Politics is back – politicalbetting.com
Politics is back – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
First maybe...0
-
Starmer to join Macron for Armistice Day events in Paris
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer will join French President Emmanuel Macron for Armistice Day events in Paris on Monday morning, with the two men set to hold talks on European security and the likely impact of a second Trump presidency in the US.
There is uncertainty about Donald Trump's support for Ukraine after he said he could end the war with Russia "in one day".
Ahead of attending a ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Macron and Starmer are expected to discuss Russia's ongoing invasion and the humanitarian situation in Gaza, Downing Street said.
Sir Keir ... is believed to be the first British leader to attend the ceremony on the Champs Elysee since Winston Churchill in 1944.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8dz0n8xldo
And it turns out Leon will be PB's man on the spot.0 -
Second deffo...0
-
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.2 -
I'm not wholly convinced of Alanbrooke's header thesis that Labour's tax, borrow and spend is markedly different from the previous Conservative governments' tax, borrow and spend.
Kemi might represent a new direction but so far she's unwisely gone back on her pledge not to excavate ancient gotcha quotes (although this presumably came from CCHQ) and looked the part at the Cenotaph yesterday.0 -
Good header1
-
What has died is the cakeism where you can have something for nothing. Whether that was Lawson cutting taxes without doing too much harm to public services, or Brown increasing public spending without increasing tax that much, or Osborne doing a version of austerity that didn't hurt anyone important for quite a while.
To govern is to choose. Lawson said it, even if his choice was to treat family silver as recurring income. But now there is a choice that Labour has made- increase taxes to fund ongoing spending. The Conservatives have hinted at their direction- cut spending to reduce taxes. But until they spell out what that looks like in terms of things, not pounds, it's still a slogan not a choice.3 -
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.6 -
Israel warns of planned attacks at large events, including in UK
https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/amsterdam-riot-police-palestinian-protesters-v72pbs5nm (£££)0 -
The problem with your statement is that the Tories didn’t cut spending - they talked about cutting spending, pocketed the savings (by reducing taxes) but didn’t actually make the cuts.Stuartinromford said:What has died is the cakeism where you can have something for nothing. Whether that was Lawson cutting taxes without doing too much harm to public services, or Brown increasing public spending without increasing tax that much, or Osborne doing a version of austerity that didn't hurt anyone important for quite a while.
To govern is to choose. Lawson said it, even if his choice was to treat family silver as recurring income. But now there is a choice that Labour has made- increase taxes to fund ongoing spending. The Conservatives have hinted at their direction- cut spending to reduce taxes. But until they spell out what that looks like in terms of things, not pounds, it's still a slogan not a choice.1 -
plus if there is any move towards Trumpism in the UK, surely Farage is better placed than the Tories in their current state? There was an interesting R4 radio documentary over the weekend on how Reform is at least trying to turn itself into a broad-based political party/movement and away from the owned-business model that Farage went for on the back of his experience with UKIP. And there just the earliest of signs that they may be able to make a bigger impact in local government than heretofore.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Perhaps a big space is going to open up for the LibDems as a sensible centre party?0 -
A non-paywalled article:DecrepiterJohnL said:Israel warns of planned attacks at large events, including in UK
https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/amsterdam-riot-police-palestinian-protesters-v72pbs5nm (£££)
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/israel-warns-citizens-attacks-events-europe-uk-33737041 -
The problem with the budget is that it made a bad situation worse by increasing spending by more than the increase in taxes. Given that the world is going to spin into considerable uncertainty and very possibly a recession because of Trump's stupidity that is not a good place to start.eek said:
The problem with your statement is that the Tories didn’t cut spending - they talked about cutting spending, pocketed the savings (by reducing taxes) but didn’t actually make the cuts.Stuartinromford said:What has died is the cakeism where you can have something for nothing. Whether that was Lawson cutting taxes without doing too much harm to public services, or Brown increasing public spending without increasing tax that much, or Osborne doing a version of austerity that didn't hurt anyone important for quite a while.
To govern is to choose. Lawson said it, even if his choice was to treat family silver as recurring income. But now there is a choice that Labour has made- increase taxes to fund ongoing spending. The Conservatives have hinted at their direction- cut spending to reduce taxes. But until they spell out what that looks like in terms of things, not pounds, it's still a slogan not a choice.
But I agree that both major parties are both refusing to face the realities of dangerously high borrowing and a state that consumes an excessive quantity of the cake, the Tories almost as much as Labour. The fact that the State thinks it is acceptable to produce less and less for more and more is one of the major challenges for any government of any stripe going forward.0 -
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.DavidL said:
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.5 -
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.noneoftheabove said:
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.DavidL said:
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.0 -
Fully agree. And Sunak and Hunt would be in a hilariously bad position had they had to make the post-election sums add up- "there is a huge black hole in the public finances, which we created..."eek said:
The problem with your statement is that the Tories didn’t cut spending - they talked about cutting spending, pocketed the savings (by reducing taxes) but didn’t actually make the cuts.Stuartinromford said:What has died is the cakeism where you can have something for nothing. Whether that was Lawson cutting taxes without doing too much harm to public services, or Brown increasing public spending without increasing tax that much, or Osborne doing a version of austerity that didn't hurt anyone important for quite a while.
To govern is to choose. Lawson said it, even if his choice was to treat family silver as recurring income. But now there is a choice that Labour has made- increase taxes to fund ongoing spending. The Conservatives have hinted at their direction- cut spending to reduce taxes. But until they spell out what that looks like in terms of things, not pounds, it's still a slogan not a choice.
Mel and Kem are going to find it much harder. One of the unfairness of opposition is that your plans have to broadly add up. Hence the "small improvement funded by token tax rise" manifesto pledges.0 -
We had those thoughts about VPs taking over for the last 8 years. I think it unlikely even though we are dealing with an ill old man.DavidL said:
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.noneoftheabove said:
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.DavidL said:
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.0 -
Well we are about to see in the US, what happens when there is a considerable actual reduction in state spending.DavidL said:
The problem with the budget is that it made a bad situation worse by increasing spending by more than the increase in taxes. Given that the world is going to spin into considerable uncertainty and very possibly a recession because of Trump's stupidity that is not a good place to start.eek said:
The problem with your statement is that the Tories didn’t cut spending - they talked about cutting spending, pocketed the savings (by reducing taxes) but didn’t actually make the cuts.Stuartinromford said:What has died is the cakeism where you can have something for nothing. Whether that was Lawson cutting taxes without doing too much harm to public services, or Brown increasing public spending without increasing tax that much, or Osborne doing a version of austerity that didn't hurt anyone important for quite a while.
To govern is to choose. Lawson said it, even if his choice was to treat family silver as recurring income. But now there is a choice that Labour has made- increase taxes to fund ongoing spending. The Conservatives have hinted at their direction- cut spending to reduce taxes. But until they spell out what that looks like in terms of things, not pounds, it's still a slogan not a choice.
But I agree that both major parties are both refusing to face the realities of dangerously high borrowing and a state that consumes an excessive quantity of the cake, the Tories almost as much as Labour. The fact that the State thinks it is acceptable to produce less and less for more and more is one of the major challenges for any government of any stripe going forward.
The difference between the US and UK though, is that the UK is much more efficient at getting the money spent to where it is needed. We may all have many examples of UK gov waste and inefficiency, but in the US it’s a lot worse.0 -
I'm not so sure that cakeism is over. Labour has bet the farm on healthy economic growth that probably isn't coming, and there is a non-negligible prospect that the Conservatives will try to peddle small state, low tax fantasies that are based on spending cuts that an old, sick, decrepit population such as ours cannot sustain.Stuartinromford said:What has died is the cakeism where you can have something for nothing. Whether that was Lawson cutting taxes without doing too much harm to public services, or Brown increasing public spending without increasing tax that much, or Osborne doing a version of austerity that didn't hurt anyone important for quite a while.
To govern is to choose. Lawson said it, even if his choice was to treat family silver as recurring income. But now there is a choice that Labour has made- increase taxes to fund ongoing spending. The Conservatives have hinted at their direction- cut spending to reduce taxes. But until they spell out what that looks like in terms of things, not pounds, it's still a slogan not a choice.
Beyond that, I'm not so sure that the illusion of choice which is presented by a divergence between the Tory and Labour platforms is all it's cracked up to be. Ignore the caterwauling about winter fuel payments for richer pensioners and minor tweaks to the inheritance tax regime for a moment, and stop to appreciate that the fundamentals of the current political settlement haven't changed: the Triple Lock remains in place for the entire Parliament, most of the tax rises Labour has announced will fall on the shoulders of workers (employer NI hikes will be recovered from employees through renewed wage suppression, something I believe Reeves may even have acknowledged in public statements,) and the big ticket spending item is the tottering NHS which spends the majority of its budget on pensioners. Meanwhile, CGT rates are still well below those levied on wages, no land value or wealth taxes have been introduced, the vast bulk of estates still attract no death duties at all, the BoE is starting to cut interest rates and, consequently, house prices are beginning to take off again. More enrichment for homeowners, higher rents for the have nots.
