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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
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.
We do not have windows into other men's souls.
All we can see with any certainty is that we would all prefer to live in Assad's Syria than in rebel Syria. And if you say otherwise you're simply a liar.
But happily you don't have to make that choice - do continue to enjoy the Maconnais, where I understand joyous rebel car bombings are few.
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
I had some fun, trying to explain venture capitalism to an MP, once.
The revaluation that the American version is regulated to *excludes* poor people stunned him.
This is because you have to have actual money to invest, not leveraged stuff.
The repeated explosions of creativity in Silicon Valley are caused by a river of money looking for a serious return.
This is the first time since the RSS Conference in September that I haven't got any work to do over the weekend. Positively decadent. What shall I do (ponders).
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.
No. If you are self employed and a successful primary producer - like a gold miner or a farmer or, most of all, an artist - you are creating wealth and value when there was none before. It comes out of my mind and with hard work I turn my thoughts into something that can make a six figure salary. That is taxed by HMRC, and it also brings in lots of money from abroad, also taxed by HMRC
At the same time the promoting, making, advertising and selling of my mental efforts turned into flints itself generates employment, and profit, and thus further adds to the wealth of the UK and money the government can then spend as it wishes, eg stimulating more business elsewhere
If that doesn't boost growth, what does? I readily confess I am not exactly James Dyson, but I am pretty sure I do more for the UK economy and UK "growth" than 19 out of 20 of my fellow Brits. I create valuable stuff from scratch
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?
Knowing the Daily Star probably depends on how you are prepared to pose for the picture.
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.
I suspect places like Cluny - like the delightful upper Aveyron which I explored last summer - will become a lot more popular as southern France becomes simply too hot in high summer
It was 40C+ for day after day in Provence last August. It's not fun
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
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.
We do not have windows into other men's souls.
All we can see with any certainty is that we would all prefer to live in Assad's Syria than in rebel Syria. And if you say otherwise you're simply a liar.
But happily you don't have to make that choice - do continue to enjoy the Maconnais, where I understand joyous rebel car bombings are few.
No, I’m not having that. It’s the argument Israeli extremists have made since forever whenever someone accuses them of excesses in Palestine. It’s no doubt the same argument Nazis made about the Russians in WW2 or Afrikaaners made about those awful do-gooders who moaned about apartheid. In fact we know that’s exactly what they did.
You seem to think you have a window into the souls of all of us, including the Syrian rebels. Everything you write comes from your world view, which is utterly at odds with mine and is bizarrely comfortable and confluent with the Russian world view.
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.
As we are all being so polite (which I like) could I politely point out that I have never advocated a stagnant or shrinking economy.
I would like to see continual growth, where the benefits of growth are shared more evenly so that everyone, particularly those most disadvantaged, can see their living standards improve.
If you think my policies and proposals are wrong-headed that's fair enough but please don't misrepresent my intent.
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.
I suspect places like Cluny - like the delightful upper Aveyron which I explored last summer - will become a lot more popular as southern France becomes simply too hot in high summer
It was 40C+ for day after day in Provence last August. It's not fun
Trouble is it now regularly gets to the high 30s there too, and with humidity. I think Charente Maritime and Loire Atlantique will be the big beneficiaries.
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But wealth which has been accumulated doesn't just sit in a drawer. If you put your money in the bank, it's available for other people to borrow, to invest in their own wealth creation. I swear this government thinks it can just help itself to money without it having a knock on impact. I believe many of them do think the money in banks is just sitting there in drawers.
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.
No. If you are self employed and a successful primary producer - like a gold miner or a farmer or, most of all, an artist - you are creating wealth and value when there was none before. It comes out of my mind and with hard work I turn my thoughts into something that can make a six figure salary. That is taxed by HMRC, and it also brings in lots of money from abroad, also taxed by HMRC
At the same time the promoting, making, advertising and selling of my mental efforts turned into flints itself generates employment, and profit, and thus further adds to the wealth of the UK and money the government can then spend as it wishes, eg stimulating more business elsewhere
If that doesn't boost growth, what does? I readily confess I am not exactly James Dyson, but I am pretty sure I do more for the UK economy and UK "growth" than 19 out of 20 of my fellow Brits. I create valuable stuff from scratch
Wealth is created by moving assets from low-value to high-value uses. Value is expressed by the amount of money one is willing to provide to purchase that asset. By changing stone from a sharp-edged monolith that nobody wants to a smoothly polished dildo that somebody wants to fill their guts with, you are creating wealth. The amount of wealth is the increase in value.
