Unverified Reports that Russian Military Command Syria has ordered all Forces in the Northern Governorates of Aleppo and Idlib, to Withdraw away from the ongoing Rebel Offensive and towards the South.
We may now be witnessing the near Total Collapse of the Syrian Arab Army and Pro-Regime Militias in the Northwest of the Country; with the City of Aleppo expected to likely fall to Opposition Forces in the next few hours, as both the Russians and Iranians appear to be in Chaos.
I wonder if Assad is suffering a perfect storm here? The Russians desperate for men and equipment for Ukraine withdrawing strategic assets from Syria and Hezbollah, who were one of the mainstays of Syrian Government support, having been hammered and lost much of their senior command structure.
Iran can step up support for him and Hezbollah.
To be fair I would prefer even Assad to the largely Islamic militant rebels who oppose him. Given Assad saw off ISIS in the end I am sure he will survive this more rag tag band
Islamist militants form a big part of the rebel forces in Aleppo, but they’re not ISIS by any means.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Can't believe Aleppo has fallen this quickly, but it is often the way I guess. A disaster for Russia and Iran. Not great for a lot of Syrians either, really no idea how this settles. Best stay out of it.
I was posting about this in the afternoon. Watching it in real,time on twitter.
There are many thousands of Christians in Aleppo. They’ll not sleep easy now.
I think it’s entirely plausible that Reform could win, or at least get most votes. It does require a lot to go their way, but I think people often underestimate the portion of the electorate who could be persuaded to vote for them. I suspect there is a ceiling because Farage, but I wouldn’t be comfortable to say that ceiling was definitely lower than, say, 35%. That has been enough to deliver parties a win under FPTP.
I find the argument that there’s just no way, pretty unconvincing.
I think it's entirely possible that Reform tops the vote in 2028/9. It's not odds on, by any means, but it's certainly no worse than a one-in-four shot.
Getting most seats, however, is going to be a tougher ask: not impossible by any means, but tougher. Which makes the 4-1 or so on offer not particularly attractive:
(1) The left and left of centre vote is extremely efficiently distributed. In the shires, county towns, and wealthy suburbs, then Labour voters vote LibDem tactically. In other places, LibDems vote Labour. (And we should add in the Greens here too.)
(2) You can tactically vote against parties in the UK. Look at Scotland in 1997. The Conservatives got almost 20% of the vote... and no seats. The LibDems were fourth in vote share, and second in seat share. I think it's entirely possible that some LibDem, Green and Labour voters would vote tactically for Conservatives to prevent a Reform win in their constituency.
(3) Reform doesn't (yet) have a local councillor base. Now this may change come the locals next year. In the UK system, councillors are a useful asset: they mean you know where your voters are, it means you have volunteers to draw from, and it makes you a credible option. (Against that: if you gain control of a council and fuck it up...)
I would make Reform 3-1 to win most votes next time around, but would probably want 6-1 on them getting most seats. Still: this is FPTP, and very chaotic results are entirely possible, particularly if the Greens also get into double digits, so I wouldn't count them out.
I would add that Reform struggles to find decent candidates.
The chances are that either they have torn themselves apart, or Farage has walked away, or that they remain clueless about fighting elections, come 2028.
Not at Cookie's 10/1 though. I'd be a backer at that.
Unverified Reports that Russian Military Command Syria has ordered all Forces in the Northern Governorates of Aleppo and Idlib, to Withdraw away from the ongoing Rebel Offensive and towards the South.
We may now be witnessing the near Total Collapse of the Syrian Arab Army and Pro-Regime Militias in the Northwest of the Country; with the City of Aleppo expected to likely fall to Opposition Forces in the next few hours, as both the Russians and Iranians appear to be in Chaos.
But they're not ISIS, or Assad - and they are said to contain pragmatists. FWIW.
If they do occupy Aleppo for any length of time, we'll get to find out what they are.
Well, there are pragmatists and pragmatists. Assad is a pragmatist in some ways.
A friend had eye problems as a child and went to Moorfields a lot. Recently, her parents were throwing stuff out and dumped a pile of her old medical records on her. She looked through them, curious to remember the name of the nice eye doctor she remembered as a kid. Guess who it was?
And he went on to authorise the gouging of them out in detainees.
On Louise Haigh. Am told by a source story which emerged last night inconsistent with what shared with Starmer back in 2020 when became shadow NI sec. Understand they had a conversation last night, but PM felt unable to square the circle. View was there was too much of a gap between what told back in 2020 and now as a result Haigh advised to resign.
For her part, Lou Haigh said in her resignation letter today she'd made a mistake in not informing her employer she'd found the phone that had been stolen & 'whatever the facts of the matter' didn't want to become a distraction
Actually, gotta say, this is actually quite funny.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 19h Donald Trump has just posted this bizarre video on his social media accounts. It’s going to be four long years.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
When the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was passed, the US had a trade surplus. It's historically and economically illiterate to compare it with the situation now.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
I’m not the left. I’m a centrist.
It is rare that a political leader proposes such a stupid tax.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
On Louise Haigh. Am told by a source story which emerged last night inconsistent with what shared with Starmer back in 2020 when became shadow NI sec. Understand they had a conversation last night, but PM felt unable to square the circle. View was there was too much of a gap between what told back in 2020 and now as a result Haigh advised to resign.
For her part, Lou Haigh said in her resignation letter today she'd made a mistake in not informing her employer she'd found the phone that had been stolen & 'whatever the facts of the matter' didn't want to become a distraction
Unverified Reports that Russian Military Command Syria has ordered all Forces in the Northern Governorates of Aleppo and Idlib, to Withdraw away from the ongoing Rebel Offensive and towards the South.
We may now be witnessing the near Total Collapse of the Syrian Arab Army and Pro-Regime Militias in the Northwest of the Country; with the City of Aleppo expected to likely fall to Opposition Forces in the next few hours, as both the Russians and Iranians appear to be in Chaos.
But they're not ISIS, or Assad - and they are said to contain pragmatists. FWIW.
If they do occupy Aleppo for any length of time, we'll get to find out what they are.
Well, there are pragmatists and pragmatists. Assad is a pragmatist in some ways.
He really is the pits of the earth. I hope he falls almost regardless of how it happens and what replaces him.
Could end up with Libya or Iraq 2.0. Seems they're all horrible, Its just the Russians/Iranians/Hezbollah are on the other side, so we'll arm this faction of head choppers.
Syria just seems another reason to invoke Gove's fallacy: "creating something is as easy as destroying it"
Yes I'm just saying I hope he falls. Not arguing for the UK to do anything in particular.
True. I'm sure we are doing something whether we should be, meh.
The chances are that either they have torn themselves apart, or Farage has walked away, or that they remain clueless about fighting elections, come 2028.
Not at Cookie's 10/1 though. I'd be a backer at that.
4/1 is way way too short. I may even be tempted to get into the complexities of Betfair for this.
The reaction on X from the right wing anti-assisted dying brigade is at times just jaw dropping.
Apparently MPs have just voted for "human sacrifice" and a death system where the state will kill as many old people as possible as they cost too much for the NHS.
Is this a new syndrome? Assisted-Dying-Bill Derangement????
On Louise Haigh. Am told by a source story which emerged last night inconsistent with what shared with Starmer back in 2020 when became shadow NI sec. Understand they had a conversation last night, but PM felt unable to square the circle. View was there was too much of a gap between what told back in 2020 and now as a result Haigh advised to resign.
For her part, Lou Haigh said in her resignation letter today she'd made a mistake in not informing her employer she'd found the phone that had been stolen & 'whatever the facts of the matter' didn't want to become a distraction
I still don't fully understand what she did. Claimed a phone was stolen which wasn't?
Putting all the pieces together I get the impression her losing her work mobile phones was a common occurrence and then one day one of the lost phones ended up with her personal SIM in it.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
I’m not the left. I’m a centrist.
It is rare that a political leader proposes such a stupid tax.
True, a tariff is a lose-lose game. But his rhetoric implies that Trump sees tariffs as a negotiating ploy and is willing to play "the madman" to reach non-trade goals
On Louise Haigh. Am told by a source story which emerged last night inconsistent with what shared with Starmer back in 2020 when became shadow NI sec. Understand they had a conversation last night, but PM felt unable to square the circle. View was there was too much of a gap between what told back in 2020 and now as a result Haigh advised to resign.
