not. If we are a growing population, we require growth in accommodation and services. Or we have a non growing population and do not.
Trying to have the cake and eat it - arguing that there is actually enough accommodation and services etc - is just as populist.
In fact, I would say that the definition of a “populist policy” might run like this -
- it claims to have no bad effects for “decent people” - “Elites don’t want you to know this one trick…” the policy is claimed to be simple and obvious. - It is claimed to solve the problem 100%
My Super Simple (TM) idea for immigration is to create a cap based on three key factors. You could call it a "triple lock" if you like.
The rule is simple - immigration can never exceed the following:
New houses built (absolute) Proportion of beds available in the NHS expressed as a percentage of the general population % Increase in transport capacity
So if we build 300,000 new homes in 2025, the maximum amount of immigration in 2025 is 300,000.
But. If NHS capacity only rises by 0.1%, immigration would be capped at 0.1% of the current population, so 68,000.
Same for transport. Which I've picked as it takes time and planning and works as a proxy for 'general levels of infrastructure spending needed to support a growing population'.
Such a policy would please the likes of Reform voters, as they would imagine it would bring immigration down to, say, 68,000. I happen to believe the opposite is the case - we'd start building a f--kton more houses, hospitals, and roads.
And for anybody who thinks this idea is bonkers, I put the opposite to you:
What kind of madness leads a country to welcome hundreds of thousands of new immigrants each year while building a fraction of the number of houses, hospitals and roads needed to support them?
Is it one short of builders, construction workers and nurses?
We deliberately limit training of medical staff to below replacement.
We also have large numbers of people unemployed (not seeking work) or semi unemployed (16 hours)
We could do something crazy, like rework the tax system and training to help them become productive.
I'm a civil servant and work with a lot of part time people. Most are mothers with children or those 60 plus and winding down perhaps already claiming a pension. Remember retiring at 60 used to be fairly common even for men.
That’s one group of the part time employed. The winding down to retirement, in well paid office jobs.
There is a serious problem in the work force at large. People getting trapped in the 16 hours thing by insane marginal (effective) rates of tax.
So they are stuck in low quality, dead end jobs. No promotion because shift leaders and supervisors need to do more hours.
Until now there was also (as I've commented below before I saw this post) where the Employer NI starting point encouraged employers to seek workers willing to do 16 hours. Yes it was slightly more work managing 2/3 employees rather than 1 but it saved more than enough money to cover the management time..
I just watched Trump's all out war on the cartels speech. This is why Americans voted for him, fundamentally he's pledging to keep them safe in a way that Kamala would never have done.
Hence Jenrick over Kemi (for me) - his supposed unpleasantness as an individual doesn't matter. As you said in your excellent header, it's whether your life will get better, not whether they're sympathetic/admirable/tick the right boxes/win the beauty contest anymore. You have faith in Kemi to do this - let's hope so, but she'd better get some policies fast, and they'd better be good ones.
Thank you, @RochdalePioneers for the article and for flying the flag at an election. I've stood three times but as a paper candidate each time so the "shock" would have been victory.
There is and has been a constant anti-politician undercurrent (even an anti-politics one on occasion). Politicians are held to standards most wouldn't hold themselves to - the slightest foible (lovely word) is exaggerated into a national scandal. Everything someone said 10 or 20 years is regurgitated and weaponised - yes, they thought that then but do they think it now?
In other countries, a politician having an affair is barely worth a mention - here it's a "scandal". Political opportunism dressed up as neo-puritanism. As Mr Goddard once offered "don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?".
Whether MPs or Councillors, elected representatives are in a strange existence - are they "public servants"? To a point but they aren't Council officers or civil servants though they work with them a lot. They have to do a lot themselves and I suspect the individual parties don't help as much as is neededso it becomes a calling for those with money and time which automatically excludes a large amount of potential from public office of any kind.
Councils are businesses, often very complex ones, but it's also about dealing with constituents on an individual level and I dread to think how much casework Stephen Timms for example has but all MPs will be the same. It's a constant treadmill of casework, visits, attending Parliament (which can be a significant logistical undertaking for those like Andrew George who aren;t exactly near London).
It's a system which you wouldn't start from if you are developing a democratic/parliamentary culture from scratch but we are where we are - with a Parliament building that will fall down in time (and, architectural marvel and tourist attraction notwithstanding), we need a legislative chamber for the 21st century not the 19th.
Two questions.
Is the contempt for politicians worse than in the past? It's always been present, but it does feel worse now. Starmer's dismal honeymoon is noteworthy, but it's been a while since a new PM has floated in on a tide of national goodwill.
If it is different, why? One thing I'd want to probe is the Paxman doctrine- "why is this lying (bad word) lying to me?" Often deserved, but a bad default setting. The other is that we've had fifteen or so years where our assumption that things would get noticeably better most years have been tested and failed that test. And the people in charge have got the blame. In which case, where's the problem- their failure or our flawed assumptions?
Answer to the first - not in the Press certainly (the old Punch cartoons weren't kind). Among the electorate, who were largely voiceless (except at elections) it may just be the old deference has gone. Look at X and some of the language used about individuals is horrendous.
Second, to an extent, if everything is going well and people feel things are getting better each year and they are getting richer, they'll be more tolerant of Government failure or incompetence (as they were in the Thatcher and Balir administrations, both of which had their share of scandal and disaster but presided over periods of growth and prosperity). When th,ings aren't going well, people look to Government for solutions (even if in a global economy there's probably little individual Governments can do) and when they don't see them, they look elsewhere.
I'm actually fairly gloomy - on immigration, for example, let's say you bring in a quota or points-based system to reduce the numbers, tighten up the legal routes and close down the illegal routes (assuming you could), the anti-immigration position would shift to deportations of those already here. That's the problem - if you run to the extremes, the extremes will run quicker and further away from you. That's the price of populism.
You seem to be assuming that any reduction in immigration is “extreme”.
Why is that?
We have a simple issue in the U.K. either we are a growing population. Or not. If we are a growing population, we require growth in accommodation and services. Or we have a non growing population and do not.
Trying to have the cake and eat it - arguing that there is actually enough accommodation and services etc - is just as populist.
In fact, I would say that the definition of a “populist policy” might run like this -
- it claims to have no bad effects for “decent people” - “Elites don’t want you to know this one trick…” the policy is claimed to be simple and obvious. - It is claimed to solve the problem 100%
My Super Simple (TM) idea for immigration is to create a cap based on three key factors. You could call it a "triple lock" if you like.
The rule is simple - immigration can never exceed the following:
New houses built (absolute) Proportion of beds available in the NHS expressed as a percentage of the general population % Increase in transport capacity
So if we build 300,000 new homes in 2025, the maximum amount of immigration in 2025 is 300,000.
But. If NHS capacity only rises by 0.1%, immigration would be capped at 0.1% of the current population, so 68,000.
Same for transport. Which I've picked as it takes time and planning and works as a proxy for 'general levels of infrastructure spending needed to support a growing population'.
Such a policy would please the likes of Reform voters, as they would imagine it would bring immigration down to, say, 68,000. I happen to believe the opposite is the case - we'd start building a f--kton more houses, hospitals, and roads.
And for anybody who thinks this idea is bonkers, I put the opposite to you:
What kind of madness leads a country to welcome hundreds of thousands of new immigrants each year while building a fraction of the number of houses, hospitals and roads needed to support them?
Is it one short of builders, construction workers and nurses?
We deliberately limit training of medical staff to below replacement.
We also have large numbers of people unemployed (not seeking work) or semi unemployed (16 hours)
We could do something crazy, like rework the tax system and training to help them become productive.
I'm a civil servant and work with a lot of part time people. Most are mothers with children or those 60 plus and winding down perhaps already claiming a pension. Remember retiring at 60 used to be fairly common even for men.
That’s one group of the part time employed. The winding down to retirement, in well paid office jobs.
There is a serious problem in the work force at large. People getting trapped in the 16 hours thing by insane marginal (effective) rates of tax.
So they are stuck in low quality, dead end jobs. No promotion because shift leaders and supervisors need to do more hours.
Until now there was also (as I've commented below before I saw this post) where the Employer NI starting point encouraged employers to seek workers willing to do 16 hours. Yes it was slightly more work managing 2/3 employees rather than 1 but it saved more than enough money to cover the management time..
And for shift work in unsociable hours it may not have been harder to manage as it is a lot easier to get people to do one unsociable shift per week than two or three.
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
I am amused by people thinking that increasing business costs won’t result in higher prices.
When the cost of labour went up, due to post COVID pay rises, I don’t recall any claims that this wouldn’t result in price inflation. It did.
Now the cost of labour has gone up for a different reason.
It’s a desperate kind of populism to claim that this won’t have an effect.
The thing is that while the NI bill for Tesco is increasing by £200m - that's less than 0.5% of their turnover.
They should be easily able to increase their prices to cover it.
A better question might be: why do you do what you do in the way that you do it?
Because on most of the conventional metrics, Kamala should have won. She had more money than Trump's campaign; a stronger ground game with more activists; more adverts.
And here in July, Reform picked up more votes than the LibDems despite a shambolic campaign.
So maybe you are wasting time as well as blood delivering leaflets.
72 LD MPs to 5 Reform suggest it wasn't wasted time.
Not sure that is a direct correlation. What do door knockers and leafleters achieve? Reform got 600,000 more votes than the Lib Dems. Yes the Lib Dems got far more seats which is what matters but I don't see how you can say that is due to more leaflets and door knockers.
Which doors were knocked, which letterboxes had leaflets pushed through them?
In FPTP, where you get your votes matters more than how many votes you get. Which is why Farage's parties have always done better in PR elections than FPTP ones.
A better question might be: why do you do what you do in the way that you do it?
Because on most of the conventional metrics, Kamala should have won. She had more money than Trump's campaign; a stronger ground game with more activists; more adverts.
And here in July, Reform picked up more votes than the LibDems despite a shambolic campaign.
So maybe you are wasting time as well as blood delivering leaflets.
72 LD MPs to 5 Reform suggest it wasn't wasted time.
Not sure that is a direct correlation. What do door knockers and leafleters achieve? Reform got 600,000 more votes than the Lib Dems. Yes the Lib Dems got far more seats which is what matters but I don't see how you can say that is due to more leaflets and door knockers.
Which doors were knocked, which letterboxes had leaflets pushed through them?
In FPTP, where you get your votes matters more than how many votes you get. Which is why Farage's parties have always done better in PR elections than FPTP ones.
Ultimately, the Lib Dems are a surrogate of Labour. A vote for the Lib Dems was a vote to kick the Tories out. A vote for Reform was a vote for Reform.
Thank you, @RochdalePioneers for the article and for flying the flag at an election. I've stood three times but as a paper candidate each time so the "shock" would have been victory.
There is and has been a constant anti-politician undercurrent (even an anti-politics one on occasion). Politicians are held to standards most wouldn't hold themselves to - the slightest foible (lovely word) is exaggerated into a national scandal. Everything someone said 10 or 20 years is regurgitated and weaponised - yes, they thought that then but do they think it now?
In other countries, a politician having an affair is barely worth a mention - here it's a "scandal". Political opportunism dressed up as neo-puritanism. As Mr Goddard once offered "don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?".
Whether MPs or Councillors, elected representatives are in a strange existence - are they "public servants"? To a point but they aren't Council officers or civil servants though they work with them a lot. They have to do a lot themselves and I suspect the individual parties don't help as much as is neededso it becomes a calling for those with money and time which automatically excludes a large amount of potential from public office of any kind.
Councils are businesses, often very complex ones, but it's also about dealing with constituents on an individual level and I dread to think how much casework Stephen Timms for example has but all MPs will be the same. It's a constant treadmill of casework, visits, attending Parliament (which can be a significant logistical undertaking for those like Andrew George who aren;t exactly near London).
It's a system which you wouldn't start from if you are developing a democratic/parliamentary culture from scratch but we are where we are - with a Parliament building that will fall down in time (and, architectural marvel and tourist attraction notwithstanding), we need a legislative chamber for the 21st century not the 19th.
Two questions.
Is the contempt for politicians worse than in the past? It's always been present, but it does feel worse now. Starmer's dismal honeymoon is noteworthy, but it's been a while since a new PM has floated in on a tide of national goodwill.
If it is different, why? One thing I'd want to probe is the Paxman doctrine- "why is this lying (bad word) lying to me?" Often deserved, but a bad default setting. The other is that we've had fifteen or so years where our assumption that things would get noticeably better most years have been tested and failed that test. And the people in charge have got the blame. In which case, where's the problem- their failure or our flawed assumptions?