Our economy is, essentially, still one huge engine for the transfer of wealth from the young and poor to the rich and old, magnifying and entrenching inequality as it goes. And if anyone believes that'd be likely to change under Kemi Badenoch, well, there aren't enough bridges in the world...4 -
I suspect that Harris, for one, is probably regretting her loyalty to Biden. If he had been pushed aside in 2023 and she had taken over she might well have won. As it was she got nearly all the downsides of incumbency and few of the upsides. And Pence being rewarded for his loyalty with a noose must have had similar thoughts.noneoftheabove said:
We had those thoughts about VPs taking over for the last 8 years. I think it unlikely even though we are dealing with an ill old man.DavidL said:
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.noneoftheabove said:
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.DavidL said:
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.0 -
How many billions is it going to cost to round up and expel 5m people? I suspect Trump, like everyone else in fairness, is going to find cutting State spending a lot more difficult than he thinks.Sandpit said:
Well we are about to see in the US, what happens when there is a considerable actual reduction in state spending.DavidL said:
The problem with the budget is that it made a bad situation worse by increasing spending by more than the increase in taxes. Given that the world is going to spin into considerable uncertainty and very possibly a recession because of Trump's stupidity that is not a good place to start.eek said:
The problem with your statement is that the Tories didn’t cut spending - they talked about cutting spending, pocketed the savings (by reducing taxes) but didn’t actually make the cuts.Stuartinromford said:What has died is the cakeism where you can have something for nothing. Whether that was Lawson cutting taxes without doing too much harm to public services, or Brown increasing public spending without increasing tax that much, or Osborne doing a version of austerity that didn't hurt anyone important for quite a while.
To govern is to choose. Lawson said it, even if his choice was to treat family silver as recurring income. But now there is a choice that Labour has made- increase taxes to fund ongoing spending. The Conservatives have hinted at their direction- cut spending to reduce taxes. But until they spell out what that looks like in terms of things, not pounds, it's still a slogan not a choice.
But I agree that both major parties are both refusing to face the realities of dangerously high borrowing and a state that consumes an excessive quantity of the cake, the Tories almost as much as Labour. The fact that the State thinks it is acceptable to produce less and less for more and more is one of the major challenges for any government of any stripe going forward.
The difference between the US and UK though, is that the UK is much more efficient at getting the money spent to where it is needed. We may all have many examples of UK gov waste and inefficiency, but in the US it’s a lot worse.0 -
We should judge him on his track record not his rhetoric. Spending and deficit ballooned under him last time, it won't be different this time. Its a kleptocracy designed to extract as much as possible for the billionaire elites.DavidL said:
How many billions is it going to cost to round up and expel 5m people? I suspect Trump, like everyone else in fairness, is going to find cutting State spending a lot more difficult than he thinks.Sandpit said:
Well we are about to see in the US, what happens when there is a considerable actual reduction in state spending.DavidL said:
The problem with the budget is that it made a bad situation worse by increasing spending by more than the increase in taxes. Given that the world is going to spin into considerable uncertainty and very possibly a recession because of Trump's stupidity that is not a good place to start.eek said:
The problem with your statement is that the Tories didn’t cut spending - they talked about cutting spending, pocketed the savings (by reducing taxes) but didn’t actually make the cuts.Stuartinromford said:What has died is the cakeism where you can have something for nothing. Whether that was Lawson cutting taxes without doing too much harm to public services, or Brown increasing public spending without increasing tax that much, or Osborne doing a version of austerity that didn't hurt anyone important for quite a while.
To govern is to choose. Lawson said it, even if his choice was to treat family silver as recurring income. But now there is a choice that Labour has made- increase taxes to fund ongoing spending. The Conservatives have hinted at their direction- cut spending to reduce taxes. But until they spell out what that looks like in terms of things, not pounds, it's still a slogan not a choice.
But I agree that both major parties are both refusing to face the realities of dangerously high borrowing and a state that consumes an excessive quantity of the cake, the Tories almost as much as Labour. The fact that the State thinks it is acceptable to produce less and less for more and more is one of the major challenges for any government of any stripe going forward.
The difference between the US and UK though, is that the UK is much more efficient at getting the money spent to where it is needed. We may all have many examples of UK gov waste and inefficiency, but in the US it’s a lot worse.8 -
I doubt either of them had the clout, popular support or indeed lawful justification to make such a move. Vance may end up with the third but not the first two.DavidL said:
I suspect that Harris, for one, is probably regretting her loyalty to Biden. If he had been pushed aside in 2023 and she had taken over she might well have won. As it was she got nearly all the downsides of incumbency and few of the upsides. And Pence being rewarded for his loyalty with a noose must have had similar thoughts.noneoftheabove said:
We had those thoughts about VPs taking over for the last 8 years. I think it unlikely even though we are dealing with an ill old man.DavidL said:
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.noneoftheabove said:
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.DavidL said:
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.0 -
Governing = Choosing redux. Trump's coalition is ultimately full of people wanting different things. When push comes to shove, which way does he jump?DavidL said:
How many billions is it going to cost to round up and expel 5m people? I suspect Trump, like everyone else in fairness, is going to find cutting State spending a lot more difficult than he thinks.Sandpit said:
Well we are about to see in the US, what happens when there is a considerable actual reduction in state spending.DavidL said:
The problem with the budget is that it made a bad situation worse by increasing spending by more than the increase in taxes. Given that the world is going to spin into considerable uncertainty and very possibly a recession because of Trump's stupidity that is not a good place to start.eek said:
The problem with your statement is that the Tories didn’t cut spending - they talked about cutting spending, pocketed the savings (by reducing taxes) but didn’t actually make the cuts.Stuartinromford said:What has died is the cakeism where you can have something for nothing. Whether that was Lawson cutting taxes without doing too much harm to public services, or Brown increasing public spending without increasing tax that much, or Osborne doing a version of austerity that didn't hurt anyone important for quite a while.
To govern is to choose. Lawson said it, even if his choice was to treat family silver as recurring income. But now there is a choice that Labour has made- increase taxes to fund ongoing spending. The Conservatives have hinted at their direction- cut spending to reduce taxes. But until they spell out what that looks like in terms of things, not pounds, it's still a slogan not a choice.
But I agree that both major parties are both refusing to face the realities of dangerously high borrowing and a state that consumes an excessive quantity of the cake, the Tories almost as much as Labour. The fact that the State thinks it is acceptable to produce less and less for more and more is one of the major challenges for any government of any stripe going forward.
The difference between the US and UK though, is that the UK is much more efficient at getting the money spent to where it is needed. We may all have many examples of UK gov waste and inefficiency, but in the US it’s a lot worse.
Especially in a scenario where he can't win another election, but those around him presumably have hopes of doing so.1 -
On topic - I'm trying to identify this "top down use of legislation to make the citizenry conform" that Labour are responsible for. The Public Order Act 2023 was introduced by Sunak's administration, and incitement to violence - for which many far-right "activists" were locked up for - has been unlawful for centuries.
However, if the new disruptive protesting rules means that farmers are locked up like JSO protestors, then that does give the current government an opportunity to repeal it. If that doesn't happen, then they are worthy of your criticism.3 -
I certainly think the Tories are going to have a lot more trouble winning territory back off the Lib Dems than Labour come the next election. Davey can't be blamed for any of the Government's mistakes and his party's platform was attractive to many well to do, wet centrist voters to whom any further lurching to the right will be repellent.IanB2 said:
plus if there is any move towards Trumpism in the UK, surely Farage is better placed than the Tories in their current state? There was an interesting R4 radio documentary over the weekend on how Reform is at least trying to turn itself into a broad-based political party/movement and away from the owned-business model that Farage went for on the back of his experience with UKIP. And there just the earliest of signs that they may be able to make a bigger impact in local government than heretofore.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Perhaps a big space is going to open up for the LibDems as a sensible centre party?
What further space there is for gains us a different matter. The Lib Dem revival has, of course, relied on the supremely efficient distribution of a very modest share of the vote. They would have to attract a lot of support from other parties to build in that substantially and start to make significant gains and, although they are now back as the third party in Parliament, they are liable to be starved of much media attention relative to the big two and Reform.0 -
Thanks Alanbrooke for the article. I agree that politics is back, certainly its rhetoric is going to be around.
But as to tax, spend and borrow, and 'small state' the Tories have a lot of work ahead to be convincing since over 14 years they have embraced the larger and larger state and tax, spend and borrow.
The clue is is Alanbrooke's words about the small state:
They still have much thinking to do to establish viable policies
Which is fair enough. So let's start with principles. A smaller state with less spend, tax and borrow has principles about which big ticket things it stops doing and funding. Let us take 'greater efficiency and cutting waste' as a permanent item on the agenda.