For her part, Lou Haigh said in her resignation letter today she'd made a mistake in not informing her employer she'd found the phone that had been stolen & 'whatever the facts of the matter' didn't want to become a distraction
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
Lots of talk about people not wanting to be a burden to their families, but they'll also be, due to our weird national religion, a fair bit of not wanting to be a burden to the NHS.
The reaction on X from the right wing anti-assisted dying brigade is at times just jaw dropping.
Apparently MPs have just voted for "human sacrifice" and a death system where the state will kill as many old people as possible as they cost too much for the NHS.
Is this a new syndrome? Assisted-Dying-Bill Derangement????
ADBD
Both sides are making me uncomfortable on this. This is an issue in which if you can't see the merits in the other side of the argument then you don't really deserve to join in.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
I think it’s entirely plausible that Reform could win, or at least get most votes. It does require a lot to go their way, but I think people often underestimate the portion of the electorate who could be persuaded to vote for them. I suspect there is a ceiling because Farage, but I wouldn’t be comfortable to say that ceiling was definitely lower than, say, 35%. That has been enough to deliver parties a win under FPTP.
I find the argument that there’s just no way, pretty unconvincing.
I think it's entirely possible that Reform tops the vote in 2028/9. It's not odds on, by any means, but it's certainly no worse than a one-in-four shot.
Getting most seats, however, is going to be a tougher ask: not impossible by any means, but tougher. Which makes the 4-1 or so on offer not particularly attractive:
(1) The left and left of centre vote is extremely efficiently distributed. In the shires, county towns, and wealthy suburbs, then Labour voters vote LibDem tactically. In other places, LibDems vote Labour. (And we should add in the Greens here too.)
(2) You can tactically vote against parties in the UK. Look at Scotland in 1997. The Conservatives got almost 20% of the vote... and no seats. The LibDems were fourth in vote share, and second in seat share. I think it's entirely possible that some LibDem, Green and Labour voters would vote tactically for Conservatives to prevent a Reform win in their constituency.
(3) Reform doesn't (yet) have a local councillor base. Now this may change come the locals next year. In the UK system, councillors are a useful asset: they mean you know where your voters are, it means you have volunteers to draw from, and it makes you a credible option. (Against that: if you gain control of a council and fuck it up...)
I would make Reform 3-1 to win most votes next time around, but would probably want 6-1 on them getting most seats. Still: this is FPTP, and very chaotic results are entirely possible, particularly if the Greens also get into double digits, so I wouldn't count them out.
Broadly, yes. Though note that there is no magic wall between Lab and Ref and votes can bleed between the two (and also between LD and Ref - the "Fuck 'em" vote which LDs used to monopolise), and that it is hard to vote tactically against a threat you can't see - much easier against a sitting MP. But I'd say even 6-1 feels generous at this stage.
It is. Ref most seats is 4.2 on betfair.
I am out of line on this. I think the chances of Reform either getting a plurality of votes or a plurality of seats are more like 15-1 and 25-1.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
Slacker, we've had the same working group for several months.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
Wow, the cabinet is now 100% state educated. Not a single private schooler.
Wrong, Starmer was in a private school in 6th form and Defence Secretary John Healey went to the private St Peter's York for 6th form too
Oh c'mon. That's very nitpicky.
Why? I was in private school, and then in state school for 6th form.
Which is why this "7%" is such bullshit: there's a lower proportion of people in private school at any one time, but up to 20% experience it or choose it at some point in their schooling career.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
There is one pukka argument for a tariff in economics, and that is the "infant industry" argument. And one salient example of its application - precisely to the US in the 19th century
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
Slacker, we've had the same working group for several months.
It can't have done much work if all it's come up with are hackneyed arguments about Smoot-Hawley.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
That's a post that will be worth remembering in 5 years' time.
On Louise Haigh. Am told by a source story which emerged last night inconsistent with what shared with Starmer back in 2020 when became shadow NI sec. Understand they had a conversation last night, but PM felt unable to square the circle. View was there was too much of a gap between what told back in 2020 and now as a result Haigh advised to resign.
For her part, Lou Haigh said in her resignation letter today she'd made a mistake in not informing her employer she'd found the phone that had been stolen & 'whatever the facts of the matter' didn't want to become a distraction
I still don't fully understand what she did. Claimed a phone was stolen which wasn't?
There is zero chance that the public know the whole, proper and true story. One, because too many slightly different versions are around; Two because each version has loose ends and doesn't make entire sense. Three, because (I think) she is blaming her solicitor and it is not entirely convincing, and not clear exactly what she is blaming him for. Four, because it is unclear whether she says she actually did something wrong, or just did something mistaken.
Such a clouded picture is bound to contain somewhere something someone does not want us to fully comprehend.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
Slacker, we've had the same working group for several months.
Got to confess I never realised TimS worked - I thought he swanned around between his various vineyards and holiday lets in Britain and France. (And very envious of him I was too.)
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
I like to comfort myself that by the time of the next election the "Nice people who just make things consistently better" Party will have made significant progress, from their admittedly low base.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
There is one pukka argument for a tariff in economics, and that is the "infant industry" argument. And one salient example of its application - precisely to the US in the 19th century
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
Slacker, we've had the same working group for several months.
I am PB's ultimate slacker [puts feet up on coffee table]
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
Slacker, we've had the same working group for several months.
Got to confess I never realised TimS worked - I thought he swanned around between his various vineyards and holiday lets in Britain and France. (And very envious of him I was too.)
To be clear, I have one vineyard (in Britain), one second home (in France - not currently let for complicated fiscal reasons I’ll not go into but soon to appear on an Airbnb near you), and a job.
Unverified Reports that Russian Military Command Syria has ordered all Forces in the Northern Governorates of Aleppo and Idlib, to Withdraw away from the ongoing Rebel Offensive and towards the South.
We may now be witnessing the near Total Collapse of the Syrian Arab Army and Pro-Regime Militias in the Northwest of the Country; with the City of Aleppo expected to likely fall to Opposition Forces in the next few hours, as both the Russians and Iranians appear to be in Chaos.
I wonder if Assad is suffering a perfect storm here? The Russians desperate for men and equipment for Ukraine withdrawing strategic assets from Syria and Hezbollah, who were one of the mainstays of Syrian Government support, having been hammered and lost much of their senior command structure.
Iran can step up support for him and Hezbollah.
To be fair I would prefer even Assad to the largely Islamic militant rebels who oppose him. Given Assad saw off ISIS in the end I am sure he will survive this more rag tag band
Islamist militants form a big part of the rebel forces in Aleppo, but they’re not ISIS by any means.
Oh, that's good, I'm glad they're 'not ISIS by any means'. Added to Nigel B's good news about them 'having some pragmatists amongst them', it really does spell great news for the people of Aleppo. Huzzah.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
That's a post that will be worth remembering in 5 years' time.
Feel free to point me to the elements of Labour's policy agenda which are going to drive a surge in growth
Because there ain't any. They have now sworn to lower immigration which - if they do it - will lower GDP growth. And I can see their reasons (I agree this needs doing). But there is literally nothing which will counter this and drive growth up. Nothing
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
Labour has been a PR disaster and full of unforced errors. That is conceded. But WRT economic policies as such, governing has to be done with precision and actual concrete decision. Critics are permitted to generalise and pick and choose.
So, Leon, in econonic policy what exactly should they have done instead?
Unverified Reports that Russian Military Command Syria has ordered all Forces in the Northern Governorates of Aleppo and Idlib, to Withdraw away from the ongoing Rebel Offensive and towards the South.
We may now be witnessing the near Total Collapse of the Syrian Arab Army and Pro-Regime Militias in the Northwest of the Country; with the City of Aleppo expected to likely fall to Opposition Forces in the next few hours, as both the Russians and Iranians appear to be in Chaos.
I wonder if Assad is suffering a perfect storm here? The Russians desperate for men and equipment for Ukraine withdrawing strategic assets from Syria and Hezbollah, who were one of the mainstays of Syrian Government support, having been hammered and lost much of their senior command structure.