Answer to the first - not in the Press certainly (the old Punch cartoons weren't kind). Among the electorate, who were largely voiceless (except at elections) it may just be the old deference has gone. Look at X and some of the language used about individuals is horrendous.
Second, to an extent, if everything is going well and people feel things are getting better each year and they are getting richer, they'll be more tolerant of Government failure or incompetence (as they were in the Thatcher and Balir administrations, both of which had their share of scandal and disaster but presided over periods of growth and prosperity). When th,ings aren't going well, people look to Government for solutions (even if in a global economy there's probably little individual Governments can do) and when they don't see them, they look elsewhere.
I'm actually fairly gloomy - on immigration, for example, let's say you bring in a quota or points-based system to reduce the numbers, tighten up the legal routes and close down the illegal routes (assuming you could), the anti-immigration position would shift to deportations of those already here. That's the problem - if you run to the extremes, the extremes will run quicker and further away from you. That's the price of populism.
You seem to be assuming that any reduction in immigration is “extreme”.
Why is that?
We have a simple issue in the U.K. either we are a growing population. Or not. If we are a growing population, we require growth in accommodation and services. Or we have a non growing population and do not.
Trying to have the cake and eat it - arguing that there is actually enough accommodation and services etc - is just as populist.
In fact, I would say that the definition of a “populist policy” might run like this -
- it claims to have no bad effects for “decent people” - “Elites don’t want you to know this one trick…” the policy is claimed to be simple and obvious. - It is claimed to solve the problem 100%
My Super Simple (TM) idea for immigration is to create a cap based on three key factors. You could call it a "triple lock" if you like.
The rule is simple - immigration can never exceed the following:
New houses built (absolute) Proportion of beds available in the NHS expressed as a percentage of the general population % Increase in transport capacity
So if we build 300,000 new homes in 2025, the maximum amount of immigration in 2025 is 300,000.
But. If NHS capacity only rises by 0.1%, immigration would be capped at 0.1% of the current population, so 68,000.
Same for transport. Which I've picked as it takes time and planning and works as a proxy for 'general levels of infrastructure spending needed to support a growing population'.
Such a policy would please the likes of Reform voters, as they would imagine it would bring immigration down to, say, 68,000. I happen to believe the opposite is the case - we'd start building a f--kton more houses, hospitals, and roads.
And for anybody who thinks this idea is bonkers, I put the opposite to you:
What kind of madness leads a country to welcome hundreds of thousands of new immigrants each year while building a fraction of the number of houses, hospitals and roads needed to support them?
Is it one short of builders, construction workers and nurses?
We deliberately limit training of medical staff to below replacement.
We also have large numbers of people unemployed (not seeking work) or semi unemployed (16 hours)
We could do something crazy, like rework the tax system and training to help them become productive.
I'm a civil servant and work with a lot of part time people. Most are mothers with children or those 60 plus and winding down perhaps already claiming a pension. Remember retiring at 60 used to be fairly common even for men.
That’s one group of the part time employed. The winding down to retirement, in well paid office jobs.
There is a serious problem in the work force at large. People getting trapped in the 16 hours thing by insane marginal (effective) rates of tax.
So they are stuck in low quality, dead end jobs. No promotion because shift leaders and supervisors need to do more hours.
Until now there was also (as I've commented below before I saw this post) where the Employer NI starting point encouraged employers to seek workers willing to do 16 hours. Yes it was slightly more work managing 2/3 employees rather than 1 but it saved more than enough money to cover the management time..
The original reason for the concessions on benefit for working 16 hours was to get people into employment. The employer NI was part of this setup.
The cynical might say it was to reduce the headline unemployment rate.
Back in from our Remembrance parade. Interesting conversation afterwards with someone who voted for me. Likes me, knows I’m local, but doesn’t really know what I / my party stands for. Or any of the others for that matter.
This is the point I have made for years and years. Most people are apolitical. They simply don’t care about party politics, of who said what, of which policy does x and which does y. They register names only if they are everywhere - and even then don’t know anything other than what they are fed.
How do we combat this? We live in an information world where information doesn’t get through to the people consuming it in real time…
Ha, much of that made me think about my own feelings half the time with F1 betting. Until quite recently, this year was in the red (admittedly, mostly due to a fantastic bet on Piastri in the UK getting screwed by McLaren 'strategy').
It's probably the same answer: you keep doing something if you like doing it.
Back in from our Remembrance parade. Interesting conversation afterwards with someone who voted for me. Likes me, knows I’m local, but doesn’t really know what I / my party stands for. Or any of the others for that matter.
This is the point I have made for years and years. Most people are apolitical. They simply don’t care about party politics, of who said what, of which policy does x and which does y. They register names only if they are everywhere - and even then don’t know anything other than what they are fed.
How do we combat this? We live in an information world where information doesn’t get through to the people consuming it in real time…
The decline in local newspapers is part of it, as is the atomisation of TV from 2-4 channels into infinity. How does one target even uncontentious (relatively!) ads on public health to get to more or less everyone?
I often look at old newspapers and feel green with envy. What must future historians think of us?
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
I am amused by people thinking that increasing business costs won’t result in higher prices.
When the cost of labour went up, due to post COVID pay rises, I don’t recall any claims that this wouldn’t result in price inflation. It did.
Now the cost of labour has gone up for a different reason.
It’s a desperate kind of populism to claim that this won’t have an effect.
The thing is that while the NI bill for Tesco is increasing by £200m - that's less than 0.5% of their turnover.
They should be easily able to increase their prices to cover it.
Increase their prices? That’s the point, the cost of labour has gone up. So will prices.
It’s the denial that this will happen, that is populist nonesense.
A better question might be: why do you do what you do in the way that you do it?
Because on most of the conventional metrics, Kamala should have won. She had more money than Trump's campaign; a stronger ground game with more activists; more adverts.
And here in July, Reform picked up more votes than the LibDems despite a shambolic campaign.
So maybe you are wasting time as well as blood delivering leaflets.
Are you suggesting that had I been a natural Tory rather than a social democrat, I would have had more success?
Probably…
We have had unbroken social democrat government since the last election that made any difference to the fundamental political settlement - 1945. Even Mrs T only tinkered at the edges. And the fundamental planks of Reform are as social democrat as the rest.
If you examine big ticket policies, where the money goes and how much, the subjects that are legislated about, and the measure of total state managed expenditure this insight becomes obvious. Additionally you have to ignore all words, wish lists and rhetoric of every description and only look at deeds.
If you want to see what moving from social democracy looks like, a starting point is the 900 pages of Project 2025.
On topic: that looks like a decent result for you, given you might have been squeezed. There must be potential for your party locally?
You can't actually be "squeezed" in an STV election. The LDs already have a councillor in the ward, but they are unlikely to win 2 in all-out elections.
Yes, that's right! Thank you for the correction.
Would the LDs not have targeted that by-election, given they'd be unlikely to hold the by-election gain?
On topic: that looks like a decent result for you, given you might have been squeezed. There must be potential for your party locally?
You can't actually be "squeezed" in an STV election. The LDs already have a councillor in the ward, but they are unlikely to win 2 in all-out elections.
Of course you can be squeezed. A significant number of voters express a single preference only.
I just watched Trump's all out war on the cartels speech. This is why Americans voted for him, fundamentally he's pledging to keep them safe in a way that Kamala would never have done.
Hence Jenrick over Kemi (for me) - his supposed unpleasantness as an individual doesn't matter. As you said in your excellent header, it's whether your life will get better, not whether they're sympathetic/admirable/tick the right boxes/win the beauty contest anymore. You have faith in Kemi to do this - let's hope so, but she'd better get some policies fast, and they'd better be good ones.
Why does she need policies fast? She isn't going to be in a position to implement them for at least 5 years
Thank you, @RochdalePioneers for the article and for flying the flag at an election. I've stood three times but as a paper candidate each time so the "shock" would have been victory.
There is and has been a constant anti-politician undercurrent (even an anti-politics one on occasion). Politicians are held to standards most wouldn't hold themselves to - the slightest foible (lovely word) is exaggerated into a national scandal. Everything someone said 10 or 20 years is regurgitated and weaponised - yes, they thought that then but do they think it now?
In other countries, a politician having an affair is barely worth a mention - here it's a "scandal". Political opportunism dressed up as neo-puritanism. As Mr Goddard once offered "don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?".
Whether MPs or Councillors, elected representatives are in a strange existence - are they "public servants"? To a point but they aren't Council officers or civil servants though they work with them a lot. They have to do a lot themselves and I suspect the individual parties don't help as much as is neededso it becomes a calling for those with money and time which automatically excludes a large amount of potential from public office of any kind.
Councils are businesses, often very complex ones, but it's also about dealing with constituents on an individual level and I dread to think how much casework Stephen Timms for example has but all MPs will be the same. It's a constant treadmill of casework, visits, attending Parliament (which can be a significant logistical undertaking for those like Andrew George who aren;t exactly near London).
It's a system which you wouldn't start from if you are developing a democratic/parliamentary culture from scratch but we are where we are - with a Parliament building that will fall down in time (and, architectural marvel and tourist attraction notwithstanding), we need a legislative chamber for the 21st century not the 19th.
Two questions.
Is the contempt for politicians worse than in the past? It's always been present, but it does feel worse now. Starmer's dismal honeymoon is noteworthy, but it's been a while since a new PM has floated in on a tide of national goodwill.
If it is different, why? One thing I'd want to probe is the Paxman doctrine- "why is this lying (bad word) lying to me?" Often deserved, but a bad default setting. The other is that we've had fifteen or so years where our assumption that things would get noticeably better most years have been tested and failed that test. And the people in charge have got the blame. In which case, where's the problem- their failure or our flawed assumptions?
I think unthinking, disengaged abuse is higher than I have seen in the past.
I think we also have more political movements that have no other tools in their toolbox than in the past, and perhaps with greater accessibility to the mainstream.
Back in from our Remembrance parade. Interesting conversation afterwards with someone who voted for me. Likes me, knows I’m local, but doesn’t really know what I / my party stands for. Or any of the others for that matter.
This is the point I have made for years and years. Most people are apolitical. They simply don’t care about party politics, of who said what, of which policy does x and which does y. They register names only if they are everywhere - and even then don’t know anything other than what they are fed.
How do we combat this? We live in an information world where information doesn’t get through to the people consuming it in real time…
If people are determined not to be interested in something despite having unlimited information available, there's not much you can do about it.
Back in from our Remembrance parade. Interesting conversation afterwards with someone who voted for me. Likes me, knows I’m local, but doesn’t really know what I / my party stands for. Or any of the others for that matter.
This is the point I have made for years and years. Most people are apolitical. They simply don’t care about party politics, of who said what, of which policy does x and which does y. They register names only if they are everywhere - and even then don’t know anything other than what they are fed.
How do we combat this? We live in an information world where information doesn’t get through to the people consuming it in real time…
Serious question. Do you have a website? A Facebook page? A following on X? I think st local level promoting your personal beliefs and agenda would go a lot further than simply tying yourself to your party. Particularly if your party doesn't seem to be making any progress.
"Nowhere is the impact of the pandemic clearer than in Pendle, the rural district in east Lancashire where Ali grew up. It is the epicentre of the national worklessness crisis.
In the four years between March 2020 and March 2024, the employment rate in Pendle plunged from 74pc to 47.9pc – a fall of 26.1pc and the biggest drop recorded in any of the 329 local authorities across England and Wales, analysis shows.
The employment rate has recovered to 58.3pc since, but for a time less than half the local population was in work.
This is not because of a large rise in unemployment but rather because of a jump in the proportion of people who are economically inactive, meaning they are neither employed nor looking for a job."
Could be that, because Pendle has a high proportion of religious people, this is in fact due to their failure to "lockdown" because of insisting of gathering together for prayer meetings, resulting in more health problems than if they had obeyed Boris's rules.
Edit: Does the Telegraph say which local authority had the lowest drop in economic activity?
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
I am amused by people thinking that increasing business costs won’t result in higher prices.
When the cost of labour went up, due to post COVID pay rises, I don’t recall any claims that this wouldn’t result in price inflation. It did.
Now the cost of labour has gone up for a different reason.
It’s a desperate kind of populism to claim that this won’t have an effect.
The thing is that while the NI bill for Tesco is increasing by £200m - that's less than 0.5% of their turnover.
They should be easily able to increase their prices to cover it.
Increase their prices? That’s the point, the cost of labour has gone up. So will prices.
It’s the denial that this will happen, that is populist nonesense.