What are the Tory principles about a smaller state which could possibly reduce tax, spend and borrow collectively by a very small sum, say £50 billion per annum? (About 5% of the total). The last 14 years gives not a single clue. I have no idea. Does anyone know?3 -
Perhaps this is a reaction to nannying measures, though frankly if there was anything that deserved to be taxed and regulated to death it would be smoking, and if the Government does end up going after crap ultra processed foods it's rather more likely to force reformulation than to result in supermarket shelves being piled high with nothing but raw veg and lentils.Eabhal said:On topic - I'm trying to identify this "top down use of legislation to make the citizenry conform" that Labour are responsible for. The Public Order Act 2023 was introduced by Sunak's administration, and incitement to violence - for which many far-right "activists" were locked up for - has been unlawful for centuries.
However, if the new disurptive protesting rules means that farmers are locked up like JSO protestors, then that does give the current government an opportunity to repeal it. If that doesn't happen, then they are worthy of your criticism.2 -
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pigeon, I agree the Conservatives will find it harder against Lib Dems than Labour come the next General Election but must disagree on the "supremely efficient distribution of a very modest share of the vote" line.
Ironically, this is taken from the subheading Labour and Lib Dems Enjoy Excellent Vote Efficiency:
"The Lib Dems won 11% of seats with 12% of the vote..."
https://medium.com/@rkilner/analysing-the-uks-2024-election-3fc186f6489e
The Lib Dems, of the major parties, had the closest corresponding figures for vote share and MPs.1 -
The British voters have an inate sense of cynicism, Trump would have got nowhere near power here with such a scheme. Is it just the greater degree of trust by MAGA voters that allowed it to work in the US? Or that they have such a sense the system has already collapsed they are prepared to give anythg a try? Even giving another go to the guy whose extra $7.8 trillion of extra debt last time helped collapse that system.noneoftheabove said:
We should judge him on his track record not his rhetoric. Spending and deficit ballooned under him last time, it won't be different this time. Its a kleptocracy designed to extract as much as possible for the billionaire elites.DavidL said:
How many billions is it going to cost to round up and expel 5m people? I suspect Trump, like everyone else in fairness, is going to find cutting State spending a lot more difficult than he thinks.Sandpit said:
Well we are about to see in the US, what happens when there is a considerable actual reduction in state spending.DavidL said:
The problem with the budget is that it made a bad situation worse by increasing spending by more than the increase in taxes. Given that the world is going to spin into considerable uncertainty and very possibly a recession because of Trump's stupidity that is not a good place to start.eek said:
The problem with your statement is that the Tories didn’t cut spending - they talked about cutting spending, pocketed the savings (by reducing taxes) but didn’t actually make the cuts.Stuartinromford said:What has died is the cakeism where you can have something for nothing. Whether that was Lawson cutting taxes without doing too much harm to public services, or Brown increasing public spending without increasing tax that much, or Osborne doing a version of austerity that didn't hurt anyone important for quite a while.
To govern is to choose. Lawson said it, even if his choice was to treat family silver as recurring income. But now there is a choice that Labour has made- increase taxes to fund ongoing spending. The Conservatives have hinted at their direction- cut spending to reduce taxes. But until they spell out what that looks like in terms of things, not pounds, it's still a slogan not a choice.
But I agree that both major parties are both refusing to face the realities of dangerously high borrowing and a state that consumes an excessive quantity of the cake, the Tories almost as much as Labour. The fact that the State thinks it is acceptable to produce less and less for more and more is one of the major challenges for any government of any stripe going forward.
The difference between the US and UK though, is that the UK is much more efficient at getting the money spent to where it is needed. We may all have many examples of UK gov waste and inefficiency, but in the US it’s a lot worse.0 -
Great header. Why aren't you as balanced as this normally...?
2 -
She would still have the issue of being incumbent during a time of high (food) inflation.DavidL said:
I suspect that Harris, for one, is probably regretting her loyalty to Biden. If he had been pushed aside in 2023 and she had taken over she might well have won. As it was she got nearly all the downsides of incumbency and few of the upsides. And Pence being rewarded for his loyalty with a noose must have had similar thoughts.noneoftheabove said:
We had those thoughts about VPs taking over for the last 8 years. I think it unlikely even though we are dealing with an ill old man.DavidL said:
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.noneoftheabove said:
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.DavidL said:
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.
The Democrats needed to run a full primary which would allow policies to be debated and allowed Harris to distance herself... But thats with the benefit of hindsight.0 -
Mr. Mark, Corbyn came within a few thousand votes of becoming PM. We have no room for complacency when it comes to poor political leadership, alas.1
-
It's the USA - so if the money is going to Trump's mates it will serve the need of providing profit for to his mates...DavidL said:
How many billions is it going to cost to round up and expel 5m people? I suspect Trump, like everyone else in fairness, is going to find cutting State spending a lot more difficult than he thinks.Sandpit said:
Well we are about to see in the US, what happens when there is a considerable actual reduction in state spending.DavidL said:
The problem with the budget is that it made a bad situation worse by increasing spending by more than the increase in taxes. Given that the world is going to spin into considerable uncertainty and very possibly a recession because of Trump's stupidity that is not a good place to start.eek said:
The problem with your statement is that the Tories didn’t cut spending - they talked about cutting spending, pocketed the savings (by reducing taxes) but didn’t actually make the cuts.Stuartinromford said:What has died is the cakeism where you can have something for nothing. Whether that was Lawson cutting taxes without doing too much harm to public services, or Brown increasing public spending without increasing tax that much, or Osborne doing a version of austerity that didn't hurt anyone important for quite a while.
To govern is to choose. Lawson said it, even if his choice was to treat family silver as recurring income. But now there is a choice that Labour has made- increase taxes to fund ongoing spending. The Conservatives have hinted at their direction- cut spending to reduce taxes. But until they spell out what that looks like in terms of things, not pounds, it's still a slogan not a choice.
But I agree that both major parties are both refusing to face the realities of dangerously high borrowing and a state that consumes an excessive quantity of the cake, the Tories almost as much as Labour. The fact that the State thinks it is acceptable to produce less and less for more and more is one of the major challenges for any government of any stripe going forward.
The difference between the US and UK though, is that the UK is much more efficient at getting the money spent to where it is needed. We may all have many examples of UK gov waste and inefficiency, but in the US it’s a lot worse.
The number of people expelled will be a secondary issue - and they probably don't want to expell that many (it will raise labour costs). What they want is enough expelled that people are happy and that his mates can continue billing the Government for services (partly) delivered.2 -
And even if he does I am not sure we would be welcoming it. Trump's agenda is all Trump. Much of what he will do will be petty, vindictive and affect few apart from those who are unfortunate enough to be in his crosshairs - mostly not everyday public peeps.noneoftheabove said:
We had those thoughts about VPs taking over for the last 8 years. I think it unlikely even though we are dealing with an ill old man.DavidL said:
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.noneoftheabove said:
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.DavidL said:
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.
Vance has beliefs, and ambitions for the country and the state beyond the personal. And they are ambitions that most of us, myself included, would not welcome on either a national or international level. Do you want your enemies to be incompetent, venal and incapable of enacting their agenda due to their own failings or do you want them to be competant, focused and able to realise their abhorant plans with ruthless efficiency?5 -
I'm not so sure.pigeon said:
I certainly think the Tories are going to have a lot more trouble winning territory back off the Lib Dems than Labour come the next election. Davey can't be blamed for any of the Government's mistakes and his party's platform was attractive to many well to do, wet centrist voters to whom any further lurching to the right will be repellent.IanB2 said:
plus if there is any move towards Trumpism in the UK, surely Farage is better placed than the Tories in their current state? There was an interesting R4 radio documentary over the weekend on how Reform is at least trying to turn itself into a broad-based political party/movement and away from the owned-business model that Farage went for on the back of his experience with UKIP. And there just the earliest of signs that they may be able to make a bigger impact in local government than heretofore.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Perhaps a big space is going to open up for the LibDems as a sensible centre party?
What further space there is for gains us a different matter. The Lib Dem revival has, of course, relied on the supremely efficient distribution of a very modest share of the vote. They would have to attract a lot of support from other parties to build in that substantially and start to make significant gains and, although they are now back as the third party in Parliament, they are liable to be starved of much media attention relative to the big two and Reform.
Nobody was surprised when the SNP were getting 50+ seats on 4 percent of the national vote.
Libland, unlike Scotland, doesn't have a devolved government or an international rugby team. But in other ways, it's more coherent- it's the nice bits of England where graduate professionals live and work from home except for the one day a week they have meetings in London. Lib Dems do well there, and have let their vote fade to near-nothing elsewhere. Different mechanism to the SNP, same effect.
Question is really how much more nice England there is to colonise. There's a fair bit, I reckon, and the Conservatives seem happy to make it easy for nice people in nice areas to vote against them. There's a limit to that strategy, and it's probably not that much over 100 seats, but that's a problem for the 2030s.
In the meantime, Lib Dems who are elected, but remain in opposition, are blooming difficult to shift.0 -
algarkirk said:
Thanks Alanbrooke for the article. I agree that politics is back, certainly its rhetoric is going to be around.