Iran can step up support for him and Hezbollah.
To be fair I would prefer even Assad to the largely Islamic militant rebels who oppose him. Given Assad saw off ISIS in the end I am sure he will survive this more rag tag band
Islamist militants form a big part of the rebel forces in Aleppo, but they’re not ISIS by any means.
Oh, that's good, I'm glad they're 'not ISIS by any means'. Added to Nigel B's good news about them 'having some pragmatists amongst them', it really does spell great news for the people of Aleppo. Huzzah.
The reaction on X from the right wing anti-assisted dying brigade is at times just jaw dropping.
Apparently MPs have just voted for "human sacrifice" and a death system where the state will kill as many old people as possible as they cost too much for the NHS.
Is this a new syndrome? Assisted-Dying-Bill Derangement????
ADBD
Both sides are making me uncomfortable on this. This is an issue in which if you can't see the merits in the other side of the argument then you don't really deserve to join in.
Actually, gotta say, this is actually quite funny.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 19h Donald Trump has just posted this bizarre video on his social media accounts. It’s going to be four long years.
Unverified Reports that Russian Military Command Syria has ordered all Forces in the Northern Governorates of Aleppo and Idlib, to Withdraw away from the ongoing Rebel Offensive and towards the South.
We may now be witnessing the near Total Collapse of the Syrian Arab Army and Pro-Regime Militias in the Northwest of the Country; with the City of Aleppo expected to likely fall to Opposition Forces in the next few hours, as both the Russians and Iranians appear to be in Chaos.
I wonder if Assad is suffering a perfect storm here? The Russians desperate for men and equipment for Ukraine withdrawing strategic assets from Syria and Hezbollah, who were one of the mainstays of Syrian Government support, having been hammered and lost much of their senior command structure.
Iran can step up support for him and Hezbollah.
To be fair I would prefer even Assad to the largely Islamic militant rebels who oppose him. Given Assad saw off ISIS in the end I am sure he will survive this more rag tag band
Islamist militants form a big part of the rebel forces in Aleppo, but they’re not ISIS by any means.
Oh, that's good, I'm glad they're 'not ISIS by any means'. Added to Nigel B's good news about them 'having some pragmatists amongst them', it really does spell great news for the people of Aleppo. Huzzah.
If only they could have remained happily in the warm paternal embrace of their benevolent protectors, eh?
Lots of talk about people not wanting to be a burden to their families, but they'll also be, due to our weird national religion, a fair bit of not wanting to be a burden to the NHS.
I don't want to be a burden on anybody.
In fact I don't even want to be a burden on PB. One trusts that when the time comes and I am posting nothing but gibberish, the moderators will effect a mercy ban and spare you all the embarrassment of politely ignoring the rantings of a once great poster.
Hopefully you're watching the David Niven version.
I am banned from watching the Daniel Craig version because people worry one day I will die from laughing too much at the scratching my balls scene.
I needed oxygen in the cinema.
David Niven version is an aberration.
Official Craig version is a superb film. Genuinely well-written and well-directed, even if you're not a usual Bond fan.
I *am* a usual Bond fan and though I appreciate many aspects of Craig's performances, I'd take Moore's eyebrow raise and charm over Craig's emoting any day.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
Labour has been a PR disaster and full of unforced errors. That is conceded. But WRT economic policies as such, governing has to be done with precision and actual concrete decision. Critics are permitted to generalise and pick and choose.
So, Leon, in econonic policy what exactly should they have done instead?
Fuck knows. Not my job. Their job
I'd need to spend a few hours mulling over a reasonable answer (which you deserve), I may do it at some point
But I know for a fact that what they have announced, and planned, shows zero ideas for amping up growth. It is mere verbiage, and the few things they have done - tax jobs - drive non doms and rich people away - are actually anti-growth
Unverified Reports that Russian Military Command Syria has ordered all Forces in the Northern Governorates of Aleppo and Idlib, to Withdraw away from the ongoing Rebel Offensive and towards the South.
We may now be witnessing the near Total Collapse of the Syrian Arab Army and Pro-Regime Militias in the Northwest of the Country; with the City of Aleppo expected to likely fall to Opposition Forces in the next few hours, as both the Russians and Iranians appear to be in Chaos.
I wonder if Assad is suffering a perfect storm here? The Russians desperate for men and equipment for Ukraine withdrawing strategic assets from Syria and Hezbollah, who were one of the mainstays of Syrian Government support, having been hammered and lost much of their senior command structure.
Iran can step up support for him and Hezbollah.
To be fair I would prefer even Assad to the largely Islamic militant rebels who oppose him. Given Assad saw off ISIS in the end I am sure he will survive this more rag tag band
Islamist militants form a big part of the rebel forces in Aleppo, but they’re not ISIS by any means.
Oh, that's good, I'm glad they're 'not ISIS by any means'. Added to Nigel B's good news about them 'having some pragmatists amongst them', it really does spell great news for the people of Aleppo. Huzzah.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
That's a post that will be worth remembering in 5 years' time.
Feel free to point me to the elements of Labour's policy agenda which are going to drive a surge in growth
Because there ain't any. They have now sworn to lower immigration which - if they do it - will lower GDP growth. And I can see their reasons (I agree this needs doing). But there is literally nothing which will counter this and drive growth up. Nothing
“Feel free to point me to the elements of Labour's policy agenda which are going to drive a surge in growth”
Depends if it happens as promised… but climbing aboard bulldozers and blasting through planning laws, red tape, bureaucracy and nimbyism certainly would. ’m surprised Conservatives didn’t beat Labour to this themselves last ten years instead of pandering to nimbyism
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
That's a post that will be worth remembering in 5 years' time.
My shares in 'what 3 words' come good in 5 years. If you're interested in a deal?
Unverified Reports that Russian Military Command Syria has ordered all Forces in the Northern Governorates of Aleppo and Idlib, to Withdraw away from the ongoing Rebel Offensive and towards the South.
We may now be witnessing the near Total Collapse of the Syrian Arab Army and Pro-Regime Militias in the Northwest of the Country; with the City of Aleppo expected to likely fall to Opposition Forces in the next few hours, as both the Russians and Iranians appear to be in Chaos.
I wonder if Assad is suffering a perfect storm here? The Russians desperate for men and equipment for Ukraine withdrawing strategic assets from Syria and Hezbollah, who were one of the mainstays of Syrian Government support, having been hammered and lost much of their senior command structure.
Iran can step up support for him and Hezbollah.
To be fair I would prefer even Assad to the largely Islamic militant rebels who oppose him. Given Assad saw off ISIS in the end I am sure he will survive this more rag tag band
Islamist militants form a big part of the rebel forces in Aleppo, but they’re not ISIS by any means.
Oh, that's good, I'm glad they're 'not ISIS by any means'. Added to Nigel B's good news about them 'having some pragmatists amongst them', it really does spell great news for the people of Aleppo. Huzzah.
They only set off two car bombs today.
Great guys.
Not like those sensible chaps in the legitimate government, certainly
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
That's a post that will be worth remembering in 5 years' time.
Feel free to point me to the elements of Labour's policy agenda which are going to drive a surge in growth
Because there ain't any. They have now sworn to lower immigration which - if they do it - will lower GDP growth. And I can see their reasons (I agree this needs doing). But there is literally nothing which will counter this and drive growth up. Nothing
Well here's three off the top of my head: - Bringing public finances under sensible control without a severe dose of austerity. - Funding NHS to cut waiting lists and improve mental health services to get more people back in work. - Increasing the minimum wage to make work more attractive than benefits.
Now, you might well dismiss these and you could turn out to be right, but I suspect these changes will have a positive effect. Time will tell.
The reaction on X from the right wing anti-assisted dying brigade is at times just jaw dropping.
Apparently MPs have just voted for "human sacrifice" and a death system where the state will kill as many old people as possible as they cost too much for the NHS.
Is this a new syndrome? Assisted-Dying-Bill Derangement????
ADBD
Both sides are making me uncomfortable on this. This is an issue in which if you can't see the merits in the other side of the argument then you don't really deserve to join in.