All taxes hit somewhere. When it comes to non-trivial sums (IHT on farmers would be an example of a trivial sum) like the NI increases, talking your own book, as Tesco are, is no use at all. Tesco too need state pensions for their workers, regulatory regimes to ensure food is safe, schools, hospitals, UC and child benefit so that the poor can buy Tesco products, and civil order. They should be campaigning vigorously for a civil order (police in this case) that protects their workers from violence and thieves.
Back in from our Remembrance parade. Interesting conversation afterwards with someone who voted for me. Likes me, knows I’m local, but doesn’t really know what I / my party stands for. Or any of the others for that matter.
This is the point I have made for years and years. Most people are apolitical. They simply don’t care about party politics, of who said what, of which policy does x and which does y. They register names only if they are everywhere - and even then don’t know anything other than what they are fed.
How do we combat this? We live in an information world where information doesn’t get through to the people consuming it in real time…
Serious question. Do you have a website? A Facebook page? A following on X? I think st local level promoting your personal beliefs and agenda would go a lot further than simply tying yourself to your party. Particularly if your party doesn't seem to be making any progress.
My big social media thing is YouTube - 140 new subscribers in 2 days. But that isn’t political. I have a Facebook page - which I should keep going now. Probably.
A better question might be: why do you do what you do in the way that you do it?
Because on most of the conventional metrics, Kamala should have won. She had more money than Trump's campaign; a stronger ground game with more activists; more adverts.
And here in July, Reform picked up more votes than the LibDems despite a shambolic campaign.
So maybe you are wasting time as well as blood delivering leaflets.
Far from it. I am pretty sure that the Trump campaign had vastly more money spent on it than Kamala's did. Officially, Kamala's had more, but when you take into account the vast sums invested off-books in the Trump campagn, by Musk and his gang of oligarchs, I am not sure that that is still the case.
Furthermore, while the Democrat campaign seems to have generated as vast army of helpers, these arrived far too late to be put to best use. It reminds me of the SDP in the days of the Alliance. Most of these were "political virgins" and thought that a bit of hard work in the last fortnight was enough to win the seat. Where SDP candidates did well, it was where the Liberals had put in the hard slog over the years, in all weathers.
So keep going, Rochdale Pioneer You may be a bit damp, bloodied and tired, but the final victory will be worth it!
Where did the Trump campaign money go? What was it spent on?
Didn't most of the Republican Party's money go - unlawfully - on his personal legal fees?
Back in from our Remembrance parade. Interesting conversation afterwards with someone who voted for me. Likes me, knows I’m local, but doesn’t really know what I / my party stands for. Or any of the others for that matter.
This is the point I have made for years and years. Most people are apolitical. They simply don’t care about party politics, of who said what, of which policy does x and which does y. They register names only if they are everywhere - and even then don’t know anything other than what they are fed.
How do we combat this? We live in an information world where information doesn’t get through to the people consuming it in real time…
Two points: The relative indifference about political parties is well founded. Their differences are almost entirely either rhetorical (Rwanda, stop the boats, up the workers) or small scale (shall there or shall there not be 90 hereditaries in the HoL with zero collective legislative powers; shall 6% of school pupils be liable to VAT or shall we tax pasties instead).
Secondly, opinions are free, facts are expensive. Opinions can be as simple as you like, but there are no (non trivial) simple facts in the political realm.
I just watched Trump's all out war on the cartels speech. This is why Americans voted for him, fundamentally he's pledging to keep them safe in a way that Kamala would never have done.
Hence Jenrick over Kemi (for me) - his supposed unpleasantness as an individual doesn't matter. As you said in your excellent header, it's whether your life will get better, not whether they're sympathetic/admirable/tick the right boxes/win the beauty contest anymore. You have faith in Kemi to do this - let's hope so, but she'd better get some policies fast, and they'd better be good ones.
Why does she need policies fast? She isn't going to be in a position to implement them for at least 5 years
I think that's a bold statement considering the volatility of British politics just now.
Aside from which, I think Badenoch should have policies now, so she can first get the party, and then the country, united behind them. Starmer's 'ming vase' strategy won't work, because the Labour to Tory pendulum (in my opinion) is now broken - people don't have to vote for one or the other now. It barely worked for Starmer, who got a very flaccid vote, less than Jeremy Corbyn. So I think if Kemi's policies only come out in the manifesto, she can say hi to the Tories being the Number 2 right wing party.
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
Rabbitnomics is a thing you know. It’s founded in what Lady Thatcher actually done to be a legendary leader.
Bank of England and Sunak’s government knew who were profiteering and ripping customers off under cover of inflation period, were frustrated by it. If they had got back in, and obviously needed to raise money straight away - headroom for pre election giveaways stolen from future years departmental spending - who do we think they would have gone after, how do we think they would have raised it?
There’s a second take on BoE, Sunak’s government lobbying of the profiteers to play fair with struggling households, from the Daily Mail, attacking Hunt and Sunak for doing it. Tory MPs lined up to join the Mail to criticise it.
The Conservative Party and the Tory Press are not Thatcherite anymore. Thatcherite economics would struggle in this environment today. I was musing why, what is different now?
is it money? MPs attacking Hunt and Sunak for oh so gently saying please don’t profiteer right now people are struggling - are these MPs lobbied and rewarded for doing so, is this how UK democracy now works?
Great news for ordinary people in London trying to find affordable property.
"Ultra-wealthy Democrats race to buy London boltholes after Trump win Enquiries from American buyers seeking ‘safety net’ second homes have doubled, says removals boss"
One more interesting imo aspect of that tendency is will any US organisations be looking to redomicile abroad when (if?) Mr Trump goes full-on deranged maniac, as he will if he wasn't entirely lying.
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
Rabbitnomics is a thing you know. It’s founded in what Lady Thatcher actually done to be a legendary leader.
Bank of England and Sunak’s government knew who were profiteering and ripping customers off under cover of inflation period, were frustrated by it. If they had got back in, and obviously needed to raise money straight away - headroom for pre election giveaways stolen from future years departmental spending - who do we think they would have gone after, how do we think they would have raised it?
There’s a second take on BoE, Sunak’s government lobbying of the profiteers to play fair with struggling households, from the Daily Mail, attacking Hunt and Sunak for doing it. Tory MPs lined up to join the Mail to criticise it.
The Conservative Party and the Tory Press are not Thatcherite anymore. Thatcherite economics would struggle in this environment today. I was musing why, what is different now?
is it money? MPs attacking Hunt and Sunak for oh so gently saying please don’t profiteer right now people are struggling - are these MPs lobbied and rewarded for doing so, is this how UK democracy now works?
Really, has the energy price cap reduced the cost of energy would you say?
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
I am amused by people thinking that increasing business costs won’t result in higher prices.
When the cost of labour went up, due to post COVID pay rises, I don’t recall any claims that this wouldn’t result in price inflation. It did.
Now the cost of labour has gone up for a different reason.
It’s a desperate kind of populism to claim that this won’t have an effect.
The thing is that while the NI bill for Tesco is increasing by £200m - that's less than 0.5% of their turnover.
They should be easily able to increase their prices to cover it.
Increase their prices? That’s the point, the cost of labour has gone up. So will prices.
It’s the denial that this will happen, that is populist nonesense.
Its easy to increase prices if you have a domestic market who have no option but to buy from yourself.
It might be harder for those who rely on export markets or who have foreign competition.
A better question might be: why do you do what you do in the way that you do it?
Because on most of the conventional metrics, Kamala should have won. She had more money than Trump's campaign; a stronger ground game with more activists; more adverts.
And here in July, Reform picked up more votes than the LibDems despite a shambolic campaign.
So maybe you are wasting time as well as blood delivering leaflets.
72 LD MPs to 5 Reform suggest it wasn't wasted time.
Not sure that is a direct correlation. What do door knockers and leafleters achieve? Reform got 600,000 more votes than the Lib Dems. Yes the Lib Dems got far more seats which is what matters but I don't see how you can say that is due to more leaflets and door knockers.
The crucial difference isn't the groundwork done in the six weeks of an election campaign but the work done in the preceding months and years. I've not checked but I reckon there will be a strong correlation between success at local level and success at Parliamentary level for the LDs - every one of the 60 seats gained will have started from progress at the rounds of local elections in 2022 and 2023 (especially).
I also suspect the seats held by the Conservatives were the ones with the strongest local organisation (and the weakest opposition organisation) whereas those where the Conservative local organisation had disintegrated saw the sharpest falls in vote shares as Reform, Labour, LD or Greens as appropriate feasted on the Tory carcass.
Reform have worked this out - that's why they are starting to build local branches, put up candidates in local by-elections and Farage himself has said the LD organisation is what he wants Reform to emulate.
IF he succeeds, Reform will be the big threat to BOTH Labour and Conservative next time - of the 50 Reform targets, 27 are held by Labour and 23 by the Conservatives. Labour can afford to lose 27, can the Conservatives afford to lose 23?
I just watched Trump's all out war on the cartels speech. This is why Americans voted for him, fundamentally he's pledging to keep them safe in a way that Kamala would never have done.
Hence Jenrick over Kemi (for me) - his supposed unpleasantness as an individual doesn't matter. As you said in your excellent header, it's whether your life will get better, not whether they're sympathetic/admirable/tick the right boxes/win the beauty contest anymore. You have faith in Kemi to do this - let's hope so, but she'd better get some policies fast, and they'd better be good ones.
Why does she need policies fast? She isn't going to be in a position to implement them for at least 5 years
I think that's a bold statement considering the volatility of British politics just now.
Aside from which, I think Badenoch should have policies now, so she can first get the party, and then the country, united behind them. Starmer's 'ming vase' strategy won't work, because the Labour to Tory pendulum (in my opinion) is now broken - people don't have to vote for one or the other now. It barely worked for Starmer, who got a very flaccid vote, less than Jeremy Corbyn. So I think if Kemi's policies only come out in the manifesto, she can say hi to the Tories being the Number 2 right wing party.
There is no need for policies 4+ years away from a GE not least because events, and we have just seen one, change narratives
Kemi has time, and certainly not to be a hostage to fortune is wise at this stage in the electoral cycle not least because even if Starmer is replaced [which is unlikely] Labour will serve their full term
I just watched Trump's all out war on the cartels speech. This is why Americans voted for him, fundamentally he's pledging to keep them safe in a way that Kamala would never have done.
Hence Jenrick over Kemi (for me) - his supposed unpleasantness as an individual doesn't matter. As you said in your excellent header, it's whether your life will get better, not whether they're sympathetic/admirable/tick the right boxes/win the beauty contest anymore. You have faith in Kemi to do this - let's hope so, but she'd better get some policies fast, and they'd better be good ones.
Yes, as I pointed out Americans voted for Obama because he had policies that would make their lives better, not because he was black. Kemi does need policies to do that though I'm not sure how fast she needs to act on it, simply if they're any good the government will nick them right now so why give them easy wins? What she needs to be doing now is opposing the stupid policies that Labour are pushing which will send us to bankruptcy and as we enter the election cycle in 2027/28 getting a policy base together so there's a positive campaign that people will listen to.
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
Rabbitnomics is a thing you know. It’s founded in what Lady Thatcher actually done to be a legendary leader.
Bank of England and Sunak’s government knew who were profiteering and ripping customers off under cover of inflation period, were frustrated by it. If they had got back in, and obviously needed to raise money straight away - headroom for pre election giveaways stolen from future years departmental spending - who do we think they would have gone after, how do we think they would have raised it?
There’s a second take on BoE, Sunak’s government lobbying of the profiteers to play fair with struggling households, from the Daily Mail, attacking Hunt and Sunak for doing it. Tory MPs lined up to join the Mail to criticise it.
The Conservative Party and the Tory Press are not Thatcherite anymore. Thatcherite economics would struggle in this environment today. I was musing why, what is different now?
is it money? MPs attacking Hunt and Sunak for oh so gently saying please don’t profiteer right now people are struggling - are these MPs lobbied and rewarded for doing so, is this how UK democracy now works?
Really, has the energy price cap reduced the cost of energy would you say?
Back in from our Remembrance parade. Interesting conversation afterwards with someone who voted for me. Likes me, knows I’m local, but doesn’t really know what I / my party stands for. Or any of the others for that matter.
This is the point I have made for years and years. Most people are apolitical. They simply don’t care about party politics, of who said what, of which policy does x and which does y. They register names only if they are everywhere - and even then don’t know anything other than what they are fed.
How do we combat this? We live in an information world where information doesn’t get through to the people consuming it in real time…
Serious question. Do you have a website? A Facebook page? A following on X? I think st local level promoting your personal beliefs and agenda would go a lot further than simply tying yourself to your party. Particularly if your party doesn't seem to be making any progress.