But as to tax, spend and borrow, and 'small state' the Tories have a lot of work ahead to be convincing since over 14 years they have embraced the larger and larger state and tax, spend and borrow.
The clue is is Alanbrooke's words about the small state:
They still have much thinking to do to establish viable policies
Which is fair enough. So let's start with principles. A smaller state with less spend, tax and borrow has principles about which big ticket things it stops doing and funding. Let us take 'greater efficiency and cutting waste' as a permanent item on the agenda.
What are the Tory principles about a smaller state which could possibly reduce tax, spend and borrow collectively by a very small sum, say £50 billion per annum? (About 5% of the total). The last 14 years gives not a single clue. I have no idea. Does anyone know?
Seems to me that they will always lose on if the question is “how much should we spend” or “what do you want to cut”.
They need to reframe it as “what do we want the government to do”
0 -
It is interesting that the view from the right is that Labour has gone off to the left. The view from the left is that they are still camped firmly right-of-centre, and the view from the centre is that despite the noise from both wings, it's all a bit thin gruel.6
-
0
-
In 2005 and 2010 the Lib Dems made gains in Labour areas of cities as a reaction to the Iraq war as well as a more generic left of centre protest vote. That won't happen this time because we have the Greens and Gaza independents filling that gap, and it's probably just as well as it would stretch the Lib Dem message.pigeon said:
I certainly think the Tories are going to have a lot more trouble winning territory back off the Lib Dems than Labour come the next election. Davey can't be blamed for any of the Government's mistakes and his party's platform was attractive to many well to do, wet centrist voters to whom any further lurching to the right will be repellent.IanB2 said:
plus if there is any move towards Trumpism in the UK, surely Farage is better placed than the Tories in their current state? There was an interesting R4 radio documentary over the weekend on how Reform is at least trying to turn itself into a broad-based political party/movement and away from the owned-business model that Farage went for on the back of his experience with UKIP. And there just the earliest of signs that they may be able to make a bigger impact in local government than heretofore.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Perhaps a big space is going to open up for the LibDems as a sensible centre party?
What further space there is for gains us a different matter. The Lib Dem revival has, of course, relied on the supremely efficient distribution of a very modest share of the vote. They would have to attract a lot of support from other parties to build in that substantially and start to make significant gains and, although they are now back as the third party in Parliament, they are liable to be starved of much media attention relative to the big two and Reform.
I don't think there's much scope otherwise. The party remains moribund in Wales. Scotland is largely sewn up between the other 3 parties and outer London and the West Country will swing towards the Tories in the next election. The best hopes are probably further consolidation of the Surrey/Hants/Bucks/Sussex blue wall, plus probably an easy pick up in Hallam.0 -
Two challenges there.StillWaters said:algarkirk said:Thanks Alanbrooke for the article. I agree that politics is back, certainly its rhetoric is going to be around.
But as to tax, spend and borrow, and 'small state' the Tories have a lot of work ahead to be convincing since over 14 years they have embraced the larger and larger state and tax, spend and borrow.
The clue is is Alanbrooke's words about the small state:
They still have much thinking to do to establish viable policies
Which is fair enough. So let's start with principles. A smaller state with less spend, tax and borrow has principles about which big ticket things it stops doing and funding. Let us take 'greater efficiency and cutting waste' as a permanent item on the agenda.
What are the Tory principles about a smaller state which could possibly reduce tax, spend and borrow collectively by a very small sum, say £50 billion per annum? (About 5% of the total). The last 14 years gives not a single clue. I have no idea. Does anyone know?
Seems to me that they will always lose on if the question is “how much should we spend” or “what do you want to cut”.
They need to reframe it as “what do we want the government to do”
If they failed in that reframing during fourteen years in office, it will be much harder to do from opposition.
Besides, their signature policy so far in opposition has been to call for the restoration of universal WFA. Whatever the merits of that, it is an increase in spending.0 -
Thanks for the interesting article Alanbrooke.
I feel it's still too early to say there's been a fundamental shift - it feels like more continual evolution to me. Time will tell.2 -
The most obvious place, and the one where the Tories will look first whether they are being serious or not, is Social Security. About 55% of all social security spending goes on pensioners whom, especially after the WFP stropfest, no Government is likely to try tapping up again, which leaves the remaining 45% that goes on everyone else's universal credit, housing benefit, child benefit, disability support and sundry other items. Non-pensioner benefit spending for this financial year is estimated at £138bn, so to take £50bn off that would mean withdrawing just over a third of that total.algarkirk said:Thanks Alanbrooke for the article. I agree that politics is back, certainly its rhetoric is going to be around.
But as to tax, spend and borrow, and 'small state' the Tories have a lot of work ahead to be convincing since over 14 years they have embraced the larger and larger state and tax, spend and borrow.
The clue is is Alanbrooke's words about the small state:
They still have much thinking to do to establish viable policies
Which is fair enough. So let's start with principles. A smaller state with less spend, tax and borrow has principles about which big ticket things it stops doing and funding. Let us take 'greater efficiency and cutting waste' as a permanent item on the agenda.
What are the Tory principles about a smaller state which could possibly reduce tax, spend and borrow collectively by a very small sum, say £50 billion per annum? (About 5% of the total). The last 14 years gives not a single clue. I have no idea. Does anyone know?
You could recoup about £13bn of that by abolishing child benefit and another £35bn by abolishing housing benefit, which would add up to approximately the right total.
Alternatively, £60bn could be saved by disbanding the armed forces or closing down the state school system.
This is where we find ourselves: the books can only be balanced by heroic levels of economic growth, slicing off whole arms of the state with an axe, or hugely increasing taxes. The first is practically impossible, the second is impractical, and the third massively unpopular. Hence the bind in which politicians and people alike find themselves.1 -
viewcode said:
The latest in Marie Le Conte's USA election series
https://archive.is/3uULy
Paraphrasing the article: "I went to the America to find out why people support Trump. I met some people who seemed nice - but they supported Trump! I was so shocked I asked my nice Democrat friend why they were so wrong"viewcode said:The latest in Marie Le Conte's USA election series
https://archive.is/3uULy0 -
From the last thread - but connected to this one?
Note that according to the MP the requirement was that “not one bat would be killed”Andy_JS said:
I agree. It's interesting how there didn't seem to be anyone overseeing things who could state the obvious and say that spending £100m on a bat tunnel just wasn't an appropriate use of money.FrancisUrquhart said:
MPs and people with a political platform have been complaining about the inability to build anything for what seems forever. However they soon get trapped into the knot of overhauling the system will often mean weakening / removing things they also value, while also of course being sucked into the vortex of NIMBYs in their seat and labyrinthian planning system officials.Andy_JS said:This is from the new Labour MP for Chipping Barnet.
"Dan Tomlinson MP
@Dan4Barnet
Why can’t Britain build anything anymore?
The news this week of the £100m ‘bat tunnel’ gave us some clues.
Here’s the story of this tunnel, which has been 12 years in the making, and some thoughts on what it tells us"
https://x.com/Dan4Barnet/status/1855680716169740375
Which is an insane and incompetent requirement.
HS2 isn’t *human” death proof. No platform doors at every station, for a start. Why? Because making it 100% safe for humans in basically impossible. Trying would take infinite money.
The same goes for bats.
If correct, this is primary evidence that the Enquiry Industrial Complex is out of control.
What Starmer does will be interesting. If he doesn't manage to reform the process, how long before a political party uses primary legislation to eliminate planning and appeals - to get projects going within a single term.
"The party that can *build* the trains on time" - eh?9 -
Surely the "supremely efficient distribution of a very modest share of the vote" line applies to Labour. 63.2% of MPs on 33.7% of the vote - no other party got close to that efficiency.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pigeon, I agree the Conservatives will find it harder against Lib Dems than Labour come the next General Election but must disagree on the "supremely efficient distribution of a very modest share of the vote" line.
Ironically, this is taken from the subheading Labour and Lib Dems Enjoy Excellent Vote Efficiency:
"The Lib Dems won 11% of seats with 12% of the vote..."
https://medium.com/@rkilner/analysing-the-uks-2024-election-3fc186f6489e
The Lib Dems, of the major parties, had the closest corresponding figures for vote share and MPs.3 -
An efficient, well-disciplined, Trump would be a terrifying prospect.Richard_Tyndall said:
And even if he does I am not sure we would be welcoming it. Trump's agenda is all Trump. Much of what he will do will be petty, vindictive and affect few apart from those who are unfortunate enough to be in his crosshairs - mostly not everyday public peeps.noneoftheabove said:
We had those thoughts about VPs taking over for the last 8 years. I think it unlikely even though we are dealing with an ill old man.DavidL said:
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.noneoftheabove said:
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.DavidL said:
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.