Very well said
The extremes on both sides creep me the fuck out
Yes, it is well said, and the reason is that there is such a vast range of widely differing scenarios that it is impossible to generalise.
The task of drafting laws to cover all of them is just about impossible, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
That's a post that will be worth remembering in 5 years' time.
Feel free to point me to the elements of Labour's policy agenda which are going to drive a surge in growth
Because there ain't any. They have now sworn to lower immigration which - if they do it - will lower GDP growth. And I can see their reasons (I agree this needs doing). But there is literally nothing which will counter this and drive growth up. Nothing
Well here's three off the top of my head: - Bringing public finances under sensible control without a severe dose of austerity. - Funding NHS to cut waiting lists and improve mental health services to get more people back in work. - Increasing the minimum wage to make work more attractive than benefits.
Now, you might well dismiss these and you could turn out to be right, but I suspect these changes will have a positive effect. Time will tell.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
That's a post that will be worth remembering in 5 years' time.
My shares in 'what 3 words' come good in 5 years. If you're interested in a deal?
Yes, as soon as my Brexit dividends pay out after 5 years, in (checks) 10 weeks time, I'll be all in on what3words.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
That's a post that will be worth remembering in 5 years' time.
Feel free to point me to the elements of Labour's policy agenda which are going to drive a surge in growth
Because there ain't any. They have now sworn to lower immigration which - if they do it - will lower GDP growth. And I can see their reasons (I agree this needs doing). But there is literally nothing which will counter this and drive growth up. Nothing
There’s not much. But the possibilities are:
- LGPS being used as an investment tool - Planning reform - The rest of the world going to shit and us being a safe haven - Regional devolution and infrastructure development, if they allow it to happen
The whole rest of world going to shit scenario is not to be underestimated.
Some of the ballot papers in the Limerick City constituency have been printed in reverse alphabetical order, which may well render the election in that constituency void, and so it would have to be rerun.
Some of the ballot papers in the Limerick City constituency have been printed in reverse alphabetical order, which may well render the election in that constituency void, and so it would have to be rerun.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
Labour has been a PR disaster and full of unforced errors. That is conceded. But WRT economic policies as such, governing has to be done with precision and actual concrete decision. Critics are permitted to generalise and pick and choose.
So, Leon, in econonic policy what exactly should they have done instead?
Fuck knows. Not my job. Their job
I'd need to spend a few hours mulling over a reasonable answer (which you deserve), I may do it at some point
But I know for a fact that what they have announced, and planned, shows zero ideas for amping up growth. It is mere verbiage, and the few things they have done - tax jobs - drive non doms and rich people away - are actually anti-growth
I have a theory that rich people generally do fuck all for growth. I'm quite rich and I suspect you're even richer. We do fuck-all for growth.
Poor people OTOH spend every penny they get. Give the poorest 10% an extra £1bn and that's an extra £bn of growth right away.
The reaction on X from the right wing anti-assisted dying brigade is at times just jaw dropping.
Apparently MPs have just voted for "human sacrifice" and a death system where the state will kill as many old people as possible as they cost too much for the NHS.
Is this a new syndrome? Assisted-Dying-Bill Derangement????
ADBD
Both sides are making me uncomfortable on this. This is an issue in which if you can't see the merits in the other side of the argument then you don't really deserve to join in.
Very well said
The extremes on both sides creep me the fuck out
Yes, it is well said, and the reason is that there is such a vast range of widely differing scenarios that it is impossible to generalise.
The task of drafting laws to cover all of them is just about impossible, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
It's like the abortion argument. The extremists on both sides are hideous
You get some Right to Lifers who would rather see pregnant-by-rape young women DIE than get an abortion after 10 weeks. UGH
You get some pro-abortion freaks who want abortion to the end of term, for any reason, and seem to actually celebrate abortion as an intrinsically good thing, like: abortion is fab! UGH
The worst of the euthanasiasts remind me of the pro-abortion freaks, seeing an assisted suicide as some kind of brilliant thing in itself, something noble and welcome, rather than what it is: a tragically understandable preference, in certain dire circumstances
If you dig deep into the history of the charities and agencies supporting Assisted Dying, they have roots in the eugenicist movements of the late 19th/20th centuries
That doesn't instantly disqualify them, but it is unsettling
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
Labour has been a PR disaster and full of unforced errors. That is conceded. But WRT economic policies as such, governing has to be done with precision and actual concrete decision. Critics are permitted to generalise and pick and choose.
So, Leon, in econonic policy what exactly should they have done instead?
Fuck knows. Not my job. Their job
I'd need to spend a few hours mulling over a reasonable answer (which you deserve), I may do it at some point
But I know for a fact that what they have announced, and planned, shows zero ideas for amping up growth. It is mere verbiage, and the few things they have done - tax jobs - drive non doms and rich people away - are actually anti-growth
I have a theory that rich people generally do fuck all for growth. I'm quite rich and I suspect you're even richer. We do fuck-all for growth.
Poor people OTOH spend every penny they get. Give the poorest 10% an extra £1bn and that's an extra £bn of growth right away.
You mean there's an extra billion of economic activity.
Economic activity is not the same as wealth creation.
The inability to understand the difference is one reason why there is so much debt in this country.
Unverified Reports that Russian Military Command Syria has ordered all Forces in the Northern Governorates of Aleppo and Idlib, to Withdraw away from the ongoing Rebel Offensive and towards the South.
We may now be witnessing the near Total Collapse of the Syrian Arab Army and Pro-Regime Militias in the Northwest of the Country; with the City of Aleppo expected to likely fall to Opposition Forces in the next few hours, as both the Russians and Iranians appear to be in Chaos.
But they're not ISIS, or Assad - and they are said to contain pragmatists. FWIW.
If they do occupy Aleppo for any length of time, we'll get to find out what they are.
Well, there are pragmatists and pragmatists. Assad is a pragmatist in some ways.
He really is the pits of the earth. I hope he falls almost regardless of how it happens and what replaces him.
The last time he nearly fell, the alternative was even worse. Which is going some.
It's the Middle East.
The choice is always between the pretty dire and the utterly dismal. The trick is to tell which is which.
Every intervention since Iraq 2 has failed. There's no trick.
The trick is to become entirely unbothered by the price of oil because we’ve replaced it as an energy source.
I don't think that's relevant in Israel or Syria, neither of which have significant amounts of oil, though it may be when we discuss protecting Saudi Arabia from Iran or what we should do in Iraq.
Also, the price of oil is a lot less tied to Middle Eastern politics than it used to be, thanks to America's triumphant rise as an energy producer.
And, finally, even when the free world does worry about the price of oil, that factor can cut both ways.
The Middle East is a complicated place, and the price of oil is only one facto there. Even if it wasn't, many of the challenges there would remain similar. However, shutting down our own North Sea oil production is the last thing we should be doing, for any number of reasons.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
Labour has been a PR disaster and full of unforced errors. That is conceded. But WRT economic policies as such, governing has to be done with precision and actual concrete decision. Critics are permitted to generalise and pick and choose.
So, Leon, in econonic policy what exactly should they have done instead?
Fuck knows. Not my job. Their job
I'd need to spend a few hours mulling over a reasonable answer (which you deserve), I may do it at some point
But I know for a fact that what they have announced, and planned, shows zero ideas for amping up growth. It is mere verbiage, and the few things they have done - tax jobs - drive non doms and rich people away - are actually anti-growth
I have a theory that rich people generally do fuck all for growth. I'm quite rich and I suspect you're even richer. We do fuck-all for growth.
Poor people OTOH spend every penny they get. Give the poorest 10% an extra £1bn and that's an extra £bn of growth right away.
Er, fuck off
In the last 20 years I have generated millions - literally - in tax for HMRC. And that comes from money earned overseas, going into UK coffers. And marketing and selling my flints employs, in part, a fair few people
What else am I expected to do, to personally generate growth?
Unverified Reports that Russian Military Command Syria has ordered all Forces in the Northern Governorates of Aleppo and Idlib, to Withdraw away from the ongoing Rebel Offensive and towards the South.
We may now be witnessing the near Total Collapse of the Syrian Arab Army and Pro-Regime Militias in the Northwest of the Country; with the City of Aleppo expected to likely fall to Opposition Forces in the next few hours, as both the Russians and Iranians appear to be in Chaos.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
Slacker, we've had the same working group for several months.