My big social media thing is YouTube - 140 new subscribers in 2 days. But that isn’t political. I have a Facebook page - which I should keep going now. Probably.
I'd suggest that consistent & 'non-political' whilst being clear who are engagement in non-partisan, independently run community Facebook groups is important.
Here our local Facebook Groups have memberships above 10,000. Lee Anderson, Ashfield Independents etc have his own, but they tend to be echo chambers.
Another good one would be a column in the local paper.
I just watched Trump's all out war on the cartels speech. This is why Americans voted for him, fundamentally he's pledging to keep them safe in a way that Kamala would never have done.
Hence Jenrick over Kemi (for me) - his supposed unpleasantness as an individual doesn't matter. As you said in your excellent header, it's whether your life will get better, not whether they're sympathetic/admirable/tick the right boxes/win the beauty contest anymore. You have faith in Kemi to do this - let's hope so, but she'd better get some policies fast, and they'd better be good ones.
Why does she need policies fast? She isn't going to be in a position to implement them for at least 5 years
I think that's a bold statement considering the volatility of British politics just now.
Aside from which, I think Badenoch should have policies now, so she can first get the party, and then the country, united behind them. Starmer's 'ming vase' strategy won't work, because the Labour to Tory pendulum (in my opinion) is now broken - people don't have to vote for one or the other now. It barely worked for Starmer, who got a very flaccid vote, less than Jeremy Corbyn. So I think if Kemi's policies only come out in the manifesto, she can say hi to the Tories being the Number 2 right wing party.
Perhaps but "policies" (whatever that word actually means as the term is "solutions" really to problems which the current Government can't solve, won't solve or makes worse (bit like the previous Conservative administrations in all honesty)) need to be flexible to respond to events.
Otherwise, you end up creating hostages to fortune so if you say you won't rise the basic rate of income tax or VAT for example, you have to tinker round the edges with NI or IHT or Winter Fuel Allowance or whatever.
It's actually less about saying what you would do and more about saying what you wouldn't at this stage.
On topic: grateful to those who stand and campaign and to the PB team who contribute by providing this forum and through it the wider political discourse.
FPT: which leads me on to ask about the potential legal implications to PB of a US law effectively crippling moderation.
Does this have the potential to end PB as a discussion forum? It has a US based moderator, but more than that it has Vanilla as a forum provider, a .com address and so forth. Any US exposure potentially runs counter to it being able to comply with the moderation required to meet UK libel law, doesn't it? Any PB lawyers care to comment on the extent of the headache here?
It’s all bluster. The EU will simply block sites that do not have content moderation, and the UK will continue to enable libel suits.
If Trump wants to pick a fight with the EU then doing so on consumer regulation and data privacy is just about the stupidest possible decision. He’d basically be launching a frontal attack on the bloc’s most powerful forces.
More US legal imperialism. We got a taste of that with the extradition treaty absurdity, which we've somehow come to accept as a fact of life.
A US/EU contest, which seems to be coming in stuff like this, tariffs, and potentially Ukraine, is going to require us to take sides. The middle ground will likely be a very uncomfortable place. And either choice is going to come with painful costs.
Richard - there is no such thing as a general election in terms of all votes being counted together. A General Election isn’t one election, it is 650 held simultaneously. How many votes are tallied across 650 is irrelevant under FPTP. All that matters is how many votes are given in any given constituency.
How did we win so many seats? By recognising this reality and playing the rules. Seeking to gain the maximum number of votes in specific constituencies. Reform don’t do that. So they don’t win.
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
Rabbitnomics is a thing you know. It’s founded in what Lady Thatcher actually done to be a legendary leader.
Bank of England and Sunak’s government knew who were profiteering and ripping customers off under cover of inflation period, were frustrated by it. If they had got back in, and obviously needed to raise money straight away - headroom for pre election giveaways stolen from future years departmental spending - who do we think they would have gone after, how do we think they would have raised it?
There’s a second take on BoE, Sunak’s government lobbying of the profiteers to play fair with struggling households, from the Daily Mail, attacking Hunt and Sunak for doing it. Tory MPs lined up to join the Mail to criticise it.
The Conservative Party and the Tory Press are not Thatcherite anymore. Thatcherite economics would struggle in this environment today. I was musing why, what is different now?
is it money? MPs attacking Hunt and Sunak for oh so gently saying please don’t profiteer right now people are struggling - are these MPs lobbied and rewarded for doing so, is this how UK democracy now works?
Really, has the energy price cap reduced the cost of energy would you say?
You have claimed you are Thatcherite LuckyGuy - Thatcher and Thatcherism and Thatcherite economics would have been on the side of households during historic disaster for household incomes. What Sunak and Hunt gently asked for, and got attacked by own side for doing so, I think Thatcherism would have implemented waving away all the bleatings.
Cosplay Thatcher PM Liz Truss, refused to windfall tax the energy profits - even though Lady Thatcher actually done just that, waving away all the bleatings.
Something has changed. Something is different. Is it you, and how you now see things?
I wasn’t even alive when Lady Thatcher ran the country, but seem to have more understanding what made her great than those of you who were there.
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
I am amused by people thinking that increasing business costs won’t result in higher prices.
When the cost of labour went up, due to post COVID pay rises, I don’t recall any claims that this wouldn’t result in price inflation. It did.
Now the cost of labour has gone up for a different reason.
It’s a desperate kind of populism to claim that this won’t have an effect.
The thing is that while the NI bill for Tesco is increasing by £200m - that's less than 0.5% of their turnover.
They should be easily able to increase their prices to cover it.
Increase their prices? That’s the point, the cost of labour has gone up. So will prices.
It’s the denial that this will happen, that is populist nonesense.
Its easy to increase prices if you have a domestic market who have no option but to buy from yourself.
It might be harder for those who rely on export markets or who have foreign competition.
Indeed.
Part of the problem in politics is that policy *has* to be populist, these days. Consider IHT on farms.
- it won’t actually effect farmers, because they will all do inheritance planning - It will raise billions because all the people using farm land for IHT planning will be unable to anything about it.
So it will simultaneously raise vast sums of money, not raise money, not trap people in IHT and only trap bad people in IHT.
My Super Simple (TM) idea for immigration is to create a cap based on three key factors. You could call it a "triple lock" if you like.
The rule is simple - immigration can never exceed the following:
New houses built (absolute) Proportion of beds available in the NHS expressed as a percentage of the general population % Increase in transport capacity
So if we build 300,000 new homes in 2025, the maximum amount of immigration in 2025 is 300,000.
But. If NHS capacity only rises by 0.1%, immigration would be capped at 0.1% of the current population, so 68,000.
Same for transport. Which I've picked as it takes time and planning and works as a proxy for 'general levels of infrastructure spending needed to support a growing population'.
Such a policy would please the likes of Reform voters, as they would imagine it would bring immigration down to, say, 68,000. I happen to believe the opposite is the case - we'd start building a f--kton more houses, hospitals, and roads.
And for anybody who thinks this idea is bonkers, I put the opposite to you:
What kind of madness leads a country to welcome hundreds of thousands of new immigrants each year while building a fraction of the number of houses, hospitals and roads needed to support them?
Exactly. The NHS operates at near capacity, we have a terrible housing stock and low rate of new building, our infrastructure projects are an absolute joke. Only someone who has lost their marbles would think that a rapidly expanding population, mainly due to immigration, would be a good thing in such circumstances. But that's where the UK has been for essentially 25+ years now. So it's no surprise that a lot of problems have got worse.
You Super Simple idea might not be entirely practical but it is definitely along the lines of what we should be doing.
One problem with that is that NHS beds spare or not are not a measure of capacity. And immigrants do not have a similar propensity to use the NHS as resident population.
eg In the 1980s I went in overnight for an ingrowing toe nail; in the 2010s I had an ingrowing toenail done in 30 minutes at the GP surgery.
Similarly on housing, immigrant family structures may well be different.
And the same goes for transport capacity. How on earth does one measure that?
What I am saying is that it is not a simple thing, and that is inherent. It also makes assumptions about demand vs supply - both of which can be influenced.
While it's a ridiculously simplistic model, I chose the metrics because they were fairly easily observable (I once did a consultancy project on road capacity - it's actually quite easy to measure!) and act as a general proxy for capacity for the UK to absorb levels of immigration.
Would you agree with the broad thrust of my argument that housing, health and infrastructure capacity need to rise broadly in line with the general population, or do you think it's acceptable that all three have lagged behind population growth over the last twenty years?
A better critique of my Super Simple idea might be to point out the lack of either cultural or local factors. E.g. under the Super Simple idea, you would be able to dump a million immigrants in a small Northern town by building a few houses, roads and hospitals in London.
Which is actually a simplified view of what has happened over the last 20 years. We've increased investment in places like London, while neglecting other towns. Hence my thesis that the riots this summer happened in places where competition for scarce resources is at its most fierce. London didn't riot, but Middlesbrough did.
On topic: grateful to those who stand and campaign and to the PB team who contribute by providing this forum and through it the wider political discourse.
FPT: which leads me on to ask about the potential legal implications to PB of a US law effectively crippling moderation.
Does this have the potential to end PB as a discussion forum? It has a US based moderator, but more than that it has Vanilla as a forum provider, a .com address and so forth. Any US exposure potentially runs counter to it being able to comply with the moderation required to meet UK libel law, doesn't it? Any PB lawyers care to comment on the extent of the headache here?
It’s all bluster. The EU will simply block sites that do not have content moderation, and the UK will continue to enable libel suits.
If Trump wants to pick a fight with the EU then doing so on consumer regulation and data privacy is just about the stupidest possible decision. He’d basically be launching a frontal attack on the bloc’s most powerful forces.
More US legal imperialism. We got a taste of that with the extradition treaty absurdity, which we've somehow come to accept as a fact of life.
A US/EU contest, which seems to be coming in stuff like this, tariffs, and potentially Ukraine, is going to require us to take sides. The middle ground will likely be a very uncomfortable place. And either choice is going to come with painful costs.
Good job our politicians are bound to have started thinking about this back in 2016 and will have excellent plans in place by now.
Europe should come up with a Ukraine funding plan to provide military and financial support (the £300bn frozen assets?) if Trump proceeds with his immediate peace plan initiative. It would at least show that we are prepared to continue offering support and gives Zelensky some cards to play at the negotiating table. We should also make it clear that we want Ukraine to be able to strike Russian military targets inside Russia with our weapons. Put the ball in the Trump administration's court to see if they refuse.
Putin seems to be escalating to the maximum now in preparation for Trump's arrival. Going slow on Ukraine support for the next two months would be unbelievably stupid and unforgivable.
There's the massive issue of US reconnaissance support, which Trump is threatening to limit.
Europe simply doesn't have the assets to replace that. And if Musk starts blocking Starlink for the Ukrainian military ...
A better question might be: why do you do what you do in the way that you do it?
Because on most of the conventional metrics, Kamala should have won. She had more money than Trump's campaign; a stronger ground game with more activists; more adverts.
And here in July, Reform picked up more votes than the LibDems despite a shambolic campaign.
So maybe you are wasting time as well as blood delivering leaflets.
72 LD MPs to 5 Reform suggest it wasn't wasted time.
Not sure that is a direct correlation. What do door knockers and leafleters achieve? Reform got 600,000 more votes than the Lib Dems. Yes the Lib Dems got far more seats which is what matters but I don't see how you can say that is due to more leaflets and door knockers.
The crucial difference isn't the groundwork done in the six weeks of an election campaign but the work done in the preceding months and years. I've not checked but I reckon there will be a strong correlation between success at local level and success at Parliamentary level for the LDs - every one of the 60 seats gained will have started from progress at the rounds of local elections in 2022 and 2023 (especially).
I also suspect the seats held by the Conservatives were the ones with the strongest local organisation (and the weakest opposition organisation) whereas those where the Conservative local organisation had disintegrated saw the sharpest falls in vote shares as Reform, Labour, LD or Greens as appropriate feasted on the Tory carcass.
Reform have worked this out - that's why they are starting to build local branches, put up candidates in local by-elections and Farage himself has said the LD organisation is what he wants Reform to emulate.
IF he succeeds, Reform will be the big threat to BOTH Labour and Conservative next time - of the 50 Reform targets, 27 are held by Labour and 23 by the Conservatives. Labour can afford to lose 27, can the Conservatives afford to lose 23?