There y'go. That's proper economics. You can carve it into your goods if you like.
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.
No. If you are self employed and a successful primary producer - like a gold miner or a farmer or, most of all, an artist - you are creating wealth and value when there was none before. It comes out of my mind and with hard work I turn my thoughts into something that can make a six figure salary. That is taxed by HMRC, and it also brings in lots of money from abroad, also taxed by HMRC
At the same time the promoting, making, advertising and selling of my mental efforts turned into flints itself generates employment, and profit, and thus further adds to the wealth of the UK and money the government can then spend as it wishes, eg stimulating more business elsewhere
If that doesn't boost growth, what does? I readily confess I am not exactly James Dyson, but I am pretty sure I do more for the UK economy and UK "growth" than 19 out of 20 of my fellow Brits. I create valuable stuff from scratch
Good for you. But for it to be growth you would need to increase that output year by year etc etc. What you and all your fellow producers achieve this year is a certain level of output. That has to increase year by year to call it growth. Only possible with technological change - e.g. getting AIs to replicate and multiply your activity. But we'd better move on quickly ...
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.
I suspect places like Cluny - like the delightful upper Aveyron which I explored last summer - will become a lot more popular as southern France becomes simply too hot in high summer
It was 40C+ for day after day in Provence last August. It's not fun
How regularly gets to the high 30s there too, and with humidity. I think Charente Maritime and Loire Atlantique will be the big beneficiaries.
Yes, highly likely. The French Atlantic coast from southern Brittany down will become the new Provence and Riviera (you can see it happpening already). Reliably sunny but more like 30C than 40C
However elevated areas of central France will also benefit. Chunks of Aveyron are hilly but picturesque uplands, so the humidity and heat is a lot lower but they get the sun. Lush
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.
As we are all being so polite (which I like) could I politely point out that I have never advocated a stagnant or shrinking economy.
I would like to see continual growth, where the benefits of growth are shared more evenly so that everyone, particularly those most disadvantaged, can see their living standards improve.
If you think my policies and proposals are wrong-headed that's fair enough but please don't misrepresent my intent.
You also need to specific about what you mean by "growth". The UK economy could grow massively if we imported lots of people, but the economic output per person could fall at the same time.
And some innovations don't lead to more measurable economic output, but increased leisure, better health outcomes and so on. The 5 day week was a result of productivity growth, but that doesn't help economic output much.
And there is the opportunity cost of whatever you are doing. Could those people selling Leon's wares (ahem) be better put to use elsewhere in the economy? Could we invest in their education and have them sending satellites into space or something?
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But wealth which has been accumulated doesn't just sit in a drawer. If you put your money in the bank, it's available for other people to borrow, to invest in their own wealth creation. I swear this government thinks it can just help itself to money without it having a knock on impact. I believe many of them do think the money in banks is just sitting there in drawers.
Well of course.
Everyone knows from the last time Labour was in office that Banks are always highly capitalised, flush with cash and never have any leverage ...
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
You can accumulate wealth and you can consume wealth.
But to do either you first need to create wealth.
If you don't then consumption requires the transfer of wealth to the people producing the good and services that are being consumed.
Do that on a national level, which is what the UK has been doing for a generation, leads to the assets of that nation being increasingly owned by foreigners.
And what else has the UK been doing ?
Borrowing money and giving it to the poor to spend ie the 'extra growth' you advocate.
It hasn't resulted in a more successful economy or even in fewer poor.
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.