Got to confess I never realised TimS worked - I thought he swanned around between his various vineyards and holiday lets in Britain and France. (And very envious of him I was too.)
To be clear, I have one vineyard (in Britain), one second home (in France - not currently let for complicated fiscal reasons I’ll not go into but soon to appear on an Airbnb near you), and a job.
Absolutely delighted that assisted dying has passed this initial hurdle in the Commons, something I've supported for decades and glad this is a liberalisation that is belatedly happening.
Would like to see amendments in the Commons now, such as removing the 6 month restriction and enabling it for anyone who so expresses a desire even if not terminal such as people living in agony who could be trapped that way for years as has been discussed previously in the Courts.
Hopefully as it moves on more people will realise that assisted dying is NOT "suicide" and stop artificially conflating the two.
Yes, already Bart pushing for the slippery slope for assisted dying most likely even for mentally ill as well as non terminally ill.
That is why we must pray Polievre's Conservatives win the Canadian election next year as they have promised to start cutting back on the near free for all access to assisted dying under Trudeau's Liberal and NDP government.
Given most Tory MPs and Farage and the DUP and TUV and UUP voted against assisted dying today hopefully the right will also be ready for a pushback when returned to power again
There's no slope there, a change in the law requires an Act of Parliament. No slope or move without Parliament voting for it.
I've been consistent not just for the past few weeks in supporting this liberalisation but that we should go much further, but I supported it when it was argued before the Supreme Court, I supported it years ago when it was last debated in Parliament. I supported it as a teenager at the end of the last century.
I'm as entitled to my views as you are to yours. That's not a slope.
Unverified Reports that Russian Military Command Syria has ordered all Forces in the Northern Governorates of Aleppo and Idlib, to Withdraw away from the ongoing Rebel Offensive and towards the South.
We may now be witnessing the near Total Collapse of the Syrian Arab Army and Pro-Regime Militias in the Northwest of the Country; with the City of Aleppo expected to likely fall to Opposition Forces in the next few hours, as both the Russians and Iranians appear to be in Chaos.
I wonder if Assad is suffering a perfect storm here? The Russians desperate for men and equipment for Ukraine withdrawing strategic assets from Syria and Hezbollah, who were one of the mainstays of Syrian Government support, having been hammered and lost much of their senior command structure.
Iran can step up support for him and Hezbollah.
To be fair I would prefer even Assad to the largely Islamic militant rebels who oppose him. Given Assad saw off ISIS in the end I am sure he will survive this more rag tag band
Islamist militants form a big part of the rebel forces in Aleppo, but they’re not ISIS by any means.
Oh, that's good, I'm glad they're 'not ISIS by any means'. Added to Nigel B's good news about them 'having some pragmatists amongst them', it really does spell great news for the people of Aleppo. Huzzah.
If only they could have remained happily in the warm paternal embrace of their benevolent protectors, eh?
And we all know if you, Nigel B, and even the doughty Josias Jessop were stranded between a group of those delightful pragmatic Aleppo rebel chaps, and the Syrian Arab Army, which of the two you'd run away from, and which you'd run toward to protect you, so spare us the hypocrisy.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
Labour has been a PR disaster and full of unforced errors. That is conceded. But WRT economic policies as such, governing has to be done with precision and actual concrete decision. Critics are permitted to generalise and pick and choose.
So, Leon, in econonic policy what exactly should they have done instead?
Fuck knows. Not my job. Their job
I'd need to spend a few hours mulling over a reasonable answer (which you deserve), I may do it at some point
But I know for a fact that what they have announced, and planned, shows zero ideas for amping up growth. It is mere verbiage, and the few things they have done - tax jobs - drive non doms and rich people away - are actually anti-growth
I have a theory that rich people generally do fuck all for growth. I'm quite rich and I suspect you're even richer. We do fuck-all for growth.
Poor people OTOH spend every penny they get. Give the poorest 10% an extra £1bn and that's an extra £bn of growth right away.
You mean there's an extra billion of economic activity.
Economic activity is not the same as wealth creation.
The inability to understand the difference is one reason why there is so much debt in this country.
Indeed so. @Benpointer hasn't got a clue about economics
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
That's a post that will be worth remembering in 5 years' time.
Feel free to point me to the elements of Labour's policy agenda which are going to drive a surge in growth
Because there ain't any. They have now sworn to lower immigration which - if they do it - will lower GDP growth. And I can see their reasons (I agree this needs doing). But there is literally nothing which will counter this and drive growth up. Nothing
There’s not much. But the possibilities are:
- LGPS being used as an investment tool - Planning reform - The rest of the world going to shit and us being a safe haven - Regional devolution and infrastructure development, if they allow it to happen
The whole rest of world going to shit scenario is not to be underestimated.
I think there is a lot of pent up demand/supply for renewables that will be freed up by Miliband's planning reforms, particularly transmission but also solar, onshore wind and batteries. It's the one bit of the economy I can see moving fast.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
That's a post that will be worth remembering in 5 years' time.
My shares in 'what 3 words' come good in 5 years. If you're interested in a deal?
Yes, as soon as my Brexit dividends pay out after 5 years, in (checks) 10 weeks time, I'll be all in on what3words.
Return to your constituencies and, actually, no don't bother with that bollocks. Just prepare for government. Or maybe don't bother with that either. Just blag it.
Absolutely delighted that assisted dying has passed this initial hurdle in the Commons, something I've supported for decades and glad this is a liberalisation that is belatedly happening.
Would like to see amendments in the Commons now, such as removing the 6 month restriction and enabling it for anyone who so expresses a desire even if not terminal such as people living in agony who could be trapped that way for years as has been discussed previously in the Courts.
Hopefully as it moves on more people will realise that assisted dying is NOT "suicide" and stop artificially conflating the two.
I find enthusiasm for assisted dying a bit odd. I can accept that under some circumstances it might be the least bad option. I am slightly worried by anyone expressing utter certainty on one side or other of this argument.
Why?
I don't want to die, but I want to have that choice if the situation is right that it requires it.
There is no certainty in my eyes as to when I would or would not make that choice, but I do have utter certainty that the decision should be my own and not someone else. If you don't agree with it, just don't do it.
Can you not see any downsides though? The subtle pressure not to be a burden? The damage to the Hippocratic Oath - which has always been a moderatly successful principle on which to practice medicine? The potential for poor decisions? And I don't think you're right about suicide - it's often not an impulsive thing but something soneone has wanted to do for some time but hasn't been able to muster the courage. Lowering the bar to death will certainly see the suicidal take advantage. FWIW, I'd certainly like the option to finish my life cleanly and not unpleasantly at the end. But I'm not particularly happy with my conclusion, and I have misgivings about it.
No, I don't.
Pressure not to be a burden - don't be ridiculous. People are quite happy to be burdens, voting for the triple lock and voting for their own interests. No, people don't sacrifice their own lives to not be a burden.
There is zero "damage" to the Hippocratic Oath. Following someone's clearly stated wishes to end their suffering is doing good, not harm.
Poor decisions? People have a right to make poor decisions, that's their choice.
It should be up to the individual and nobody else what they want to do with their life. My body, my choice. Your body, your choice.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
At the moment I think the key problem is that no-one knows what he's going to do. Is it just a negotiating ploy? Will he go ahead with it in full just as he did with the Muslim travel ban?
And so, if you're involved in any sort of importing or exporting business, what do you do? What investment decisions can you take? You've no idea of what the tariff situation will look like in 3, 6, 12, whatever months time.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
Slacker, we've had the same working group for several months.
What I find interesting is that there is little mention of what the EU is *already* doing. For example, increasing tariffs on cars that have more than a certain percentage of non-EU/UK content.
Which is about directly protecting EU automaker *supply chain*
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
Labour has been a PR disaster and full of unforced errors. That is conceded. But WRT economic policies as such, governing has to be done with precision and actual concrete decision. Critics are permitted to generalise and pick and choose.
So, Leon, in econonic policy what exactly should they have done instead?