Just back from the local Remembrance service. Couple of points, re earlier posts. Since retiring I've been active in the nearest u3a, and for the local museum, which is entirely volunteer run both of which have brought me plenty of new friends. Particularly important as we'd moved. Mrs C, similarly, joined the local WI and was on the committee for a while, although that's not really her thing. One does need an interest after retiring. Secondly we've a couple of Independent local councillors who regularly seen out and about. We never saw the Conservatives except at election times. We've also a Green County Councillor who frequently issues newsletters and similar about County issues.
One on topic for this post. If the Tories lose 23 seats to Reform and some to the LD's they are in serious danger of becoming the third party in Parliament.
I just watched Trump's all out war on the cartels speech. This is why Americans voted for him, fundamentally he's pledging to keep them safe in a way that Kamala would never have done.
Hence Jenrick over Kemi (for me) - his supposed unpleasantness as an individual doesn't matter. As you said in your excellent header, it's whether your life will get better, not whether they're sympathetic/admirable/tick the right boxes/win the beauty contest anymore. You have faith in Kemi to do this - let's hope so, but she'd better get some policies fast, and they'd better be good ones.
Why does she need policies fast? She isn't going to be in a position to implement them for at least 5 years
Three 'P's. Philosophy, principle, policy. Philosophy is your fundamental worldview regardless. Principle is the underlying political philosophy you hold in the light of where we are now in relation to your philosophy. Policy is the detailed implementation plan for the next 5 days to 5 years.
At this moment Kemi needs to articulate principle, but in such a way as show if there is genuine distinction between her and the others, or whether it is just rhetoric.
What people are mostly voting on in trust and competence. There are few other distinctive marks. (Though Reform is an exception. No-one is voting for them because of their immense supply of either).
On topic: grateful to those who stand and campaign and to the PB team who contribute by providing this forum and through it the wider political discourse.
FPT: which leads me on to ask about the potential legal implications to PB of a US law effectively crippling moderation.
Does this have the potential to end PB as a discussion forum? It has a US based moderator, but more than that it has Vanilla as a forum provider, a .com address and so forth. Any US exposure potentially runs counter to it being able to comply with the moderation required to meet UK libel law, doesn't it? Any PB lawyers care to comment on the extent of the headache here?
It’s all bluster. The EU will simply block sites that do not have content moderation, and the UK will continue to enable libel suits.
If Trump wants to pick a fight with the EU then doing so on consumer regulation and data privacy is just about the stupidest possible decision. He’d basically be launching a frontal attack on the bloc’s most powerful forces.
More US legal imperialism. We got a taste of that with the extradition treaty absurdity, which we've somehow come to accept as a fact of life.
A US/EU contest, which seems to be coming in stuff like this, tariffs, and potentially Ukraine, is going to require us to take sides. The middle ground will likely be a very uncomfortable place. And either choice is going to come with painful costs.
That would be the extradition treaty under which the US sends us everyone we ask for, and we send/don’t send after long arguments in court?
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
Rabbitnomics is a thing you know. It’s founded in what Lady Thatcher actually done to be a legendary leader.
Bank of England and Sunak’s government knew who were profiteering and ripping customers off under cover of inflation period, were frustrated by it. If they had got back in, and obviously needed to raise money straight away - headroom for pre election giveaways stolen from future years departmental spending - who do we think they would have gone after, how do we think they would have raised it?
There’s a second take on BoE, Sunak’s government lobbying of the profiteers to play fair with struggling households, from the Daily Mail, attacking Hunt and Sunak for doing it. Tory MPs lined up to join the Mail to criticise it.
The Conservative Party and the Tory Press are not Thatcherite anymore. Thatcherite economics would struggle in this environment today. I was musing why, what is different now?
is it money? MPs attacking Hunt and Sunak for oh so gently saying please don’t profiteer right now people are struggling - are these MPs lobbied and rewarded for doing so, is this how UK democracy now works?
Really, has the energy price cap reduced the cost of energy would you say?
You have claimed you are Thatcherite LuckyGuy - Thatcher and Thatcherism and Thatcherite economics would have been on the side of households during historic disaster for household incomes. What Sunak and Hunt gently asked for, and got attacked by own side for doing so, I think Thatcherism would have implemented waving away all the bleatings.
Cosplay Thatcher PM Liz Truss, refused to windfall tax the energy profits - even though Lady Thatcher actually done just that, waving away all the bleatings.
Something has changed. Something is different. Is it you, and how you now see things?
I wasn’t even alive when Lady Thatcher ran the country, but seem to have more understanding what made her great than those of you who were there.
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
Rabbitnomics is a thing you know. It’s founded in what Lady Thatcher actually done to be a legendary leader.
Bank of England and Sunak’s government knew who were profiteering and ripping customers off under cover of inflation period, were frustrated by it. If they had got back in, and obviously needed to raise money straight away - headroom for pre election giveaways stolen from future years departmental spending - who do we think they would have gone after, how do we think they would have raised it?
There’s a second take on BoE, Sunak’s government lobbying of the profiteers to play fair with struggling households, from the Daily Mail, attacking Hunt and Sunak for doing it. Tory MPs lined up to join the Mail to criticise it.
The Conservative Party and the Tory Press are not Thatcherite anymore. Thatcherite economics would struggle in this environment today. I was musing why, what is different now?
is it money? MPs attacking Hunt and Sunak for oh so gently saying please don’t profiteer right now people are struggling - are these MPs lobbied and rewarded for doing so, is this how UK democracy now works?
Really, has the energy price cap reduced the cost of energy would you say?
You have claimed you are Thatcherite LuckyGuy - Thatcher and Thatcherism and Thatcherite economics would have been on the side of households during historic disaster for household incomes. What Sunak and Hunt gently asked for, and got attacked by own side for doing so, I think Thatcherism would have implemented waving away all the bleatings.
Cosplay Thatcher PM Liz Truss, refused to windfall tax the energy profits - even though Lady Thatcher actually done just that, waving away all the bleatings.
Something has changed. Something is different. Is it you, and how you now see things?
I wasn’t even alive when Lady Thatcher ran the country, but seem to have more understanding what made her great than those of you who were there.
Thatcher put up VAT. Substantially.
And was forthright that her policies had downsides. She believed that the upside of the policies exceeded the downside. And fought and won multiple elections on that pitch.
On topic: that looks like a decent result for you, given you might have been squeezed. There must be potential for your party locally?
You can't actually be "squeezed" in an STV election. The LDs already have a councillor in the ward, but they are unlikely to win 2 in all-out elections.
Of course you can be squeezed. A significant number of voters express a single preference only.
Overall in the 4 NE Seats the Lib Dems are up about 7% per seat and did not go backwards in one. That despite Reform picking up 9% of the vote from nowhere. The Tories were up 5% and SNP down 2%. Labour down 5% and nearly wiped out.
My father used to stand as a LIb Dem councillor in Aberdeen 40 years ago when the Lib Dems were strong in the area. The trend is very much coming back to the Scottish Lib Dems and should expect at least one maybe 2 regional seats for the NE in the 2026 elections.
The right wing swing in the working class fishing port of Fraserburgh is stunning. In 2012 the Tories had 6% now the combined Tory / Reform vote is 61%.
Europe should come up with a Ukraine funding plan to provide military and financial support (the £300bn frozen assets?) if Trump proceeds with his immediate peace plan initiative. It would at least show that we are prepared to continue offering support and gives Zelensky some cards to play at the negotiating table. We should also make it clear that we want Ukraine to be able to strike Russian military targets inside Russia with our weapons. Put the ball in the Trump administration's court to see if they refuse.
Putin seems to be escalating to the maximum now in preparation for Trump's arrival. Going slow on Ukraine support for the next two months would be unbelievably stupid and unforgivable.
But we had a link earlier showing that Russia is outproducing the whole of the rest of Europe in munitions. It's not just a question of money, its a question of having the right munitions and kit to replace what is lost in a war of savage attrition.
There is no doubt that the EU and the UK have far more industrial capacity but we have chosen to let the US spend its money and munitions on this instead. And, come January, that is going to stop. I fear it is already too late for us to replace what the US has been providing.
This is obviously a tragedy for Ukraine but it is a serious threat to our security as well. A triumphant Putin is going to be far more dangerous as it becomes ever clearer that the US defence umbrella is no longer there. We need to build an alternative with our allies that is not dependent upon American assistance. The world has changed.
On topic: grateful to those who stand and campaign and to the PB team who contribute by providing this forum and through it the wider political discourse.
FPT: which leads me on to ask about the potential legal implications to PB of a US law effectively crippling moderation.
Does this have the potential to end PB as a discussion forum? It has a US based moderator, but more than that it has Vanilla as a forum provider, a .com address and so forth. Any US exposure potentially runs counter to it being able to comply with the moderation required to meet UK libel law, doesn't it? Any PB lawyers care to comment on the extent of the headache here?
It’s all bluster. The EU will simply block sites that do not have content moderation, and the UK will continue to enable libel suits.
If Trump wants to pick a fight with the EU then doing so on consumer regulation and data privacy is just about the stupidest possible decision. He’d basically be launching a frontal attack on the bloc’s most powerful forces.
More US legal imperialism. We got a taste of that with the extradition treaty absurdity, which we've somehow come to accept as a fact of life.
A US/EU contest, which seems to be coming in stuff like this, tariffs, and potentially Ukraine, is going to require us to take sides. The middle ground will likely be a very uncomfortable place. And either choice is going to come with painful costs.
Good job our politicians are bound to have started thinking about this back in 2016 and will have excellent plans in place by now.
Indeed. The fiscal/budget/borrowing policy of all UK governments since 2008 mean that current plans have no space, and can have no place, for a further expensive black swan crisis. At the same time the list of white swan possible expensive crises is quite long and getting longer. And black swans are always possible.
An 80 minute queue for immigration then total anarchy getting a taxi. Like Bangkok 30 years ago but with more guns
On the other hand they might have bars where you can drink without needing to buy an entire fermented sting ray
I was wrong
Apparently the only place you can get a drink is mad local restaurants. With menu items like
Dried pot bullfrog Flavour of chicken feet Order food Trichosanguine [hairy blood??]
And
Smelly snails
This is quite possibly the most off putting menu in the history of rebarbartive menus. I love it
They don’t do gin and tonics
I’m torn. I can’t decide between ordering some smelly snails or ordering a nice tasty dish of “order food”
Go for the happy flower nail.
You say that but what if this is some really cheerful rosy plant in a pot and when they bring it to the table they rip it out of the pot - alive - and then nail it to a plank in front of you, then serve it up, a bit like those guys that wheel out little trolleys and elaborately make steak tartare or flambé crepes?
On topic: grateful to those who stand and campaign and to the PB team who contribute by providing this forum and through it the wider political discourse.
FPT: which leads me on to ask about the potential legal implications to PB of a US law effectively crippling moderation.
Does this have the potential to end PB as a discussion forum? It has a US based moderator, but more than that it has Vanilla as a forum provider, a .com address and so forth. Any US exposure potentially runs counter to it being able to comply with the moderation required to meet UK libel law, doesn't it? Any PB lawyers care to comment on the extent of the headache here?
It’s all bluster. The EU will simply block sites that do not have content moderation, and the UK will continue to enable libel suits.
If Trump wants to pick a fight with the EU then doing so on consumer regulation and data privacy is just about the stupidest possible decision. He’d basically be launching a frontal attack on the bloc’s most powerful forces.
More US legal imperialism. We got a taste of that with the extradition treaty absurdity, which we've somehow come to accept as a fact of life.
A US/EU contest, which seems to be coming in stuff like this, tariffs, and potentially Ukraine, is going to require us to take sides. The middle ground will likely be a very uncomfortable place. And either choice is going to come with painful costs.
Good job our politicians are bound to have started thinking about this back in 2016 and will have excellent plans in place by now.
One thing that I'm musing about is how far Trump is overreaching. He thinks the USA is predominant in a monopolar world, and I don't think it is any more.
In 1960 the USA share of world GDP was 40%. Now it is 24%.
I'm interested in the Big Man responses on social media from Trump supporters, along the lines of "we define how it is - you have to deal with it". That was Musk's attitude when he was called out for breaking EU and UK law with his management of / behaviour on twitter. And it's like Trump's assumption that he can do whatever he likes, whenever and wherever he likes, and no one can do a damn thing about it so will just have to pipe down.
He's trying to behave like the British Empire did in the late 19C (eg Opium War), or the USA did around the time they fomented the Spanish-American War. In Ukraine he imagines that he can impose a solution that will dismember a sovereign country.
He's actually burning down the bridges to his (current) friends, and cutting off the USA. And if he demands that Europe stand on it's own two feet, when it actually starts doing so it reduces his leverage.