No. If you are self employed and a successful primary producer - like a gold miner or a farmer or, most of all, an artist - you are creating wealth and value when there was none before. It comes out of my mind and with hard work I turn my thoughts into something that can make a six figure salary. That is taxed by HMRC, and it also brings in lots of money from abroad, also taxed by HMRC
At the same time the promoting, making, advertising and selling of my mental efforts turned into flints itself generates employment, and profit, and thus further adds to the wealth of the UK and money the government can then spend as it wishes, eg stimulating more business elsewhere
If that doesn't boost growth, what does? I readily confess I am not exactly James Dyson, but I am pretty sure I do more for the UK economy and UK "growth" than 19 out of 20 of my fellow Brits. I create valuable stuff from scratch
Wealth is created by moving assets from low-value to high-value uses. Value is expressed by the amount of money one is willing to provide to purchase that asset. By changing stone from a sharp-edged monolith that nobody wants to a smoothly polished dildo that somebody wants to fill their guts with, you are creating wealth. The amount of wealth is the increase in value.
There y'go. That's proper economics. You can carve it into your goods if you like.
In your scenario you weren't at the productive frontier in the first place. Yes output increases until you get to full capacity. But for growth that has to expand year by year, and you can't get any more by shifting from low producivity to high prdoductivity activity
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
Regardless of the outcome either way I think there was something incredibly beneficial for parliamentary democracy about a free vote, mostly divorced from party lines, on a very challenging and divisive topic that is difficult to address with no real right nor wrong answers and possible moral quandaries on all sides.
So much parliamentary "debate" is almost deliberately off-putting and childish to the average person, the jeering and theatrics (cough PMQ's cough), its hardly surprising that people have quite low opinions of politicians.
The collective process of individuals struggling with their own consciences is considerably more grown-up for it.
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
You can accumulate wealth and you can consume wealth.
But to do either you first need to create wealth.
If you don't then consumption requires the transfer of wealth to the people producing the good and services that are being consumed.
Do that on a national level, which is what the UK has been doing for a generation, leads to the assets of that nation being increasingly owned by foreigners.
And what else has the UK been doing ?
Borrowing money and giving it to the poor to spend ie the 'extra growth' you advocate.
It hasn't resulted in a more successful economy or even in fewer poor.
What the last government was doing was borrowing money and more often giving it to the rich.
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.
No. If you are self employed and a successful primary producer - like a gold miner or a farmer or, most of all, an artist - you are creating wealth and value when there was none before. It comes out of my mind and with hard work I turn my thoughts into something that can make a six figure salary. That is taxed by HMRC, and it also brings in lots of money from abroad, also taxed by HMRC
At the same time the promoting, making, advertising and selling of my mental efforts turned into flints itself generates employment, and profit, and thus further adds to the wealth of the UK and money the government can then spend as it wishes, eg stimulating more business elsewhere
If that doesn't boost growth, what does? I readily confess I am not exactly James Dyson, but I am pretty sure I do more for the UK economy and UK "growth" than 19 out of 20 of my fellow Brits. I create valuable stuff from scratch
Wealth is created by moving assets from low-value to high-value uses. Value is expressed by the amount of money one is willing to provide to purchase that asset. By changing stone from a sharp-edged monolith that nobody wants to a smoothly polished dildo that somebody wants to fill their guts with, you are creating wealth. The amount of wealth is the increase in value.
There y'go. That's proper economics. You can carve it into your goods if you like.
In your scenario you weren't at the productive frontier in the first place. Yes output increases until you get to full capacity. But for growth that has to expand year by year, and you can't get any more by shifting from low producivity to high prdoductivity activity
Of course you can always get more and we are never at the productive frontier in the first, second or third or any other place.
There is plenty of more productive stuff people could be doing and aren't. Though of course there's an army of people making a living from ensuring that others are less productive.
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.
No. If you are self employed and a successful primary producer - like a gold miner or a farmer or, most of all, an artist - you are creating wealth and value when there was none before. It comes out of my mind and with hard work I turn my thoughts into something that can make a six figure salary. That is taxed by HMRC, and it also brings in lots of money from abroad, also taxed by HMRC
At the same time the promoting, making, advertising and selling of my mental efforts turned into flints itself generates employment, and profit, and thus further adds to the wealth of the UK and money the government can then spend as it wishes, eg stimulating more business elsewhere
If that doesn't boost growth, what does? I readily confess I am not exactly James Dyson, but I am pretty sure I do more for the UK economy and UK "growth" than 19 out of 20 of my fellow Brits. I create valuable stuff from scratch
Wealth is created by moving assets from low-value to high-value uses. Value is expressed by the amount of money one is willing to provide to purchase that asset. By changing stone from a sharp-edged monolith that nobody wants to a smoothly polished dildo that somebody wants to fill their guts with, you are creating wealth. The amount of wealth is the increase in value.