Fuck knows. Not my job. Their job
I'd need to spend a few hours mulling over a reasonable answer (which you deserve), I may do it at some point
But I know for a fact that what they have announced, and planned, shows zero ideas for amping up growth. It is mere verbiage, and the few things they have done - tax jobs - drive non doms and rich people away - are actually anti-growth
I have a theory that rich people generally do fuck all for growth. I'm quite rich and I suspect you're even richer. We do fuck-all for growth.
Poor people OTOH spend every penny they get. Give the poorest 10% an extra £1bn and that's an extra £bn of growth right away.
Er, fuck off
In the last 20 years I have generated millions - literally - in tax for HMRC. And that comes from money earned overseas, going into UK coffers. And marketing and selling my flints employs, in part, a fair few people
What else am I expected to do, to personally generate growth?
So, yeah, fuck off
Ben Pointer is an affable chap whose posts show evidence of good humour.
In his politics however, he acknowledges that he has zero ambitions for Britain's economy to grow, and indeed he thinks it's probably right that it shrinks.
That removes any ounce of respect I have for his political arguments, or any policy that he might ever recommend as being beneficial to our economy.
Thank you all for the comments on the Hell article. I am on a train and poorly equipped to respond in depth so I shall do so tomorrow. In the meantime I shall just mooch. 😎
Some of the ballot papers in the Limerick City constituency have been printed in reverse alphabetical order, which may well render the election in that constituency void, and so it would have to be rerun.
There once was a ballot in Limerick…
There once was a ballot in Limerick That proved a barrel of fun, Papers got printed arse over tit, You had to handstand to read up it, And the whole thing ended re-run.
Do I get on the front of the Daily Star with this?
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
Labour has been a PR disaster and full of unforced errors. That is conceded. But WRT economic policies as such, governing has to be done with precision and actual concrete decision. Critics are permitted to generalise and pick and choose.
So, Leon, in econonic policy what exactly should they have done instead?
Fuck knows. Not my job. Their job
I'd need to spend a few hours mulling over a reasonable answer (which you deserve), I may do it at some point
But I know for a fact that what they have announced, and planned, shows zero ideas for amping up growth. It is mere verbiage, and the few things they have done - tax jobs - drive non doms and rich people away - are actually anti-growth
I have a theory that rich people generally do fuck all for growth. I'm quite rich and I suspect you're even richer. We do fuck-all for growth.
Poor people OTOH spend every penny they get. Give the poorest 10% an extra £1bn and that's an extra £bn of growth right away.
Economic growth is a supply-side issue and to do with expansion of full capacity production. What you are talking about is demand-side and how differential spending propensities in the income distribution might conceivably impinge on aggregate demand. If there is any substance there it only relates to the full utilisation of resources, not to the ongoing growth of full capacity output. Long term growth has to be thought of in terms of total factor productivity, i.e. technological advance.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
Labour has been a PR disaster and full of unforced errors. That is conceded. But WRT economic policies as such, governing has to be done with precision and actual concrete decision. Critics are permitted to generalise and pick and choose.
So, Leon, in econonic policy what exactly should they have done instead?
Fuck knows. Not my job. Their job
I'd need to spend a few hours mulling over a reasonable answer (which you deserve), I may do it at some point
But I know for a fact that what they have announced, and planned, shows zero ideas for amping up growth. It is mere verbiage, and the few things they have done - tax jobs - drive non doms and rich people away - are actually anti-growth
I have a theory that rich people generally do fuck all for growth. I'm quite rich and I suspect you're even richer. We do fuck-all for growth.
Poor people OTOH spend every penny they get. Give the poorest 10% an extra £1bn and that's an extra £bn of growth right away.
Er, fuck off
In the last 20 years I have generated millions - literally - in tax for HMRC. And that comes from money earned overseas, going into UK coffers. And marketing and selling my flints employs, in part, a fair few people
What else am I expected to do, to personally generate growth?
So, yeah, fuck off
Ben Pointer is an affable chap whose posts show evidence of good humour.
In his politics however, he acknowledges that he has zero ambitions for Britain's economy to grow, and indeed he thinks it's probably right that it shrinks.
That removes any ounce of respect I have for his political arguments, or any policy that he might ever recommend as being beneficial to our economy.
Yes, I like @Benpointer - and his life story is a genuine inspiration
My "fuck off" is only aimed at his outrageous assertion that I am some affluent dude who just sits back and does fuck all but faff about in nice hotels in Bali. I am self-employed, successfully, and I have in my later years generated large amounts of income and business from abroad, all of which comes to the UK and a large chunk of the taxable cash goes to the Inland Revenue; and the marketing, promoting and selling of my products in the UK employs a large number of people (not full time, but they all spend part of their time doing that)
I am pretty certain I add more "growth" to the UK economy than 95% of Britons. Earning money abroad and paying tax on it in Britain is surely one of the purest ways of benefiting the UK
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
Slacker, we've had the same working group for several months.
Got to confess I never realised TimS worked - I thought he swanned around between his various vineyards and holiday lets in Britain and France. (And very envious of him I was too.)
To be clear, I have one vineyard (in Britain), one second home (in France - not currently let for complicated fiscal reasons I’ll not go into but soon to appear on an Airbnb near you), and a job.
Reform is getting support from people who did not vote UKIP.
First place is, IMHO, plausible. But, an overall majority is not.
Although Reform are less attractive than UKIP to some other voters.
I have an impression that UKIP voters included many older and C1C2 voters - people who had something and were afraid of change - whereas Reform is picking up younger and DE voters - people who don't have anything, are angry about it and want change.
Unverified Reports that Russian Military Command Syria has ordered all Forces in the Northern Governorates of Aleppo and Idlib, to Withdraw away from the ongoing Rebel Offensive and towards the South.
We may now be witnessing the near Total Collapse of the Syrian Arab Army and Pro-Regime Militias in the Northwest of the Country; with the City of Aleppo expected to likely fall to Opposition Forces in the next few hours, as both the Russians and Iranians appear to be in Chaos.
I wonder if Assad is suffering a perfect storm here? The Russians desperate for men and equipment for Ukraine withdrawing strategic assets from Syria and Hezbollah, who were one of the mainstays of Syrian Government support, having been hammered and lost much of their senior command structure.
Iran can step up support for him and Hezbollah.
To be fair I would prefer even Assad to the largely Islamic militant rebels who oppose him. Given Assad saw off ISIS in the end I am sure he will survive this more rag tag band
Islamist militants form a big part of the rebel forces in Aleppo, but they’re not ISIS by any means.
Oh, that's good, I'm glad they're 'not ISIS by any means'. Added to Nigel B's good news about them 'having some pragmatists amongst them', it really does spell great news for the people of Aleppo. Huzzah.
If only they could have remained happily in the warm paternal embrace of their benevolent protectors, eh?
And we all know if you, Nigel B, and even the doughty Josias Jessop were stranded between a group of those delightful pragmatic Aleppo rebel chaps, and the Syrian Arab Army, which of the two you'd run away from, and which you'd run toward to protect you, so spare us the hypocrisy.
It’s not hypocrisy to despise evil. Assad is evil.
There once was a ballot in Limerick Designed by a graduate clever-dick He was quite clearly pissed For his upside down list Was ordered in strict beta-alphic.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
Slacker, we've had the same working group for several months.
Got to confess I never realised TimS worked - I thought he swanned around between his various vineyards and holiday lets in Britain and France. (And very envious of him I was too.)
To be clear, I have one vineyard (in Britain), one second home (in France - not currently let for complicated fiscal reasons I’ll not go into but soon to appear on an Airbnb near you), and a job.
Reform is getting support from people who did not vote UKIP.
First place is, IMHO, plausible. But, an overall majority is not.
Although Reform are less attractive than UKIP to some other voters.
I have an impression that UKIP voters included many older and C1C2 voters - people who had something and were afraid of change - whereas Reform is picking up younger and DE voters - people who don't have anything, are angry about it and want change.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
Labour has been a PR disaster and full of unforced errors. That is conceded. But WRT economic policies as such, governing has to be done with precision and actual concrete decision. Critics are permitted to generalise and pick and choose.
So, Leon, in econonic policy what exactly should they have done instead?