Vance has beliefs, and ambitions for the country and the state beyond the personal. And they are ambitions that most of us, myself included, would not welcome on either a national or international level. Do you want your enemies to be incompetent, venal and incapable of enacting their agenda due to their own failings or do you want them to be competant, focused and able to realise their abhorant plans with ruthless efficiency?1 -
You're saying that like it's a bad thing 😃berberian_knows said:viewcode said:The latest in Marie Le Conte's USA election series
https://archive.is/3uULy
Paraphrasing the article: "I went to the America to find out why people support Trump. I met some people who seemed nice - but they supported Trump! I was so shocked I asked my nice Democrat friend why they were so wrong"viewcode said:The latest in Marie Le Conte's USA election series
https://archive.is/3uULy0 -
Morning all
Interesting piece from @Alanbrooke for which many thanks but I'm not sure I agree. Politics has never gone away - you have a view of Labour (which I'm not sure I share) and of the Conservatives (ditto) but we have moved away from a time (if it ever existed) when the choice was between John Jackson or Jack Johnson.
The problem is peddling the old remedies (which have been tried unsuccessfully) won't work in the current world. Solutions which might have worked when the demographic structure was more like a pyramid don't work when it isn't. Throw in environmental and technological developments and it's an incredibly difficult melange of often counter-moving elements to manage and try and keep everyone happy.
I see the new term of abuse for the mid 2020s is "centrist" - I'm a centrist and proud of it inasmuch as I don't see extreme solutions as solutions at all (such solutions tend to create new problems). As I've said on here many times - the party's over and as wiser souls than I have also opined, we have really been spinning the wheels since 2008. The end of (relatively) cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values was a shock just as the first energy shock had been in the early 1970s.
We've assumed growth for decades which in turn would make us all feel richer (whether we were or not). The return of inflation frightened a lot of people but the traditional "solution" for poor growth - spending cuts and tax cuts - won't play in the current society and culture especially if the latter looks to be favouring the very wealthy disproportionately (as it always does). Fifty years of propaganda has left the very notion of basic rate tax rises anathema even though that's probably in itself no more than a short-term fix though I'd offer a basic rate of 25% and higher rate of 50% wouldn't be the end of civilisation as we know it.
If the traditional solutions don't work and the radical solutions don't work either, what then? A prolonged period of economic and societal inertia - what some call "managed decline" or do we await the coming of the next big technological change(s) - AI? - which could be economically transformative (IT was, just not in the way its proponents expected).
This opens the door for the snake oil sellers to try their hand - populism is the epitome of saying what you think your audience wants to hear (however insane, impractical or unpleasant). The really effective politicians don't chase the voters - they make the argument and wait for the voters to come to them.9 -
[Trump voice] "Communist Keir!"Benpointer said:Thanks for the interesting article Alanbrooke.
I feel it's still too early to say there's been a fundamental shift - it feels like more continual evolution to me. Time will tell.0 -
It wasn't entirely clear what constitutes the fundamental shift. The election of Trump, nodded to in the header, might fairly be characterised as such - but that's for the US, not us.Benpointer said:Thanks for the interesting article Alanbrooke.
I feel it's still too early to say there's been a fundamental shift - it feels like more continual evolution to me. Time will tell.
And there's a possibility (probability ?) in four years' time that both Starmer and Trump will be seen to have failed in government. What then ?
In any event. I don't see much mileage in the UK copying US prescriptions. Both political cultures and economies are markedly different.0 -
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
0 -
Indeed. Kemi's choices really are these:Stuartinromford said:
Two challenges there.StillWaters said:algarkirk said:Thanks Alanbrooke for the article. I agree that politics is back, certainly its rhetoric is going to be around.
But as to tax, spend and borrow, and 'small state' the Tories have a lot of work ahead to be convincing since over 14 years they have embraced the larger and larger state and tax, spend and borrow.
The clue is is Alanbrooke's words about the small state:
They still have much thinking to do to establish viable policies
Which is fair enough. So let's start with principles. A smaller state with less spend, tax and borrow has principles about which big ticket things it stops doing and funding. Let us take 'greater efficiency and cutting waste' as a permanent item on the agenda.
What are the Tory principles about a smaller state which could possibly reduce tax, spend and borrow collectively by a very small sum, say £50 billion per annum? (About 5% of the total). The last 14 years gives not a single clue. I have no idea. Does anyone know?
Seems to me that they will always lose on if the question is “how much should we spend” or “what do you want to cut”.
They need to reframe it as “what do we want the government to do”
If they failed in that reframing during fourteen years in office, it will be much harder to do from opposition.
Besides, their signature policy so far in opposition has been to call for the restoration of universal WFA. Whatever the merits of that, it is an increase in spending.
Prepare to think and actually do different WRT tax, spend and borrow, and to some extent disclose the policy on government's limits.
Pretend to do so but never find the coherent set of principles and policies to achieve it.
Thirdly (and 98% chance this will be the one) continue to tinker with the social democracy of the UK, completely unchanged in principle since the 1945 election while emphasising unimportant small differences.
(By social democracy I mean: state provision from welfare to grave, high tax and spend, regulated capitalism, rule of law, respect and participate in the international order, sound defence in a western alliance).1 -
The second Trump Presidency is by far the biggest problem Labour have to deal with. Hopefully they have been making preparations for this outcome, but judging by everything else they have done so far I fear that they have not.DavidL said:The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.
0 -
They didn’t try in governmentStuartinromford said:
Two challenges there.StillWaters said:algarkirk said:Thanks Alanbrooke for the article. I agree that politics is back, certainly its rhetoric is going to be around.
But as to tax, spend and borrow, and 'small state' the Tories have a lot of work ahead to be convincing since over 14 years they have embraced the larger and larger state and tax, spend and borrow.
The clue is is Alanbrooke's words about the small state:
They still have much thinking to do to establish viable policies
Which is fair enough. So let's start with principles. A smaller state with less spend, tax and borrow has principles about which big ticket things it stops doing and funding. Let us take 'greater efficiency and cutting waste' as a permanent item on the agenda.
What are the Tory principles about a smaller state which could possibly reduce tax, spend and borrow collectively by a very small sum, say £50 billion per annum? (About 5% of the total). The last 14 years gives not a single clue. I have no idea. Does anyone know?
Seems to me that they will always lose on if the question is “how much should we spend” or “what do you want to cut”.
They need to reframe it as “what do we want the government to do”
If they failed in that reframing during fourteen years in office, it will be much harder to do from opposition.
Besides, their signature policy so far in opposition has been to call for the restoration of universal WFA. Whatever the
merits of that, it is an increase in spending.
And WFA opposition is just standard politics. No one will remember in due course
0 -
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegal immigrants?Benpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.0 -
Yes. I think we may be discovering that social democracy, once established (1945 is the key date) has two features. Short of violent revolution it cannot be abolished, and it is expensive, always getting more not less expensive.pigeon said:
The most obvious place, and the one where the Tories will look first whether they are being serious or not, is Social Security. About 55% of all social security spending goes on pensioners whom, especially after the WFP stropfest, no Government is likely to try tapping up again, which leaves the remaining 45% that goes on everyone else's universal credit, housing benefit, child benefit, disability support and sundry other items. Non-pensioner benefit spending for this financial year is estimated at £138bn, so to take £50bn off that would mean withdrawing just over a third of that total.algarkirk said:Thanks Alanbrooke for the article. I agree that politics is back, certainly its rhetoric is going to be around.
But as to tax, spend and borrow, and 'small state' the Tories have a lot of work ahead to be convincing since over 14 years they have embraced the larger and larger state and tax, spend and borrow.
The clue is is Alanbrooke's words about the small state:
They still have much thinking to do to establish viable policies
Which is fair enough. So let's start with principles. A smaller state with less spend, tax and borrow has principles about which big ticket things it stops doing and funding. Let us take 'greater efficiency and cutting waste' as a permanent item on the agenda.
What are the Tory principles about a smaller state which could possibly reduce tax, spend and borrow collectively by a very small sum, say £50 billion per annum? (About 5% of the total). The last 14 years gives not a single clue. I have no idea. Does anyone know?
You could recoup about £13bn of that by abolishing child benefit and another £35bn by abolishing housing benefit, which would add up to approximately the right total.
Alternatively, £60bn could be saved by disbanding the armed forces or closing down the state school system.
This is where we find ourselves: the books can only be balanced by heroic levels of economic growth, slicing off whole arms of the state with an axe, or hugely increasing taxes. The first is practically impossible, the second is impractical, and the third massively unpopular. Hence the bind in which politicians and people alike find themselves.
I suspect this is the universal experience of western Europe.1 -
The hope is that he gets bogged down and obsessed by one or two big domestic priorities that don't really affect the rest of the world, and we get to carry on regardless. And that the tariffs are just a negotiating wheeze. But he has Elon Musk as his effective COO this time.Sean_F said:
An efficient, well-disciplined, Trump would be a terrifying prospect.Richard_Tyndall said:
And even if he does I am not sure we would be welcoming it. Trump's agenda is all Trump. Much of what he will do will be petty, vindictive and affect few apart from those who are unfortunate enough to be in his crosshairs - mostly not everyday public peeps.noneoftheabove said:
We had those thoughts about VPs taking over for the last 8 years. I think it unlikely even though we are dealing with an ill old man.DavidL said:
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.noneoftheabove said:
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.DavidL said:
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.