There y'go. That's proper economics. You can carve it into your goods if you like.
In your scenario you weren't at the productive frontier in the first place. Yes output increases until you get to full capacity. But for growth that has to expand year by year, and you can't get any more by shifting from low producivity to high prdoductivity activity
Of course you can always get more and we are never at the productive frontier in the first, second or third or any other place.
There is plenty of more productive stuff people could be doing and aren't. Though of course there's an army of people making a living from ensuring that others are less productive.
I thought you had studied economics? What you seem to be talking about is using current resources more efficiently. Once you have done that where does the growth come from?
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.
We do not have windows into other men's souls.
All we can see with any certainty is that we would all prefer to live in Assad's Syria than in rebel Syria. And if you say otherwise you're simply a liar.
But happily you don't have to make that choice - do continue to enjoy the Maconnais, where I understand joyous rebel car bombings are few.
No, I’m not having that. It’s the argument Israeli extremists have made since forever whenever someone accuses them of excesses in Palestine. It’s no doubt the same argument Nazis made about the Russians in WW2 or Afrikaaners made about those awful do-gooders who moaned about apartheid. In fact we know that’s exactly what they did.
You seem to think you have a window into the souls of all of us, including the Syrian rebels. Everything you write comes from your world view, which is utterly at odds with mine and is bizarrely comfortable and confluent with the Russian world view.
No it is not the same argument, because the undoubted privileges of the Israeli state have never been available to the Palestinians as equal citizens, nor were the privileges of the apartheid state available to black people. Under those circumstances, it is/was entirely understandable for those groups to try to change the status quo.
The prosperity, relative calm and undoubted religious tolerance of the Assad's regime were fully enjoyed by the Syrian rebels, and were exactly the things they wanted to overturn. Despite being able to practice their version of Islam as they saw fit, they didn't want the same freedoms to apply to everyone else. Despicably, we abetted them in attempting to overthrow one of the few semi-free societies in the region in favour of creating an Islamist hell-hole. One that you would never live in yourself or subject your family too. How dare you presume to make that choice for someone else? To liberate women into not wearing mini-skirts or going to university again. That has nothing to do with 'the Russian world view' - it's basic humanity.
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
I had some fun, trying to explain venture capitalism to an MP, once.
The revaluation that the American version is regulated to *excludes* poor people stunned him.
This is because you have to have actual money to invest, not leveraged stuff.
The repeated explosions of creativity in Silicon Valley are caused by a river of money looking for a serious return.
I always liked the concept of different types of counterparty in financial regulations here (and inspired by us in the EU) but we could and should take it further. Someone who knows what they are doing should be allowed to take greater risk (in pursuit of greater reward), but have less call on state help when it goes wrong.
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
Nonsense!
I love the arts. Culture is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use the created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON.
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
Nonsense!
I love the arts. Culture is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use the created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON.
That argument is seriously retarded. "I love milling machines. Sculpting metal is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON".
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.
We do not have windows into other men's souls.
All we can see with any certainty is that we would all prefer to live in Assad's Syria than in rebel Syria. And if you say otherwise you're simply a liar.
But happily you don't have to make that choice - do continue to enjoy the Maconnais, where I understand joyous rebel car bombings are few.
No, I’m not having that. It’s the argument Israeli extremists have made since forever whenever someone accuses them of excesses in Palestine. It’s no doubt the same argument Nazis made about the Russians in WW2 or Afrikaaners made about those awful do-gooders who moaned about apartheid. In fact we know that’s exactly what they did.
You seem to think you have a window into the souls of all of us, including the Syrian rebels. Everything you write comes from your world view, which is utterly at odds with mine and is bizarrely comfortable and confluent with the Russian world view.