IMO the more dangerous lies and delusions are the ones that he is telling himself.
The questions for Europe and others are ... what will we do.
An 80 minute queue for immigration then total anarchy getting a taxi. Like Bangkok 30 years ago but with more guns
On the other hand they might have bars where you can drink without needing to buy an entire fermented sting ray
I was wrong
Apparently the only place you can get a drink is mad local restaurants. With menu items like
Dried pot bullfrog Flavour of chicken feet Order food Trichosanguine [hairy blood??]
And
Smelly snails
This is quite possibly the most off putting menu in the history of rebarbartive menus. I love it
They don’t do gin and tonics
I’m torn. I can’t decide between ordering some smelly snails or ordering a nice tasty dish of “order food”
Go for the happy flower nail.
You say that but what if this is some really cheerful rosy plant in a pot and when they bring it to the table they rip it out of the pot - alive - and then nail it to a plank in front of you, then serve it up, a bit like those guys that wheel out little trolleys and elaborately make steak tartare or flambé crepes?
Europe should come up with a Ukraine funding plan to provide military and financial support (the £300bn frozen assets?) if Trump proceeds with his immediate peace plan initiative. It would at least show that we are prepared to continue offering support and gives Zelensky some cards to play at the negotiating table. We should also make it clear that we want Ukraine to be able to strike Russian military targets inside Russia with our weapons. Put the ball in the Trump administration's court to see if they refuse.
Putin seems to be escalating to the maximum now in preparation for Trump's arrival. Going slow on Ukraine support for the next two months would be unbelievably stupid and unforgivable.
But we had a link earlier showing that Russia is outproducing the whole of the rest of Europe in munitions. It's not just a question of money, its a question of having the right munitions and kit to replace what is lost in a war of savage attrition.
There is no doubt that the EU and the UK have far more industrial capacity but we have chosen to let the US spend its money and munitions on this instead. And, come January, that is going to stop. I fear it is already too late for us to replace what the US has been providing.
This is obviously a tragedy for Ukraine but it is a serious threat to our security as well. A triumphant Putin is going to be far more dangerous as it becomes ever clearer that the US defence umbrella is no longer there. We need to build an alternative with our allies that is not dependent upon American assistance. The world has changed.
Western strategic thinking over the last twenty years:
1) Nothing is going to happen
2) Something is happening but its not important
3) Its important but there's nothing we can do about it
4) Maybe there's something we could have done about it but its too late now
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
An 80 minute queue for immigration then total anarchy getting a taxi. Like Bangkok 30 years ago but with more guns
On the other hand they might have bars where you can drink without needing to buy an entire fermented sting ray
I was wrong
Apparently the only place you can get a drink is mad local restaurants. With menu items like
Dried pot bullfrog Flavour of chicken feet Order food Trichosanguine [hairy blood??]
And
Smelly snails
This is quite possibly the most off putting menu in the history of rebarbartive menus. I love it
They don’t do gin and tonics
I’m torn. I can’t decide between ordering some smelly snails or ordering a nice tasty dish of “order food”
Go for the happy flower nail.
You say that but what if this is some really cheerful rosy plant in a pot and when they bring it to the table they rip it out of the pot - alive - and then nail it to a plank in front of you, then serve it up, a bit like those guys that wheel out little trolleys and elaborately make steak tartare or flambé crepes?
There's always the fried soup.
There's 75 pesos to the pound. You can order all of them and still get the meal past the accountants
Has anyone been to the Philippines and ordered the local delicacy: “order food”?
Or should I play it safe and stick to the hairy blood?
It might be worth investing a bit of time in Tagalog. I was being told on Friday that there is a trial coming up and that there are only 2 approved Tagalog interpreters in the UK so they can pretty much name their price. It also means that it is pretty much impossible for 2 trials of Tagalog speakers to proceed in the UK at the same time.
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
The Ukraine victory plan seems wholly unrealistic at this point.
I think it’s pretty clear Russia is keeping Crimea. Trump’s team have said as much.
A better question might be: why do you do what you do in the way that you do it?
Because on most of the conventional metrics, Kamala should have won. She had more money than Trump's campaign; a stronger ground game with more activists; more adverts.
And here in July, Reform picked up more votes than the LibDems despite a shambolic campaign.
So maybe you are wasting time as well as blood delivering leaflets.
72 LD MPs to 5 Reform suggest it wasn't wasted time.
Not sure that is a direct correlation. What do door knockers and leafleters achieve? Reform got 600,000 more votes than the Lib Dems. Yes the Lib Dems got far more seats which is what matters but I don't see how you can say that is due to more leaflets and door knockers.
The crucial difference isn't the groundwork done in the six weeks of an election campaign but the work done in the preceding months and years. I've not checked but I reckon there will be a strong correlation between success at local level and success at Parliamentary level for the LDs - every one of the 60 seats gained will have started from progress at the rounds of local elections in 2022 and 2023 (especially).
I also suspect the seats held by the Conservatives were the ones with the strongest local organisation (and the weakest opposition organisation) whereas those where the Conservative local organisation had disintegrated saw the sharpest falls in vote shares as Reform, Labour, LD or Greens as appropriate feasted on the Tory carcass.
Reform have worked this out - that's why they are starting to build local branches, put up candidates in local by-elections and Farage himself has said the LD organisation is what he wants Reform to emulate.
IF he succeeds, Reform will be the big threat to BOTH Labour and Conservative next time - of the 50 Reform targets, 27 are held by Labour and 23 by the Conservatives. Labour can afford to lose 27, can the Conservatives afford to lose 23?
The question there is whether Reform have the ability, skill base, information or the capacity to do that effectively.
Do see any evidence that they do or will?
One problem they have is a total absence of coherent policy, replaced by partisan whackery.
The IFS assessment of the Reform Manifesto was damning. They are inhabitants of cloud-cuckoo land: Carl Emmerson, deputy director at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: “Reform UK proposes tax cuts that it estimates would cost nearly £90 billion per year, and spending increases of £50 billion per year. It claims that it would pay for these through £150 billion per year of reductions in other spending, covering public services, debt interest and working-age benefits.
This would represent a big cut to the size of the state. Regardless of the pros and cons of shrinking the state, or of any of their specific measures, the package as a whole is problematic. Spending reductions would save less than stated, and the tax cuts would cost more than stated, by a margin of tens of billions of pounds per year. Meanwhile the spending increases would cost more than stated if they are to achieve their objectives. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/reform-uk-manifesto-reaction
An 80 minute queue for immigration then total anarchy getting a taxi. Like Bangkok 30 years ago but with more guns
On the other hand they might have bars where you can drink without needing to buy an entire fermented sting ray
I was wrong
Apparently the only place you can get a drink is mad local restaurants. With menu items like
Dried pot bullfrog Flavour of chicken feet Order food Trichosanguine [hairy blood??]
And
Smelly snails
This is quite possibly the most off putting menu in the history of rebarbartive menus. I love it
They don’t do gin and tonics
I’m torn. I can’t decide between ordering some smelly snails or ordering a nice tasty dish of “order food”
Go for the happy flower nail.
You say that but what if this is some really cheerful rosy plant in a pot and when they bring it to the table they rip it out of the pot - alive - and then nail it to a plank in front of you, then serve it up, a bit like those guys that wheel out little trolleys and elaborately make steak tartare or flambé crepes?
There's always the fried soup.
There's 75 pesos to the pound. You can order all of them and still get the meal past the accountants
I think you should find out what the red thumbs up sign next to two of the items means.
On topic: that looks like a decent result for you, given you might have been squeezed. There must be potential for your party locally?
You can't actually be "squeezed" in an STV election. The LDs already have a councillor in the ward, but they are unlikely to win 2 in all-out elections.
Of course you can be squeezed. A significant number of voters express a single preference only.
Overall in the 4 NE Seats the Lib Dems are up about 7% per seat and did not go backwards in one. That despite Reform picking up 9% of the vote from nowhere. The Tories were up 5% and SNP down 2%. Labour down 5% and nearly wiped out.
My father used to stand as a LIb Dem councillor in Aberdeen 40 years ago when the Lib Dems were strong in the area. The trend is very much coming back to the Scottish Lib Dems and should expect at least one maybe 2 regional seats for the NE in the 2026 elections.
The right wing swing in the working class fishing port of Fraserburgh is stunning. In 2012 the Tories had 6% now the combined Tory / Reform vote is 61%.
I understand it. The Broch is sinking, metaphorically speaking. Reliant on a fishing industry which can’t catch a break, surrounded by farming which can’t catch a break. Endless budget cuts have cut basic services like health and education, there are few answers and voters find themselves stuck in an endless blame game between the Tories and the SNP as to who is to blame.
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
With regards to your point about being tough in negotiations, I agree: If Trump threatens to cut off funding for Ukraine, leading to a Korean style frozen conflict over current borders, European countries should collectively say ok then, we will supply Ukraine with nukes to ensure Russia goes no further.
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
The Ukraine victory plan seems wholly unrealistic at this point.
I think it’s pretty clear Russia is keeping Crimea. Trump’s team have said as much.
More importantly, no-one is talking about giving Ukraine what it would need to get Crimea back. No-one.
Europe should come up with a Ukraine funding plan to provide military and financial support (the £300bn frozen assets?) if Trump proceeds with his immediate peace plan initiative. It would at least show that we are prepared to continue offering support and gives Zelensky some cards to play at the negotiating table. We should also make it clear that we want Ukraine to be able to strike Russian military targets inside Russia with our weapons. Put the ball in the Trump administration's court to see if they refuse.
Putin seems to be escalating to the maximum now in preparation for Trump's arrival. Going slow on Ukraine support for the next two months would be unbelievably stupid and unforgivable.
But we had a link earlier showing that Russia is outproducing the whole of the rest of Europe in munitions. It's not just a question of money, its a question of having the right munitions and kit to replace what is lost in a war of savage attrition.
There is no doubt that the EU and the UK have far more industrial capacity but we have chosen to let the US spend its money and munitions on this instead. And, come January, that is going to stop. I fear it is already too late for us to replace what the US has been providing.
This is obviously a tragedy for Ukraine but it is a serious threat to our security as well. A triumphant Putin is going to be far more dangerous as it becomes ever clearer that the US defence umbrella is no longer there. We need to build an alternative with our allies that is not dependent upon American assistance. The world has changed.
Western strategic thinking over the last twenty years:
1) Nothing is going to happen
2) Something is happening but its not important
3) Its important but there's nothing we can do about it
4) Maybe there's something we could have done about it but its too late now
I think its even worse. In most cases it has been:
1) This is America's problem not ours.
2) We voted for (vetoed) resolutions in the UN, what more do you want?
3) Oh, gosh, we wouldn't have done that, leading to
4) some sort of moral equivalism so we feel less guilty about failing to act decisively ourselves.
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
Rabbitnomics is a thing you know. It’s founded in what Lady Thatcher actually done to be a legendary leader.
Bank of England and Sunak’s government knew who were profiteering and ripping customers off under cover of inflation period, were frustrated by it. If they had got back in, and obviously needed to raise money straight away - headroom for pre election giveaways stolen from future years departmental spending - who do we think they would have gone after, how do we think they would have raised it?
There’s a second take on BoE, Sunak’s government lobbying of the profiteers to play fair with struggling households, from the Daily Mail, attacking Hunt and Sunak for doing it. Tory MPs lined up to join the Mail to criticise it.
The Conservative Party and the Tory Press are not Thatcherite anymore. Thatcherite economics would struggle in this environment today. I was musing why, what is different now?
is it money? MPs attacking Hunt and Sunak for oh so gently saying please don’t profiteer right now people are struggling - are these MPs lobbied and rewarded for doing so, is this how UK democracy now works?
Really, has the energy price cap reduced the cost of energy would you say?
You have claimed you are Thatcherite LuckyGuy - Thatcher and Thatcherism and Thatcherite economics would have been on the side of households during historic disaster for household incomes. What Sunak and Hunt gently asked for, and got attacked by own side for doing so, I think Thatcherism would have implemented waving away all the bleatings.
Cosplay Thatcher PM Liz Truss, refused to windfall tax the energy profits - even though Lady Thatcher actually done just that, waving away all the bleatings.
Something has changed. Something is different. Is it you, and how you now see things?
I wasn’t even alive when Lady Thatcher ran the country, but seem to have more understanding what made her great than those of you who were there.
Thatcher put up VAT. Substantially.
And in doubling VAT, Mrs Thatcher doubled inflation. The first thing that made Mrs Thatcher great was her enemies abroad and opponents at home. Without those, she'd have been a one-term Prime Minister, and possibly less than that.