Vance has beliefs, and ambitions for the country and the state beyond the personal. And they are ambitions that most of us, myself included, would not welcome on either a national or international level. Do you want your enemies to be incompetent, venal and incapable of enacting their agenda due to their own failings or do you want them to be competant, focused and able to realise their abhorant plans with ruthless efficiency?1 -
Yes Starmer is more of a Brown or Wilson in his desire to expand the state and tax businesses more. Though he still has New Labour social liberalism plus wokism but is less interested than Blair in interventionism abroad.
Badenoch is a return to a more Thatcherite Tory party with Farage representing the nationalist populist right. The LDs probably closest now to a centrist party in UK politics but even they will adopt some populism in opposing winter fuel cuts, backing farmers from inheritance tax rises and opposing new homes on the greenbelt1 -
"aggressive to groups it doesn’t like such as farmers, or the old"
What an utter joke.
I have some sympathy for small to medium farmers, however the target is really those non farmers doing some hobby farming as part of inheritance tax planning, a tax break that was only introduced under John Major.
I'd be fairly certain that if you asked any politician with half a brain in private if they thought the triple lock was either sensible or sustainable, they would say no, but no one will grasp the nettle.
Maybe in 2032 when auto enrolment will be 20 years old someone will actually have the courage to say no to the biggest voting cohort.
Besides from the fact that no one on the left would describe Starmer in anyway "socialist".
It is at least some effort to balance the books after Sunak and Hunt effectivly played ludicrous politics with unfunded promises and cutting taxes without cutting spending.
Anyone outside the PB right wing bubble would find this analysis utterly laughable.1 -
As I said yesterday No 10 has been wargaming sanctions on US imports if as expected Trump imposes tariffs on foreign imports to the USglw said:
The second Trump Presidency is by far the biggest problem Labour have to deal with. Hopefully they have been making preparations for this outcome, but judging by everything else they have done so far I fear that they have not.DavidL said:The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.
0 -
It depends how brutal they want to be. The Greeks and Turks, post WWI, and Eastern European governments, post WWII, were successful at removing unwanted populations.Benpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.0 -
You have the law as written, and the law as enforced.Eabhal said:On topic - I'm trying to identify this "top down use of legislation to make the citizenry conform" that Labour are responsible for. The Public Order Act 2023 was introduced by Sunak's administration, and incitement to violence - for which many far-right "activists" were locked up for - has been unlawful for centuries.
However, if the new disruptive protesting rules means that farmers are locked up like JSO protestors, then that does give the current government an opportunity to repeal it. If that doesn't happen, then they are worthy of your criticism.
"no, no minister, I assure you it won't mean that. The police and CPS will use their common sense, and we most certainly won't be getting people who walk past a protest on their way home from the police and looky lou around getting arrested and sent to jail"
"no, no minster. Anti social behaviour is a scourge, but public place protection orders would never be used to stop people publicly speaking. Local authorities have a robust process of scrutiny. People would never get fined for reading loudly from the Bible"1 -
Logistically 5m is a lot of peopleWildernessPt2 said:
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegalBenpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
immigrants?
It’s not as easy as hiring a bus and turning them loose on the Mexican side of the border0 -
The idea this government is particularly left wing is palpably ridiculous.3
-
No country in western Europe has tried to follow the USA model. A few Brexiteer ultras wanted to but it isn't going to occur. Critically Reform does not want to. UK populism is based on very high state expenditure and improving not diminishing the state cradle to grave service. If anyone thinks the people of Clacton voted for compulsory private health insurance or self-reliance for pension income they are gravely mistaken. The UK votes for state provided free stuff and will continue to do so.Nigelb said:
It wasn't entirely clear what constitutes the fundamental shift. The election of Trump, nodded to in the header, might fairly be characterised as such - but that's for the US, not us.Benpointer said:Thanks for the interesting article Alanbrooke.
I feel it's still too early to say there's been a fundamental shift - it feels like more continual evolution to me. Time will tell.
And there's a possibility (probability ?) in four years' time that both Starmer and Trump will be seen to have failed in government. What then ?
In any event. I don't see much mileage in the UK copying US prescriptions. Both political cultures and economies are markedly different.0 -
I suspect more than several buses for a start.StillWaters said:
Logistically 5m is a lot of peopleWildernessPt2 said:
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegalBenpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
immigrants?
It’s not as easy as hiring a bus and turning them loose on the Mexican side of the border1 -
And any tinkering with the sacred shibboleths is End Timesalgarkirk said:
Yes. I think we may be discovering that social democracy, once established (1945 is the key date) has two features. Short of violent revolution it cannot be abolished, and it is expensive, always getting more not less expensive.pigeon said:
The most obvious place, and the one where the Tories will look first whether they are being serious or not, is Social Security. About 55% of all social security spending goes on pensioners whom, especially after the WFP stropfest, no Government is likely to try tapping up again, which leaves the remaining 45% that goes on everyone else's universal credit, housing benefit, child benefit, disability support and sundry other items. Non-pensioner benefit spending for this financial year is estimated at £138bn, so to take £50bn off that would mean withdrawing just over a third of that total.algarkirk said:Thanks Alanbrooke for the article. I agree that politics is back, certainly its rhetoric is going to be around.
But as to tax, spend and borrow, and 'small state' the Tories have a lot of work ahead to be convincing since over 14 years they have embraced the larger and larger state and tax, spend and borrow.
The clue is is Alanbrooke's words about the small state:
They still have much thinking to do to establish viable policies
Which is fair enough. So let's start with principles. A smaller state with less spend, tax and borrow has principles about which big ticket things it stops doing and funding. Let us take 'greater efficiency and cutting waste' as a permanent item on the agenda.
What are the Tory principles about a smaller state which could possibly reduce tax, spend and borrow collectively by a very small sum, say £50 billion per annum? (About 5% of the total). The last 14 years gives not a single clue. I have no idea. Does anyone know?
You could recoup about £13bn of that by abolishing child benefit and another £35bn by abolishing housing benefit, which would add up to approximately the right total.
Alternatively, £60bn could be saved by disbanding the armed forces or closing down the state school system.
This is where we find ourselves: the books can only be balanced by heroic levels of economic growth, slicing off whole arms of the state with an axe, or hugely increasing taxes. The first is practically impossible, the second is impractical, and the third massively unpopular. Hence the bind in which politicians and people alike find themselves.
I suspect this is the universal experience of western Europe.
I recall howling when one of the Baltic states simply flattened the whole income tax system to fit on a post card. The "fascism" word was even used - despite the fact that real Fascist regimes always had high taxes.
Companies and other large organisations need to reinvent themselves non-stop. Or they die. One in a generation, you need a big re-think.
The problem has become that The System sees *any* change as extreme. So the pressure for change builds up and up.1 -
Even the average farm now is worth £2.5 million and there was no exemption for family farms built up over generations if the measure was just intended to target inheritance tax dodgers.kenObi said:"aggressive to groups it doesn’t like such as farmers, or the old"
What an utter joke.
I have some sympathy for small to medium farmers, however the target is really those non farmers doing some hobby farming as part of inheritance tax planning, a tax break that was only introduced under John Major.
I'd be fairly certain that if you asked any politician with half a brain in private if they thought the triple lock was either sensible or sustainable, they would say no, but no one will grasp the nettle.
Maybe in 2032 when auto enrolment will be 20 years old someone will actually have the courage to say no to the biggest voting cohort.
Besides from the fact that no one on the left would describe Starmer in anyway "socialist".
It is at least some effort to balance the books after Sunak and Hunt effectivly played ludicrous politics with unfunded promises and cutting taxes without cutting spending.
Anyone outside the PB right wing bubble would find this analysis utterly laughable.
Sunak and Hunt of course increased taxes and Hunt capped spending it was Truss and Kwarteng who cut tax without cutting spending0 -
I think let's take a breath before we analyse what Trump will do. There's still no wall across the border, and that was merely an engineering challenge. Deporting millions when many states do not wish to do so is going to be much more difficult.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Separately, my recollection of the West dealing with Trump is that he basically got played. They made some flattering statements and had to kiss the ring, but he did end up supporting NATO in the end. Maybe that's complacent but I think it's certainly possible.0 -
Scandinavia basically offers the model of social democracy in public spending balanced by private ownership of most utilities and high taxation. It works pretty well, with little demand either for state ownership or lower taxes. There are lots of issues which excite controversy, not least immigration, but on the whole there's a consensus on the model.algarkirk said:
Yes. I think we may be discovering that social democracy, once established (1945 is the key date) has two features. Short of violent revolution it cannot be abolished, and it is expensive, always getting more not less expensive.pigeon said:
The most obvious place, and the one where the Tories will look first whether they are being serious or not, is Social Security. About 55% of all social security spending goes on pensioners whom, especially after the WFP stropfest, no Government is likely to try tapping up again, which leaves the remaining 45% that goes on everyone else's universal credit, housing benefit, child benefit, disability support and sundry other items. Non-pensioner benefit spending for this financial year is estimated at £138bn, so to take £50bn off that would mean withdrawing just over a third of that total.algarkirk said:Thanks Alanbrooke for the article. I agree that politics is back, certainly its rhetoric is going to be around.