Fuck knows. Not my job. Their job
I'd need to spend a few hours mulling over a reasonable answer (which you deserve), I may do it at some point
But I know for a fact that what they have announced, and planned, shows zero ideas for amping up growth. It is mere verbiage, and the few things they have done - tax jobs - drive non doms and rich people away - are actually anti-growth
I have a theory that rich people generally do fuck all for growth. I'm quite rich and I suspect you're even richer. We do fuck-all for growth.
Poor people OTOH spend every penny they get. Give the poorest 10% an extra £1bn and that's an extra £bn of growth right away.
Er, fuck off
In the last 20 years I have generated millions - literally - in tax for HMRC. And that comes from money earned overseas, going into UK coffers. And marketing and selling my flints employs, in part, a fair few people
What else am I expected to do, to personally generate growth?
So, yeah, fuck off
Ben Pointer is an affable chap whose posts show evidence of good humour.
In his politics however, he acknowledges that he has zero ambitions for Britain's economy to grow, and indeed he thinks it's probably right that it shrinks.
That removes any ounce of respect I have for his political arguments, or any policy that he might ever recommend as being beneficial to our economy.
Yes, I like @Benpointer - and his life story is a genuine inspiration
My "fuck off" is only aimed at his outrageous assertion that I am some affluent dude who just sits back and does fuck all but faff about in nice hotels in Bali. I am self-employed, successfully, and I have in my later years generated large amounts of income and business from abroad, all of which comes to the UK and a large chunk of the taxable cash goes to the Inland Revenue; and the marketing, promoting and selling of my products in the UK employs a large number of people (not full time, but they all spend part of their time doing that)
I am pretty certain I add more "growth" to the UK economy than 95% of Britons. Earning money abroad and paying tax on it in Britain is surely one of the purest ways of benefiting the UK
There are two different arguments being conflated here.
Do rich people contribute disproportionately to spending and tax revenue, as a result of being rich and having the capacity to invest? Yes.
Does a pound in tax cuts or benefits given to a poor person get recycled back into the economy more quickly than the equivalent pound given to a rich person? Yes.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
That's a post that will be worth remembering in 5 years' time.
Feel free to point me to the elements of Labour's policy agenda which are going to drive a surge in growth
Because there ain't any. They have now sworn to lower immigration which - if they do it - will lower GDP growth. And I can see their reasons (I agree this needs doing). But there is literally nothing which will counter this and drive growth up. Nothing
Well here's three off the top of my head: - Bringing public finances under sensible control without a severe dose of austerity. - Funding NHS to cut waiting lists and improve mental health services to get more people back in work. - Increasing the minimum wage to make work more attractive than benefits.
Now, you might well dismiss these and you could turn out to be right, but I suspect these changes will have a positive effect. Time will tell.
Minimum wage upon introduction: £7.35 (in today's money). Minimum wage now: £11.44. So we've already been doing that I think.
I doubt Trump's tariffs will make much difference to most UK voters even if no trade deal unless they work for companies that export a lot to the US. It might even see more switching to relatively cheaper British made produce if they buy some US products normally if the UK government imposes retaliatory tariffs on US imports. It will be a bigger impact on US consumers if they buy a lot of foreign made goods and the costs of those go up and Trump's gamble they will see US consumers buying more American made products the US he hopes produces more of does not pay off.
As for Reform getting into government, extremely unlikely on their own, a little more likely in a hung parliament but only if Farage does a deal with Badenoch's Tories
Trump’s tariffs could crash the global economy. UK voters would definitely notice that.
That comment shows how Thatcherite the left has become. You wouldn't bestow any other tax with magical powers to crash the global economy.
You are either incredibly dense or a shit troll.
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Tariffs won’t necessarily crash the world economy. Like taxes, or nuclear exchanges, the impact depends on how they are targeted.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
Slacker, we've had the same working group for several months.
Got to confess I never realised TimS worked - I thought he swanned around between his various vineyards and holiday lets in Britain and France. (And very envious of him I was too.)
To be clear, I have one vineyard (in Britain), one second home (in France - not currently let for complicated fiscal reasons I’ll not go into but soon to appear on an Airbnb near you), and a job.
The Maconnais, near Cluny. A very pleasant part of the world and 6 hours motorway from Calais.
I rather like Cluny. A shred of Noom there, which we have probably discussed
Amazing that so few people know it, when it was such a titanic influence in medieval times - the Cluniac monasteries
Most of the original abbey now to be found as building materials in the nearby houses, sadly. For nearly a century the abbey was essentially a public quarry.
It’s unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) situated in a location seen by British, Belgian and Dutch holidaymakers as an overnight stopover on the way to the Alps or Provence.
SKS has abandoned his pledge to achieve the highest highest growth in the G7.
The pledge was central to Labour's election campaign, and was the top promise of SKS's "Five Missions".
Less than 150 days into power, it's been dumped.
Explaining to do from his fans on here methinks
Good. Because you can't "pledge" something like that. The UK government has only a marginal impact on how much we grow and no impact at all on how much other G7 countries do.
The second part of that is certainly true. On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
She's borrowing more and splitting it between the NHS and investment. It's not anti growth.
We are now deep enough into the Labour term in office to make reasonable predictions. And one is this: the Labour government's economic policies are so dated, wrong-headed and anti-growth - driving away investment, scaring away the rich, piling up debt to spook the markets - it is highly likely we will have the SLOWEST growth in the G7, with the probable exception of Germany, which is in a peculiar crisis of its own
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
Labour has been a PR disaster and full of unforced errors. That is conceded. But WRT economic policies as such, governing has to be done with precision and actual concrete decision. Critics are permitted to generalise and pick and choose.
So, Leon, in econonic policy what exactly should they have done instead?
Fuck knows. Not my job. Their job
I'd need to spend a few hours mulling over a reasonable answer (which you deserve), I may do it at some point
But I know for a fact that what they have announced, and planned, shows zero ideas for amping up growth. It is mere verbiage, and the few things they have done - tax jobs - drive non doms and rich people away - are actually anti-growth
I have a theory that rich people generally do fuck all for growth. I'm quite rich and I suspect you're even richer. We do fuck-all for growth.
Poor people OTOH spend every penny they get. Give the poorest 10% an extra £1bn and that's an extra £bn of growth right away.
Er, fuck off
In the last 20 years I have generated millions - literally - in tax for HMRC. And that comes from money earned overseas, going into UK coffers. And marketing and selling my flints employs, in part, a fair few people
What else am I expected to do, to personally generate growth?
So, yeah, fuck off
Ben Pointer is an affable chap whose posts show evidence of good humour.
In his politics however, he acknowledges that he has zero ambitions for Britain's economy to grow, and indeed he thinks it's probably right that it shrinks.
That removes any ounce of respect I have for his political arguments, or any policy that he might ever recommend as being beneficial to our economy.
Yes, I like @Benpointer - and his life story is a genuine inspiration
My "fuck off" is only aimed at his outrageous assertion that I am some affluent dude who just sits back and does fuck all but faff about in nice hotels in Bali. I am self-employed, successfully, and I have in my later years generated large amounts of income and business from abroad, all of which comes to the UK and a large chunk of the taxable cash goes to the Inland Revenue; and the marketing, promoting and selling of my products in the UK employs a large number of people (not full time, but they all spend part of their time doing that)
I am pretty certain I add more "growth" to the UK economy than 95% of Britons. Earning money abroad and paying tax on it in Britain is surely one of the purest ways of benefiting the UK
There are two different arguments being conflated here.
Do rich people contribute disproportionately to spending and tax revenue, as a result of being rich and having the capacity to invest? Yes.
Does a pound in tax cuts or benefits given to a poor person get recycled back into the economy more quickly than the equivalent pound given to a rich person? Yes.
Neither of these concern or affect economic growth. See my post above (or below, depending)
Comments
Do not post on tariffs until you've read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
There are many thousands of Christians in Aleppo. They’ll not sleep easy now.
For her part, Lou Haigh said in her resignation letter today she'd made a mistake in not informing her employer she'd found the phone that had been stolen & 'whatever the facts of the matter' didn't want to become a distraction
https://x.com/BethRigby/status/1862586125165920453
It is rare that a political leader proposes such a stupid tax.