Europe should come up with a Ukraine funding plan to provide military and financial support (the £300bn frozen assets?) if Trump proceeds with his immediate peace plan initiative. It would at least show that we are prepared to continue offering support and gives Zelensky some cards to play at the negotiating table. We should also make it clear that we want Ukraine to be able to strike Russian military targets inside Russia with our weapons. Put the ball in the Trump administration's court to see if they refuse.
Putin seems to be escalating to the maximum now in preparation for Trump's arrival. Going slow on Ukraine support for the next two months would be unbelievably stupid and unforgivable.
But we had a link earlier showing that Russia is outproducing the whole of the rest of Europe in munitions. It's not just a question of money, its a question of having the right munitions and kit to replace what is lost in a war of savage attrition.
There is no doubt that the EU and the UK have far more industrial capacity but we have chosen to let the US spend its money and munitions on this instead. And, come January, that is going to stop. I fear it is already too late for us to replace what the US has been providing.
This is obviously a tragedy for Ukraine but it is a serious threat to our security as well. A triumphant Putin is going to be far more dangerous as it becomes ever clearer that the US defence umbrella is no longer there. We need to build an alternative with our allies that is not dependent upon American assistance. The world has changed.
Western strategic thinking over the last twenty years:
1) Nothing is going to happen
2) Something is happening but its not important
3) Its important but there's nothing we can do about it
4) Maybe there's something we could have done about it but its too late now
I think its even worse. In most cases it has been:
1) This is America's problem not ours.
2) We voted for (vetoed) resolutions in the UN, what more do you want?
3) Oh, gosh, we wouldn't have done that, leading to
4) some sort of moral equivalism so we feel less guilty about failing to act decisively ourselves.
5) complain the Americans didn’t do what we wanted them to do. While aggressively pushing back on the idea that if we want to be in charge, we need to put the majority of effort in.
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
With regards to your point about being tough in negotiations, I agree: If Trump threatens to cut off funding for Ukraine, leading to a Korean style frozen conflict over current borders, European countries should collectively say ok then, we will supply Ukraine with nukes to ensure Russia goes no further.
Let's see how Trump likes that one.
With these people you have to play hardball.
Can we please stop saying Korean style frozen conflict. The comparison is just ridiculous.
Europe should come up with a Ukraine funding plan to provide military and financial support (the £300bn frozen assets?) if Trump proceeds with his immediate peace plan initiative. It would at least show that we are prepared to continue offering support and gives Zelensky some cards to play at the negotiating table. We should also make it clear that we want Ukraine to be able to strike Russian military targets inside Russia with our weapons. Put the ball in the Trump administration's court to see if they refuse.
Putin seems to be escalating to the maximum now in preparation for Trump's arrival. Going slow on Ukraine support for the next two months would be unbelievably stupid and unforgivable.
There's the massive issue of US reconnaissance support, which Trump is threatening to limit.
Europe simply doesn't have the assets to replace that. And if Musk starts blocking Starlink for the Ukrainian military ...
One thing that has not been discussed is the division within the Republican party. Many of those elected to Congress are Reaganite republicans. The staunchest Ukrainian supporters (as well as enemies) in Washington have been Republicans. It remains to be seen whether this becomes a moment for them equivalent to what Brexit was for the Tories.
A better question might be: why do you do what you do in the way that you do it?
Because on most of the conventional metrics, Kamala should have won. She had more money than Trump's campaign; a stronger ground game with more activists; more adverts.
And here in July, Reform picked up more votes than the LibDems despite a shambolic campaign.
So maybe you are wasting time as well as blood delivering leaflets.
As JFK said (almost), “We choose to stand as a LibDem candidate not because it is easy, but because it is hard.”
Has anyone been to the Philippines and ordered the local delicacy: “order food”?
Or should I play it safe and stick to the hairy blood?
It might be worth investing a bit of time in Tagalog. I was being told on Friday that there is a trial coming up and that there are only 2 approved Tagalog interpreters in the UK so they can pretty much name their price. It also means that it is pretty much impossible for 2 trials of Tagalog speakers to proceed in the UK at the same time.
That seems strange, as there are quite a lot of pinoys and pinays. Maybe they are all happily working in the NHS but it is a good retraining option for any who want a career change or lose their jobs
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
With regards to your point about being tough in negotiations, I agree: If Trump threatens to cut off funding for Ukraine, leading to a Korean style frozen conflict over current borders, European countries should collectively say ok then, we will supply Ukraine with nukes to ensure Russia goes no further.
Let's see how Trump likes that one.
With these people you have to play hardball.
The likely response to the peace you outline, who be a frenetic effort to reestablish Russian gas sales in Europe. Not to give the Ukrainians nuclear weapons.
I was wondering, just yesterday about Aldermaston cooking up a nice, low maintenance nuclear weapon. 120kt, HEU core, no boosting. Get the high yield from a big, hollow core with core levitation, plus high efficiency compression. Think two point implosion.
HEU and no boosting means you could have a ten year shelf life - no maintenance.
As a supersize-me offer, a two stage *fission* weapon - use the primary to compress a fission only secondary. That way you could get to 500kt with a safe design. Again, no maintenance required.
I reckon it would sell like hotcakes in Eastern Europe. Put British exports back at the top.
"Nowhere is the impact of the pandemic clearer than in Pendle, the rural district in east Lancashire where Ali grew up. It is the epicentre of the national worklessness crisis.
In the four years between March 2020 and March 2024, the employment rate in Pendle plunged from 74pc to 47.9pc – a fall of 26.1pc and the biggest drop recorded in any of the 329 local authorities across England and Wales, analysis shows.
The employment rate has recovered to 58.3pc since, but for a time less than half the local population was in work.
This is not because of a large rise in unemployment but rather because of a jump in the proportion of people who are economically inactive, meaning they are neither employed nor looking for a job."
Could be that, because Pendle has a high proportion of religious people, this is in fact due to their failure to "lockdown" because of insisting of gathering together for prayer meetings, resulting in more health problems than if they had obeyed Boris's rules.
Edit: Does the Telegraph say which local authority had the lowest drop in economic activity?
Has anyone been to the Philippines and ordered the local delicacy: “order food”?
Or should I play it safe and stick to the hairy blood?
It might be worth investing a bit of time in Tagalog. I was being told on Friday that there is a trial coming up and that there are only 2 approved Tagalog interpreters in the UK so they can pretty much name their price. It also means that it is pretty much impossible for 2 trials of Tagalog speakers to proceed in the UK at the same time.
That seems strange, as there are quite a lot of pinoys and pinays. Maybe they are all happily working in the NHS but it is a good retraining option for any who want a career change or lose their jobs
Yes. I thought that. And English is widely spoken as a second language in the Philippines, rather like India.
A better question might be: why do you do what you do in the way that you do it?
Because on most of the conventional metrics, Kamala should have won. She had more money than Trump's campaign; a stronger ground game with more activists; more adverts.
And here in July, Reform picked up more votes than the LibDems despite a shambolic campaign.
So maybe you are wasting time as well as blood delivering leaflets.
72 LD MPs to 5 Reform suggest it wasn't wasted time.
Not sure that is a direct correlation. What do door knockers and leafleters achieve? Reform got 600,000 more votes than the Lib Dems. Yes the Lib Dems got far more seats which is what matters but I don't see how you can say that is due to more leaflets and door knockers.
Lib Dems win when it is seen as a two horse race and they are highly visible. Hence leaflets, posters, stakeboards, street stalls and door knocking. Lib Dems winning here.
Without local visibility the Lib Dems get no where. They are ignored in the national media. So I don't think delivering leaflets is a waste of time, even if they go straight from the letter box to the recycling bin 90% of the time! You have to be seen to be in it, to win it.
On topic: grateful to those who stand and campaign and to the PB team who contribute by providing this forum and through it the wider political discourse.
FPT: which leads me on to ask about the potential legal implications to PB of a US law effectively crippling moderation.
Does this have the potential to end PB as a discussion forum? It has a US based moderator, but more than that it has Vanilla as a forum provider, a .com address and so forth. Any US exposure potentially runs counter to it being able to comply with the moderation required to meet UK libel law, doesn't it? Any PB lawyers care to comment on the extent of the headache here?
It’s all bluster. The EU will simply block sites that do not have content moderation, and the UK will continue to enable libel suits.
If Trump wants to pick a fight with the EU then doing so on consumer regulation and data privacy is just about the stupidest possible decision. He’d basically be launching a frontal attack on the bloc’s most powerful forces.
If the EU banned Twitter/X, the ban would be widely flouted, including by EU politicians.
Given current trends, the question is whether anyone will still be using Twitter by the time the EU makes a decision!
We need to get across that Putin is not in a strong position. Relying on North Korean troops to get Ukraine off Russian territory is a sign of weakness not strength. The fact he seems keen to negotiate a deal in the near future is another. Giving Putin basically what he wants would make Trump look weak.
Europe should come up with a Ukraine funding plan to provide military and financial support (the £300bn frozen assets?) if Trump proceeds with his immediate peace plan initiative. It would at least show that we are prepared to continue offering support and gives Zelensky some cards to play at the negotiating table. We should also make it clear that we want Ukraine to be able to strike Russian military targets inside Russia with our weapons. Put the ball in the Trump administration's court to see if they refuse.
Putin seems to be escalating to the maximum now in preparation for Trump's arrival. Going slow on Ukraine support for the next two months would be unbelievably stupid and unforgivable.
There's the massive issue of US reconnaissance support, which Trump is threatening to limit.
Europe simply doesn't have the assets to replace that. And if Musk starts blocking Starlink for the Ukrainian military ...
One thing that has not been discussed is the division within the Republican party. Many of those elected to Congress are Reaganite republicans. The staunchest Ukrainian supporters (as well as enemies) in Washington have been Republicans. It remains to be seen whether this becomes a moment for them equivalent to what Brexit was for the Tories.
Unlikely , it will be a spineless capitulation as Trump will call out anyone who doesn’t profess total loyalty to the Dear Leader .
On topic: grateful to those who stand and campaign and to the PB team who contribute by providing this forum and through it the wider political discourse.
FPT: which leads me on to ask about the potential legal implications to PB of a US law effectively crippling moderation.
Does this have the potential to end PB as a discussion forum? It has a US based moderator, but more than that it has Vanilla as a forum provider, a .com address and so forth. Any US exposure potentially runs counter to it being able to comply with the moderation required to meet UK libel law, doesn't it? Any PB lawyers care to comment on the extent of the headache here?
It’s all bluster. The EU will simply block sites that do not have content moderation, and the UK will continue to enable libel suits.
If Trump wants to pick a fight with the EU then doing so on consumer regulation and data privacy is just about the stupidest possible decision. He’d basically be launching a frontal attack on the bloc’s most powerful forces.
If the EU banned Twitter/X, the ban would be widely flouted, including by EU politicians.
Given current trends, the question is whether anyone will still be using Twitter by the time the EU makes a decision!
If Musk's attitude to advertisers is a template, we'll be forced to use Twitter, whether we like it or not.
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
With regards to your point about being tough in negotiations, I agree: If Trump threatens to cut off funding for Ukraine, leading to a Korean style frozen conflict over current borders, European countries should collectively say ok then, we will supply Ukraine with nukes to ensure Russia goes no further.
Let's see how Trump likes that one.
With these people you have to play hardball.
The likely response to the peace you outline, who be a frenetic effort to reestablish Russian gas sales in Europe. Not to give the Ukrainians nuclear weapons.
I was wondering, just yesterday about Aldermaston cooking up a nice, low maintenance nuclear weapon. 120kt, HEU core, no boosting. Get the high yield from a big, hollow core with core levitation, plus high efficiency compression. Think two point implosion.
HEU and no boosting means you could have a ten year shelf life - no maintenance.
As a supersize-me offer, a two stage *fission* weapon - use the primary to compress a fission only secondary. That way you could get to 500kt with a safe design. Again, no maintenance required.
I reckon it would sell like hotcakes in Eastern Europe. Put British exports back at the top.
I don't think Ukraine is actually going to go nuclear (given their reliance on support from other nations), but I do think Poland will.
Whatever the "final result" of the Special Military Operation, the result will be nuclear proliferation. Ukraine has demonstrated what happens when you give up your nukes, and the rest of Eastern Europe is taking notes.
Comments
eg In the 1980s I went in overnight for an ingrowing toe nail; in the 2010s I had an ingrowing toenail done in 30 minutes at the GP surgery.
Similarly on housing, immigrant family structures may well be different.
And the same goes for transport capacity. How on earth does one measure that?