But as to tax, spend and borrow, and 'small state' the Tories have a lot of work ahead to be convincing since over 14 years they have embraced the larger and larger state and tax, spend and borrow.
The clue is is Alanbrooke's words about the small state:
They still have much thinking to do to establish viable policies
Which is fair enough. So let's start with principles. A smaller state with less spend, tax and borrow has principles about which big ticket things it stops doing and funding. Let us take 'greater efficiency and cutting waste' as a permanent item on the agenda.
What are the Tory principles about a smaller state which could possibly reduce tax, spend and borrow collectively by a very small sum, say £50 billion per annum? (About 5% of the total). The last 14 years gives not a single clue. I have no idea. Does anyone know?
You could recoup about £13bn of that by abolishing child benefit and another £35bn by abolishing housing benefit, which would add up to approximately the right total.
Alternatively, £60bn could be saved by disbanding the armed forces or closing down the state school system.
This is where we find ourselves: the books can only be balanced by heroic levels of economic growth, slicing off whole arms of the state with an axe, or hugely increasing taxes. The first is practically impossible, the second is impractical, and the third massively unpopular. Hence the bind in which politicians and people alike find themselves.
I suspect this is the universal experience of western Europe.
I suspect that if Labour next time were to weaken its commitment not to increase income tax at the higher levels, it'd be quite popular, as there's a definite demand for a reformist government. I think Alan's piece slightly overstates the extent to which we have it already, as we're hemmed in by all the commitments.2 -
@Benpointer just told you in his first sentence. How and to where?WildernessPt2 said:
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegal immigrants?Benpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.0 -
Well you could take out the seats and that would probably mean you could squeeze a couple of hundred per bus… may be more efficient to use trains… no need for windows of course so perhaps those goods wagon cars with the sliding doors…?dixiedean said:
I suspect more than several buses for a start.StillWaters said:
Logistically 5m is a lot of peopleWildernessPt2 said:
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegalBenpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
immigrants?
It’s not as easy as hiring a bus and turning them loose on the Mexican side of the border0 -
The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.2 -
It is social democrat like all UK governments.BatteryCorrectHorse said:The idea this government is particularly left wing is palpably ridiculous.
0 -
No, but you make starts. One you cauterize the wound, two you divide up who you are going for. Those with a criminal record to begin with, maybe if the numbers are still too high (which says a lot in itself) you go for those who have served a custodial term. Along with that you create a mechanism for those who have been in the country for a long time with no criminal record the means the regularise their citizenry.StillWaters said:
Logistically 5m is a lot of peopleWildernessPt2 said:
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegalBenpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
immigrants?
It’s not as easy as hiring a bus and turning them loose on the Mexican side of the border0 -
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.0 -
Another grey Monday in November. Ugh
I’m trying to cheer myself up with the view
Also why I am only at the fifteenth best hotel
In the world? What’s up with the fourteenth best? Too good for the likes of me??0 -
Farms are like businesses. It is not good for the economy as a whole if they are split up / required to be sold to pay taxes. That’s not the same as protecting “amenity farmers” but I would have thought a more precisely targeted measure would have workedBatteryCorrectHorse said:The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.1 -
In the run up to the 6 day war, there was an Egyptian cabinet discussion about how they were going to expel all the Jews in the Middle East, once Israel was destroyed.StillWaters said:
Well you could take out the seats and that would probably mean you could squeeze a couple of hundred per bus… may be more efficient to use trains… no need for windows of course so perhaps those goods wagon cars with the sliding doors…?dixiedean said:
I suspect more than several buses for a start.StillWaters said:
Logistically 5m is a lot of peopleWildernessPt2 said:
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegalBenpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
immigrants?
It’s not as easy as hiring a bus and turning them loose on the Mexican side of the border
Nasser suggested hiring cruise ships. One of the ministers suggested cattle transport ships. And they wouldn't need many of those.0 -
No she wouldn't, Biden at least beat Trump. Harris had about as much connection with middle America as Jane Fonda and would still have had the cost of living issueDavidL said:
I suspect that Harris, for one, is probably regretting her loyalty to Biden. If he had been pushed aside in 2023 and she had taken over she might well have won. As it was she got nearly all the downsides of incumbency and few of the upsides. And Pence being rewarded for his loyalty with a noose must have had similar thoughts.noneoftheabove said:
We had those thoughts about VPs taking over for the last 8 years. I think it unlikely even though we are dealing with an ill old man.DavidL said:
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.noneoftheabove said:
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.DavidL said:
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.0 -
But that’s not what Trump is saying. The GOP has always opposed any democratic proposals on a path to normalisationWildernessPt2 said:
No, but you make starts. One you cauterize the wound, two you divide up who you are going for. Those with a criminal record to begin with, maybe if the numbers are still too high (which says a lot in itself) you go for those who have served a custodial term. Along with that you create a mechanism for those who have been in the country for a long time with no criminal record the means the regularise their citizenry.StillWaters said:
Logistically 5m is a lot of peopleWildernessPt2 said:
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegalBenpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
immigrants?
It’s not as easy as hiring a bus and turning them loose on the Mexican side of the border0 -
Its also not good if sucessful, innovative farmers are unable to expand because land prices are driven up by inheritance tax rorts.StillWaters said:
Farms are like businesses. It is not good for the economy as a whole if they are split up / required to be sold to pay taxes. That’s not the same as protecting “amenity farmers” but I would have thought a more precisely targeted measure would have workedBatteryCorrectHorse said:The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.0 -
Like that would have had a different reaction though?StillWaters said:
Farms are like businesses. It is not good for the economy as a whole if they are split up / required to be sold to pay taxes. That’s not the same as protecting “amenity farmers” but I would have thought a more precisely targeted measure would have workedBatteryCorrectHorse said:The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
The IHT debate I’m afraid is silly, it’s people get wound up about a tax they won’t pay, that the wealthy like me pay. I don’t have an issue paying it, why should I?0 -
Agree. Social democrat models are unavoidable. (Until a black swan turns up, which it might). The three big issues really are competence, managing the matters that don't have resolutions (migration for example), and finally the fact that the UK has been especially slow to accept that it has had a social democrat model for 80 years and that this involves massive state intervention and massive taxes, not just for someone else.NickPalmer said:
Scandinavia basically offers the model of social democracy in public spending balanced by private ownership of most utilities and high taxation. It works pretty well, with little demand either for state ownership or lower taxes. There are lots of issues which excite controversy, not least immigration, but on the whole there's a consensus on the model.algarkirk said:
Yes. I think we may be discovering that social democracy, once established (1945 is the key date) has two features. Short of violent revolution it cannot be abolished, and it is expensive, always getting more not less expensive.pigeon said:
The most obvious place, and the one where the Tories will look first whether they are being serious or not, is Social Security. About 55% of all social security spending goes on pensioners whom, especially after the WFP stropfest, no Government is likely to try tapping up again, which leaves the remaining 45% that goes on everyone else's universal credit, housing benefit, child benefit, disability support and sundry other items. Non-pensioner benefit spending for this financial year is estimated at £138bn, so to take £50bn off that would mean withdrawing just over a third of that total.algarkirk said:Thanks Alanbrooke for the article. I agree that politics is back, certainly its rhetoric is going to be around.
But as to tax, spend and borrow, and 'small state' the Tories have a lot of work ahead to be convincing since over 14 years they have embraced the larger and larger state and tax, spend and borrow.
The clue is is Alanbrooke's words about the small state:
They still have much thinking to do to establish viable policies
Which is fair enough. So let's start with principles. A smaller state with less spend, tax and borrow has principles about which big ticket things it stops doing and funding. Let us take 'greater efficiency and cutting waste' as a permanent item on the agenda.
What are the Tory principles about a smaller state which could possibly reduce tax, spend and borrow collectively by a very small sum, say £50 billion per annum? (About 5% of the total). The last 14 years gives not a single clue. I have no idea. Does anyone know?
You could recoup about £13bn of that by abolishing child benefit and another £35bn by abolishing housing benefit, which would add up to approximately the right total.
Alternatively, £60bn could be saved by disbanding the armed forces or closing down the state school system.
This is where we find ourselves: the books can only be balanced by heroic levels of economic growth, slicing off whole arms of the state with an axe, or hugely increasing taxes. The first is practically impossible, the second is impractical, and the third massively unpopular. Hence the bind in which politicians and people alike find themselves.
I suspect this is the universal experience of western Europe.