On the first, well, we're buffetted about by the financial weather - but some basic economic common sense would at least point the rudder in the right direction. I freely admit there are things to prioritise as well as growth, but the contrast between that pledge and Reeves' subsequent decision making does seem quite glaring.
Apparently MPs have just voted for "human sacrifice" and a death system where the state will kill as many old people as possible as they cost too much for the NHS.
Is this a new syndrome? Assisted-Dying-Bill Derangement????
ADBD
I am banned from watching the Daniel Craig version because people worry one day I will die from laughing too much at the scratching my balls scene.
I needed oxygen in the cinema.
We forget that the US grew during the 19th century behind a tariff barrier, as did Japan and Korea in the early part of their booms. And both the US and the EU continue to impose very significant customs duties on most agricultural imports.
A tariff free world would be a richer and more efficient world, but a more protectionist world won’t necessarily take us back to the 30s. Unless Trump actually imposes 20% on everything and the EU retaliate. Then we’re all in the shit.
I’ve convened a US trade war working group at my work. Inaugural meeting on Monday.
Official Craig version is a superb film. Genuinely well-written and well-directed, even if you're not a usual Bond fan.
It is therefore not surprising they have abandoned the stupid "target"
Starmer and Co are going to be utterly vanquished in the next election, as angry voters turn on them - they were never popular in the first place - and there is a pretty good chance Reform will hugely benefit, as per the threader
Which is why this "7%" is such bullshit: there's a lower proportion of people in private school at any one time, but up to 20% experience it or choose it at some point in their schooling career.
Such a clouded picture is bound to contain somewhere something someone does not want us to fully comprehend.
And no, you Libdems, I don't mean you.
[puts feet up on coffee table]
Because there ain't any. They have now sworn to lower immigration which - if they do it - will lower GDP growth. And I can see their reasons (I agree this needs doing). But there is literally nothing which will counter this and drive growth up. Nothing
https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1861884657710608747
So, Leon, in econonic policy what exactly should they have done instead?
The extremes on both sides creep me the fuck out
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/3/5/syrians-recount-horror-under-russian-air-attacks
In fact I don't even want to be a burden on PB. One trusts that when the time comes and I am posting nothing but gibberish, the moderators will effect a mercy ban and spare you all the embarrassment of politely ignoring the rantings of a once great poster.
This is of course some way off......I think.
I'd need to spend a few hours mulling over a reasonable answer (which you deserve), I may do it at some point
But I know for a fact that what they have announced, and planned, shows zero ideas for amping up growth. It is mere verbiage, and the few things they have done - tax jobs - drive non doms and rich people away - are actually anti-growth
Depends if it happens as promised… but climbing aboard bulldozers and blasting through planning laws, red tape, bureaucracy and nimbyism certainly would. ’m surprised Conservatives didn’t beat Labour to this themselves last ten years instead of pandering to nimbyism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack
- Bringing public finances under sensible control without a severe dose of austerity.
- Funding NHS to cut waiting lists and improve mental health services to get more people back in work.
- Increasing the minimum wage to make work more attractive than benefits.
Now, you might well dismiss these and you could turn out to be right, but I suspect these changes will have a positive effect. Time will tell.
The task of drafting laws to cover all of them is just about impossible, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
- LGPS being used as an investment tool
- Planning reform
- The rest of the world going to shit and us being a safe haven
- Regional devolution and infrastructure development, if they allow it to happen
The whole rest of world going to shit scenario is not to be underestimated.
Poor people OTOH spend every penny they get. Give the poorest 10% an extra £1bn and that's an extra £bn of growth right away.
You get some Right to Lifers who would rather see pregnant-by-rape young women DIE than get an abortion after 10 weeks. UGH
You get some pro-abortion freaks who want abortion to the end of term, for any reason, and seem to actually celebrate abortion as an intrinsically good thing, like: abortion is fab! UGH
The worst of the euthanasiasts remind me of the pro-abortion freaks, seeing an assisted suicide as some kind of brilliant thing in itself, something noble and welcome, rather than what it is: a tragically understandable preference, in certain dire circumstances
If you dig deep into the history of the charities and agencies supporting Assisted Dying, they have roots in the eugenicist movements of the late 19th/20th centuries
That doesn't instantly disqualify them, but it is unsettling
Economic activity is not the same as wealth creation.
The inability to understand the difference is one reason why there is so much debt in this country.
Also, the price of oil is a lot less tied to Middle Eastern politics than it used to be, thanks to America's triumphant rise as an energy producer.
And, finally, even when the free world does worry about the price of oil, that factor can cut both ways.
The Middle East is a complicated place, and the price of oil is only one facto there. Even if it wasn't, many of the challenges there would remain similar. However, shutting down our own North Sea oil production is the last thing we should be doing, for any number of reasons.
In the last 20 years I have generated millions - literally - in tax for HMRC. And that comes from money earned overseas, going into UK coffers. And marketing and selling my flints employs, in part, a fair few people
What else am I expected to do, to personally generate growth?
So, yeah, fuck off
The classic was the overthrow of Stroessner in Paraguay.
I've been consistent not just for the past few weeks in supporting this liberalisation but that we should go much further, but I supported it when it was argued before the Supreme Court, I supported it years ago when it was last debated in Parliament. I supported it as a teenager at the end of the last century.
I'm as entitled to my views as you are to yours. That's not a slope.
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=6abbda738bcff85b&q=christmas+tree+aleppo+syria
And we all know if you, Nigel B, and even the doughty Josias Jessop were stranded between a group of those delightful pragmatic Aleppo rebel chaps, and the Syrian Arab Army, which of the two you'd run away from, and which you'd run toward to protect you, so spare us the hypocrisy.
First place is, IMHO, plausible. But, an overall majority is not.
Pressure not to be a burden - don't be ridiculous. People are quite happy to be burdens, voting for the triple lock and voting for their own interests. No, people don't sacrifice their own lives to not be a burden.
There is zero "damage" to the Hippocratic Oath. Following someone's clearly stated wishes to end their suffering is doing good, not harm.
Poor decisions? People have a right to make poor decisions, that's their choice.
It should be up to the individual and nobody else what they want to do with their life. My body, my choice. Your body, your choice.
And so, if you're involved in any sort of importing or exporting business, what do you do? What investment decisions can you take? You've no idea of what the tariff situation will look like in 3, 6, 12, whatever months time.
Which is about directly protecting EU automaker *supply chain*
In his politics however, he acknowledges that he has zero ambitions for Britain's economy to grow, and indeed he thinks it's probably right that it shrinks.
That removes any ounce of respect I have for his political arguments, or any policy that he might ever recommend as being beneficial to our economy.
That proved a barrel of fun,
Papers got printed arse over tit,
You had to handstand to read up it,
And the whole thing ended re-run.
Do I get on the front of the Daily Star with this?
My "fuck off" is only aimed at his outrageous assertion that I am some affluent dude who just sits back and does fuck all but faff about in nice hotels in Bali. I am self-employed, successfully, and I have in my later years generated large amounts of income and business from abroad, all of which comes to the UK and a large chunk of the taxable cash goes to the Inland Revenue; and the marketing, promoting and selling of my products in the UK employs a large number of people (not full time, but they all spend part of their time doing that)
I am pretty certain I add more "growth" to the UK economy than 95% of Britons. Earning money abroad and paying tax on it in Britain is surely one of the purest ways of benefiting the UK
I have an impression that UKIP voters included many older and C1C2 voters - people who had something and were afraid of change - whereas Reform is picking up younger and DE voters - people who don't have anything, are angry about it and want change.
Designed by a graduate clever-dick
He was quite clearly pissed
For his upside down list
Was ordered in strict beta-alphic.
Amazing that so few people know it, when it was such a titanic influence in medieval times - the Cluniac monasteries
Do rich people contribute disproportionately to spending and tax revenue, as a result of being rich and having the capacity to invest? Yes.
Does a pound in tax cuts or benefits given to a poor person get recycled back into the economy more quickly than the equivalent pound given to a rich person? Yes.
It’s unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) situated in a location seen by British, Belgian and Dutch holidaymakers as an overnight stopover on the way to the Alps or Provence.