No it is not the same argument, because the undoubted privileges of the Israeli state have never been available to the Palestinians as equal citizens, nor were the privileges of the apartheid state available to black people. Under those circumstances, it is/was entirely understandable for those groups to try to change the status quo.
The prosperity, relative calm and undoubted religious tolerance of the Assad's regime were fully enjoyed by the Syrian rebels, and were exactly the things they wanted to overturn. Despite being able to practice their version of Islam as they saw fit, they didn't want the same freedoms to apply to everyone else. Despicably, we abetted them in attempting to overthrow one of the few semi-free societies in the region in favour of creating an Islamist hell-hole. One that you would never live in yourself or subject your family too. How dare you presume to make that choice for someone else? To liberate women into not wearing mini-skirts or going to university again. That has nothing to do with 'the Russian world view' - it's basic humanity.
You are quite right about Syria. Before the Arab spring it was one of the most tolerant and livable places in the Middle East (a low bar, but true). I travelled there several times. Minorities - Christians, Druze, you name it - were unpersecuted. Sure there was a thuggish autocracy at the top and a secret police with a vague penchant for torture, but then that was/is true of most of the MENA. However you could walk into a cafe and have arguments about Israel and no one got angry and foreigners were welcome. And it had marvellous churches and monasteries - which were unmolested
The Arab spring destroyed Syria and, as far as I can see, all those that seek to replace the Assad regime are, remarkably, very probably WORSE. And many of the Christians have been killed or driven out and their beautiful churches destroyed. See also: Palmyra
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
You must accept that successful artists also needed a lot more luck than, say, successful lawyers though?
Take an extreme. JK Rowling is a brilliant write and Harry Potter was a great series of children’s books; but she very easily might never have got it in front of an agent/publisher, or been signed. And once she did, the market had to be in exactly the right place to want a boy wizard for her to make billions.
There aren’t an unlimited number of people who can write as well as her, but more can do it than get well paid to. On the other hand, if you have an aptitude for law, you’ll make cash from it.
My point being - you are self made, and good at what you do, but you are also lucky, and lots of other people and events got you where you are.
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.
As we are all being so polite (which I like) could I politely point out that I have never advocated a stagnant or shrinking economy.
I would like to see continual growth, where the benefits of growth are shared more evenly so that everyone, particularly those most disadvantaged, can see their living standards improve.
If you think my policies and proposals are wrong-headed that's fair enough but please don't misrepresent my intent.
My sincere recollection is of a post made by you some months ago to the effect that the UK would not grow again, and that this was probably fine, taking a broader view.
If I am misremembering your post, or your meaning, I am very sorry, and very pleased that that wasn't what you meant. I can respect someone who has a different (obviously in my opinion wrong) approach to wanting our economy to thrive and grow far more than I can respect someone who has chucked in the towel.
Make a government out of that. The results of the poll, conducted by Ipsos B&A today for The Irish Times/RTÉ/TG4/TCD, and released just after polls closed, are as follows: Sinn Féin 21.1 per cent, Fianna Fáil 19.5 per cent, Fine Gael 21 per cent, the Green Party 4 per cent, Labour 5 per cent, the Social Democrats 5.8 per cent, Solidarity-People Before Profit 3.1 per cent, Aontú 3.6 per cent, Independents/others 14.6 per cent and Independent Ireland 2.2 per cent.
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
Nonsense!
I love the arts. Culture is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use the created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON.
Man needs culture as much as he needs food, wine and sex
I create that culture, those artefacts, that art, which people then buy coz they want and need it. Like a farmer growing corn, creating wealth from dull soil
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.
We do not have windows into other men's souls.
All we can see with any certainty is that we would all prefer to live in Assad's Syria than in rebel Syria. And if you say otherwise you're simply a liar.
But happily you don't have to make that choice - do continue to enjoy the Maconnais, where I understand joyous rebel car bombings are few.
No, I’m not having that. It’s the argument Israeli extremists have made since forever whenever someone accuses them of excesses in Palestine. It’s no doubt the same argument Nazis made about the Russians in WW2 or Afrikaaners made about those awful do-gooders who moaned about apartheid. In fact we know that’s exactly what they did.