What I am saying is that it is not a simple thing, and that is inherent. It also makes assumptions about demand vs supply - both of which can be influenced.
And the main CGT liability for most people is, of course, property, which hasn't changed at all (unless one is a farmer, and they moan more than a midden emits, erm, hot air, and have done so for centuries.)
The LDs already have a councillor in the ward, but they are unlikely to win 2 in all-out elections.
When the cost of labour went up, due to post COVID pay rises, I don’t recall any claims that this wouldn’t result in price inflation. It did.
Now the cost of labour has gone up for a different reason.
It’s a desperate kind of populism to claim that this won’t have an effect.
They should be easily able to increase their prices to cover it.
In FPTP, where you get your votes matters more than how many votes you get. Which is why Farage's parties have always done better in PR elections than FPTP ones.
Trade deal with the US is ready to go? What a load of bollocks.
The cynical might say it was to reduce the headline unemployment rate.
This is the point I have made for years and years. Most people are apolitical. They simply don’t care about party politics, of who said what, of which policy does x and which does y. They register names only if they are everywhere - and even then don’t know anything other than what they are fed.
How do we combat this? We live in an information world where information doesn’t get through to the people consuming it in real time…
I often look at old newspapers and feel green with envy. What must future historians think of us?
It’s the denial that this will happen, that is populist nonesense.
If you examine big ticket policies, where the money goes and how much, the subjects that are legislated about, and the measure of total state managed expenditure this insight becomes obvious. Additionally you have to ignore all words, wish lists and rhetoric of every description and only look at deeds.
If you want to see what moving from social democracy looks like, a starting point is the 900 pages of Project 2025.
Would the LDs not have targeted that by-election, given they'd be unlikely to hold the by-election gain?
I think we also have more political movements that have no other tools in their toolbox than in the past, and perhaps with greater accessibility to the mainstream.
Secondly, opinions are free, facts are expensive. Opinions can be as simple as you like, but there are no (non trivial) simple facts in the political realm.
Aside from which, I think Badenoch should have policies now, so she can first get the party, and then the country, united behind them. Starmer's 'ming vase' strategy won't work, because the Labour to Tory pendulum (in my opinion) is now broken - people don't have to vote for one or the other now. It barely worked for Starmer, who got a very flaccid vote, less than Jeremy Corbyn. So I think if Kemi's policies only come out in the manifesto, she can say hi to the Tories being the Number 2 right wing party.
Bank of England and Sunak’s government knew who were profiteering and ripping customers off under cover of inflation period, were frustrated by it. If they had got back in, and obviously needed to raise money straight away - headroom for pre election giveaways stolen from future years departmental spending - who do we think they would have gone after, how do we think they would have raised it?
There’s a second take on BoE, Sunak’s government lobbying of the profiteers to play fair with struggling households, from the Daily Mail, attacking Hunt and Sunak for doing it. Tory MPs lined up to join the Mail to criticise it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12135495/Rishi-Sunak-facing-Tory-backlash-against-plans-ask-supermarkets-cap-price-food-staples.html
The Conservative Party and the Tory Press are not Thatcherite anymore. Thatcherite economics would struggle in this environment today. I was musing why, what is different now?
is it money? MPs attacking Hunt and Sunak for oh so gently saying please don’t profiteer right now people are struggling - are these MPs lobbied and rewarded for doing so, is this how UK democracy now works?
It might be harder for those who rely on export markets or who have foreign competition.
I also suspect the seats held by the Conservatives were the ones with the strongest local organisation (and the weakest opposition organisation) whereas those where the Conservative local organisation had disintegrated saw the sharpest falls in vote shares as Reform, Labour, LD or Greens as appropriate feasted on the Tory carcass.
Reform have worked this out - that's why they are starting to build local branches, put up candidates in local by-elections and Farage himself has said the LD organisation is what he wants Reform to emulate.
IF he succeeds, Reform will be the big threat to BOTH Labour and Conservative next time - of the 50 Reform targets, 27 are held by Labour and 23 by the Conservatives. Labour can afford to lose 27, can the Conservatives afford to lose 23?
Kemi has time, and certainly not to be a hostage to fortune is wise at this stage in the electoral cycle not least because even if Starmer is replaced [which is unlikely] Labour will serve their full term
Here our local Facebook Groups have memberships above 10,000. Lee Anderson, Ashfield Independents etc have his own, but they tend to be echo chambers.
Another good one would be a column in the local paper.
Otherwise, you end up creating hostages to fortune so if you say you won't rise the basic rate of income tax or VAT for example, you have to tinker round the edges with NI or IHT or Winter Fuel Allowance or whatever.
It's actually less about saying what you would do and more about saying what you wouldn't at this stage.
We got a taste of that with the extradition treaty absurdity, which we've somehow come to accept as a fact of life.
A US/EU contest, which seems to be coming in stuff like this, tariffs, and potentially Ukraine, is going to require us to take sides. The middle ground will likely be a very uncomfortable place.
And either choice is going to come with painful costs.
Apparently the only place you can get a drink is mad local restaurants. With menu items like
Dried pot bullfrog
Flavour of chicken feet
Order food
Trichosanguine [hairy blood??]
And
Smelly snails
This is quite possibly the most off putting menu in the history of rebarbartive menus. I love it
They don’t do gin and tonics
I’m torn. I can’t decide between ordering some smelly snails or ordering a nice tasty dish of “order food”
How did we win so many seats? By recognising this reality and playing the rules. Seeking to gain the maximum number of votes in specific constituencies. Reform don’t do that. So they don’t win.
Cosplay Thatcher PM Liz Truss, refused to windfall tax the energy profits - even though Lady Thatcher actually done just that, waving away all the bleatings.
Something has changed. Something is different. Is it you, and how you now see things?
I wasn’t even alive when Lady Thatcher ran the country, but seem to have more understanding what made her great than those of you who were there.
Part of the problem in politics is that policy *has* to be populist, these days. Consider IHT on farms.
- it won’t actually effect farmers, because they will all do inheritance planning
- It will raise billions because all the people using farm land for IHT planning will be unable to anything about it.
So it will simultaneously raise vast sums of money, not raise money, not trap people in IHT and only trap bad people in IHT.
Would you agree with the broad thrust of my argument that housing, health and infrastructure capacity need to rise broadly in line with the general population, or do you think it's acceptable that all three have lagged behind population growth over the last twenty years?
A better critique of my Super Simple idea might be to point out the lack of either cultural or local factors. E.g. under the Super Simple idea, you would be able to dump a million immigrants in a small Northern town by building a few houses, roads and hospitals in London.
Which is actually a simplified view of what has happened over the last 20 years. We've increased investment in places like London, while neglecting other towns. Hence my thesis that the riots this summer happened in places where competition for scarce resources is at its most fierce. London didn't riot, but Middlesbrough did.
Europe simply doesn't have the assets to replace that. And if Musk starts blocking Starlink for the Ukrainian military ...
Couple of points, re earlier posts. Since retiring I've been active in the nearest u3a, and for the local museum, which is entirely volunteer run both of which have brought me plenty of new friends. Particularly important as we'd moved. Mrs C, similarly, joined the local WI and was on the committee for a while, although that's not really her thing.
One does need an interest after retiring.
Secondly we've a couple of Independent local councillors who regularly seen out and about. We never saw the Conservatives except at election times. We've also a Green County Councillor who frequently issues newsletters and similar about County issues.
One on topic for this post. If the Tories lose 23 seats to Reform and some to the LD's they are in serious danger of becoming the third party in Parliament.
Or should I play it safe and stick to the hairy blood?
Philosophy is your fundamental worldview regardless.
Principle is the underlying political philosophy you hold in the light of where we are now in relation to your philosophy.
Policy is the detailed implementation plan for the next 5 days to 5 years.
At this moment Kemi needs to articulate principle, but in such a way as show if there is genuine distinction between her and the others, or whether it is just rhetoric.
What people are mostly voting on in trust and competence. There are few other distinctive marks. (Though Reform is an exception. No-one is voting for them because of their immense supply of either).
That treaty?
Which is, to me, the opposite of populism.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/09/to-dismiss-trumps-pledges-as-campaign-rhetoric-is-a-triumph-of-hope-over-experience
He akways came across as a bit of a blusterer, but this is decent analysis.
My father used to stand as a LIb Dem councillor in Aberdeen 40 years ago when the Lib Dems were strong in the area. The trend is very much coming back to the Scottish Lib Dems and should expect at least one maybe 2 regional seats for the NE in the 2026 elections.
The right wing swing in the working class fishing port of Fraserburgh is stunning. In 2012 the Tories had 6% now the combined Tory / Reform vote is 61%.
There is no doubt that the EU and the UK have far more industrial capacity but we have chosen to let the US spend its money and munitions on this instead. And, come January, that is going to stop. I fear it is already too late for us to replace what the US has been providing.
This is obviously a tragedy for Ukraine but it is a serious threat to our security as well. A triumphant Putin is going to be far more dangerous as it becomes ever clearer that the US defence umbrella is no longer there. We need to build an alternative with our allies that is not dependent upon American assistance. The world has changed.
If I order actual chicken feet they might all look at me like I’m some billionaire.
“He’s having actual chicken feet? Not just the flavour???”
“He must be part of the international jet set. We are near the airport”
That and cheap tramadol over the counter
In 1960 the USA share of world GDP was 40%. Now it is 24%.
I'm interested in the Big Man responses on social media from Trump supporters, along the lines of "we define how it is - you have to deal with it". That was Musk's attitude when he was called out for breaking EU and UK law with his management of / behaviour on twitter. And it's like Trump's assumption that he can do whatever he likes, whenever and wherever he likes, and no one can do a damn thing about it so will just have to pipe down.
He's trying to behave like the British Empire did in the late 19C (eg Opium War), or the USA did around the time they fomented the Spanish-American War. In Ukraine he imagines that he can impose a solution that will dismember a sovereign country.
He's actually burning down the bridges to his (current) friends, and cutting off the USA. And if he demands that Europe stand on it's own two feet, when it actually starts doing so it reduces his leverage.
IMO the more dangerous lies and delusions are the ones that he is telling himself.
The questions for Europe and others are ... what will we do.
1) Nothing is going to happen
2) Something is happening but its not important
3) Its important but there's nothing we can do about it
4) Maybe there's something we could have done about it but its too late now
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
I think it’s pretty clear Russia is keeping Crimea. Trump’s team have said as much.
Do see any evidence that they do or will?
One problem they have is a total absence of coherent policy, replaced by partisan whackery.
The IFS assessment of the Reform Manifesto was damning. They are inhabitants of cloud-cuckoo land:
Carl Emmerson, deputy director at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: “Reform UK proposes tax cuts that it estimates would cost nearly £90 billion per year, and spending increases of £50 billion per year. It claims that it would pay for these through £150 billion per year of reductions in other spending, covering public services, debt interest and working-age benefits.
This would represent a big cut to the size of the state. Regardless of the pros and cons of shrinking the state, or of any of their specific measures, the package as a whole is problematic. Spending reductions would save less than stated, and the tax cuts would cost more than stated, by a margin of tens of billions of pounds per year. Meanwhile the spending increases would cost more than stated if they are to achieve their objectives.
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/reform-uk-manifesto-reaction
Let's see how Trump likes that one.
With these people you have to play hardball.
1) This is America's problem not ours.
2) We voted for (vetoed) resolutions in the UN, what more do you want?
3) Oh, gosh, we wouldn't have done that, leading to
4) some sort of moral equivalism so we feel less guilty about failing to act decisively ourselves.
Though the count still isn't finished.
I don't expect her to accept the result with good grace.
The comparison is just ridiculous.
I was wondering, just yesterday about Aldermaston cooking up a nice, low maintenance nuclear weapon. 120kt, HEU core, no boosting. Get the high yield from a big, hollow core with core levitation, plus high efficiency compression. Think two point implosion.
HEU and no boosting means you could have a ten year shelf life - no maintenance.
As a supersize-me offer, a two stage *fission* weapon - use the primary to compress a fission only secondary. That way you could get to 500kt with a safe design. Again, no maintenance required.
I reckon it would sell like hotcakes in Eastern Europe. Put British exports back at the top.
I'm not wasting time on this one; that newspaper is a cesspit.
Without local visibility the Lib Dems get no where. They are ignored in the national media. So I don't think delivering leaflets is a waste of time, even if they go straight from the letter box to the recycling bin 90% of the time! You have to be seen to be in it, to win it.
Whatever the "final result" of the Special Military Operation, the result will be nuclear proliferation. Ukraine has demonstrated what happens when you give up your nukes, and the rest of Eastern Europe is taking notes.