I suspect that if Labour next time were to weaken its commitment not to increase income tax at the higher levels, it'd be quite popular, as there's a definite demand for a reformist government. I think Alan's piece slightly overstates the extent to which we have it already, as we're hemmed in by all the commitments.0 -
A
I think from a UK perspective, it's difficult to understand how integrated illegal immigrants are in US communities. Of that 11 million, a large majority are living with family members who are legally resident. There are 5 million US children living with a parent who is an illegal migrant.WildernessPt2 said:
No, but you make starts. One you cauterize the wound, two you divide up who you are going for. Those with a criminal record to begin with, maybe if the numbers are still too high (which says a lot in itself) you go for those who have served a custodial term. Along with that you create a mechanism for those who have been in the country for a long time with no criminal record the means the regularise their citizenry.StillWaters said:
Logistically 5m is a lot of peopleWildernessPt2 said:
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegalBenpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
immigrants?
It’s not as easy as hiring a bus and turning them loose on the Mexican side of the border
Deporting illegal migrants is not itself controversial. What that means in practice...0 -
How do you conclusively prove somebody is faking “anxiety”, a disorder for example I was diagnosed with by a professional. Is that the boundary for which we require it?Fishing said:I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.1 -
I was going for the auschwitz death train look… but your motif works as well…Malmesbury said:
In the run up to the 6 day war, there was an Egyptian cabinet discussion about how they were going to expel all the Jews in the Middle East, once Israel was destroyed.StillWaters said:
Well you could take out the seats and that would probably mean you could squeeze a couple of hundred per bus… may be more efficient to use trains… no need for windows of course so perhaps those goods wagon cars with the sliding doors…?dixiedean said:
I suspect more than several buses for a start.StillWaters said:
Logistically 5m is a lot of peopleWildernessPt2 said:
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegalBenpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
immigrants?
It’s not as easy as hiring a bus and turning them loose on the Mexican side of the border
Nasser suggested hiring cruise ships. One
of the ministers suggested cattle transport
ships. And they wouldn't need many of
those.
0 -
With the exception of severe mental illnesses, there was no support for it within the benefits system. It was only relatively recently that conditions such as anxiety and depression became a pathway to financial support.BatteryCorrectHorse said:
How do you conclusively prove somebody is faking “anxiety”, a disorder for example I was diagnosed with by a professional. Is that the boundary for which we require it?Fishing said:I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.1 -
The US "repatriated" 1.1 million people last year. Repatriated includes voluntarily leaving on requestkjh said:
@Benpointer just told you in his first sentence. How and to where?WildernessPt2 said:
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegal immigrants?Benpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
https://usafacts.org/answers/how-many-people-were-deported-from-the-us/country/united-states/
0 -
It's Dennis Healey left wing.. tax em till their pips squeak amd the ni rise is selective employment tax by another name.BatteryCorrectHorse said:The idea this government is particularly left wing is palpably ridiculous.
1 -
So are we saying anxiety shouldn’t give support?WildernessPt2 said:
With the exception of severe mental illnesses, there was no support for it within the benefits system. It was only relatively recently that conditions such as anxiety and depression became a pathway to financial support.BatteryCorrectHorse said:
How do you conclusively prove somebody is faking “anxiety”, a disorder for example I was diagnosed with by a professional. Is that the boundary for which we require it?Fishing said:I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.0 -
I'll make an argument in the abstract...BatteryCorrectHorse said:The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
A nation's consumers do better with cheap(ish) home grown food. It helps keep inflation low (Particularly for the poorest) and is beneficial for the enviroment (Note if we all were vegan the cereal crops need to be grown too - so this debate doesn't really hinge on anything to do with animals). Farming is a relatively low yield activity - if farmers sold their land tomorrow and just stuck it into a global equity tracker they'd probably do better than actually farming given the costs and so forth - farming can have really bad years too - so farming probably isn't actually the very best use of a farmer's time or money. Certainly selling the farm, investing the money then doing another job would earn them more in most cases.
The economics of farms depend on scale - essentially the above might not be true in a good year BUT the farm has to be above a certain size, you can't buy half a tractor for instance or half a combine harvester - both serious asset investments to be viable. The farmer's "reward" if you like is that they avoid most of the IHT that the rest of us would pay with such asset values, take this away and there's no longer the incentive to pass down the farm to generations future - you might as well sell up to "big agriculture", or you need to sell off part of your farm to pay the death duties and if this is set too low a threshold/too high a tax then farmers and their heirs might as well not bother. Whether Labour's changes push to this level is open to debate - but there's the argument in the round for lower IHT on agricultural land than regular IHT.2 -
It’s the knock on consequencesBatteryCorrectHorse said:
Like that would have had a different reaction though?StillWaters said:
Farms are like businesses. It is not good for the economy as a whole if they are split up / required to be sold to pay taxes. That’s not the same as protecting “amenity farmers” but I would have thought a more precisely targeted measure would have workedBatteryCorrectHorse said:The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
The IHT debate I’m afraid is silly, it’s people get wound up about a tax they won’t pay, that the wealthy like me pay. I don’t have an issue paying it, why should I?
If the tax liability forces the sale of a company to private equity that sacks all the employees and sells the brand to a foreign company is the country better off?
That’s why exemptions exist even though they may not appear to be “fair”. It’s because the interests of the company are more important0 -
Another photo from a rich globalist citizen of nowhere from paradise while citizens of somewhere have to trudge to work in the darkLeon said:Another grey Monday in November. Ugh
I’m trying to cheer myself up with the view
Also why I am only at the fifteenth best hotel
In the world? What’s up with the fourteenth best? Too good for the likes of me??2 -
According to the comments of those in the room, Nasser was a bit shocked by the suggestion.StillWaters said:
I was going for the auschwitz death train look… but your motif works as well…Malmesbury said:
In the run up to the 6 day war, there was an Egyptian cabinet discussion about how they were going to expel all the Jews in the Middle East, once Israel was destroyed.StillWaters said:
Well you could take out the seats and that would probably mean you could squeeze a couple of hundred per bus… may be more efficient to use trains… no need for windows of course so perhaps those goods wagon cars with the sliding doors…?dixiedean said:
I suspect more than several buses for a start.StillWaters said:
Logistically 5m is a lot of peopleWildernessPt2 said:
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegalBenpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
immigrants?
It’s not as easy as hiring a bus and turning them loose on the Mexican side of the border
Nasser suggested hiring cruise ships. One
of the ministers suggested cattle transport
ships. And they wouldn't need many of
those.1 -
Soundbites to policy. Trump is not like any other Republican and he doesn't necessarily see immigrants as just potential Democrat voters.StillWaters said:
But that’s not what Trump is saying. The GOP has always opposed any democratic proposals on a path to normalisationWildernessPt2 said:
No, but you make starts. One you cauterize the wound, two you divide up who you are going for. Those with a criminal record to begin with, maybe if the numbers are still too high (which says a lot in itself) you go for those who have served a custodial term. Along with that you create a mechanism for those who have been in the country for a long time with no criminal record the means the regularise their citizenry.StillWaters said:
Logistically 5m is a lot of peopleWildernessPt2 said:
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegalBenpointer said:
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?Cicero said:Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
immigrants?
It’s not as easy as hiring a bus and turning them loose on the Mexican side of the border
If Trump goes after the criminals only the policy wont struggle.0 -
I just don’t see how the current situation is avoidable. If we want better public services we will all have to pay more.squareroot2 said:
It's Dennis Healey left wing.. tax em till their pips squeak amd the ni rise is selective employment tax by another name.BatteryCorrectHorse said:The idea this government is particularly left wing is palpably ridiculous.
We tried the Tory approach, it didn’t work.
It seeks that the Tories have conveniently forgotten that?1 -
Bit of a mad header as many have already pointed out. The last Conservative administration saw tax rise to its highest levels, as well as spending, all the while gaps in funding widened and public buildings fell apart.
Whoever won in July would have been stuck with the same problems and would have had to take similar decisions. To be sure had the Conservatives won who they taxed more would have been different, and I daresay they would have been happy to wait out public sector strikes by not agreeing wage rises (most of which were recommended by review boards with terms of reference set by the Conservative government).
The challenge for Labour is they’ve boxed themselves in with their taxation “promises” and not been brave enough to hit things like fuel duty (which I believe is still judged as a “temporary” freeze for working things out like deficit forecasts). If there is limited growth over the next few years then Labour are going to find the box they put themselves in get smaller, and find spending demands get higher and higher (triple lock, NHS, defence to 2.5%, etc. etc).
If I were Conservatives I would make sure Labour stay in that box and hammer them on wasted spending.0 -
I love Jezza but he literally bought a farm to avoid IHT. Do you think that’s justifiable?StillWaters said:
It’s the knock on consequencesBatteryCorrectHorse said:
Like that would have had a different reaction though?StillWaters said:
Farms are like businesses. It is not good for the economy as a whole if they are split up / required to be sold to pay taxes. That’s not the same as protecting “amenity farmers” but I would have thought a more precisely targeted measure would have workedBatteryCorrectHorse said:The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
The IHT debate I’m afraid is silly, it’s people get wound up about a tax they won’t pay, that the wealthy like me pay. I don’t have an issue paying it, why should I?
If the tax liability forces the sale of a company to private equity that sacks all the employees and sells the brand to a foreign company is the country better off?
That’s why exemptions exist even though they may not appear to be “fair”. It’s because the interests of the company are more important0