You seem to think you have a window into the souls of all of us, including the Syrian rebels. Everything you write comes from your world view, which is utterly at odds with mine and is bizarrely comfortable and confluent with the Russian world view.
No it is not the same argument, because the undoubted privileges of the Israeli state have never been available to the Palestinians as equal citizens, nor were the privileges of the apartheid state available to black people. Under those circumstances, it is/was entirely understandable for those groups to try to change the status quo.
The prosperity, relative calm and undoubted religious tolerance of the Assad's regime were fully enjoyed by the Syrian rebels, and were exactly the things they wanted to overturn. Despite being able to practice their version of Islam as they saw fit, they didn't want the same freedoms to apply to everyone else. Despicably, we abetted them in attempting to overthrow one of the few semi-free societies in the region in favour of creating an Islamist hell-hole. One that you would never live in yourself or subject your family too. How dare you presume to make that choice for someone else? To liberate women into not wearing mini-skirts or going to university again. That has nothing to do with 'the Russian world view' - it's basic humanity.
Basic humanity. What an angel you are. Semi-free? A fascist state, which had repeatedly killed tens of thousands of its own people in purges under both Assad senior and junior, the senior of course having buried the city of Homs in the full gaze of both East and West, the junior who has now killed many thousands more not only with chemical weapons but using Russian proxy bombers. This is really all apres moi le deluge nonsense.
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
Nonsense!
I love the arts. Culture is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use the created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON.
That argument is seriously retarded. "I love milling machines. Sculpting metal is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON".
WTAF are you talking about?
If you can't see the difference between 1) a milling machine that can make e.g. tools that can grow, preserve or transport food more efficiently and 2) a piece of art that inspires, provokes, entertains, shocks etc...
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?
Knowing the Daily Star probably depends on how you are prepared to pose for the picture.
The daily star is very sharp and modern these days. Their “Liz Lettuce” was a world wide hit. And the animal and insect stories great too.
If you want something leaning heavily on old fashioned “glamour” look no further than MailOnline.
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
You must accept that successful artists also needed a lot more luck than, say, successful lawyers though?
Take an extreme. JK Rowling is a brilliant write and Harry Potter was a great series of children’s books; but she very easily might never have got it in front of an agent/publisher, or been signed. And once she did, the market had to be in exactly the right place to want a boy wizard for her to make billions.
There aren’t an unlimited number of people who can write as well as her, but more can do it than get well paid to. On the other hand, if you have an aptitude for law, you’ll make cash from it.
My point being - you are self made, and good at what you do, but you are also lucky, and lots of other people and events got you where you are.
You have no idea. Could be I am just good at it. Sorry
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.
We do not have windows into other men's souls.
All we can see with any certainty is that we would all prefer to live in Assad's Syria than in rebel Syria. And if you say otherwise you're simply a liar.
But happily you don't have to make that choice - do continue to enjoy the Maconnais, where I understand joyous rebel car bombings are few.
No, I’m not having that. It’s the argument Israeli extremists have made since forever whenever someone accuses them of excesses in Palestine. It’s no doubt the same argument Nazis made about the Russians in WW2 or Afrikaaners made about those awful do-gooders who moaned about apartheid. In fact we know that’s exactly what they did.
You seem to think you have a window into the souls of all of us, including the Syrian rebels. Everything you write comes from your world view, which is utterly at odds with mine and is bizarrely comfortable and confluent with the Russian world view.
No it is not the same argument, because the undoubted privileges of the Israeli state have never been available to the Palestinians as equal citizens, nor were the privileges of the apartheid state available to black people. Under those circumstances, it is/was entirely understandable for those groups to try to change the status quo.
The prosperity, relative calm and undoubted religious tolerance of the Assad's regime were fully enjoyed by the Syrian rebels, and were exactly the things they wanted to overturn. Despite being able to practice their version of Islam as they saw fit, they didn't want the same freedoms to apply to everyone else. Despicably, we abetted them in attempting to overthrow one of the few semi-free societies in the region in favour of creating an Islamist hell-hole. One that you would never live in yourself or subject your family too. How dare you presume to make that choice for someone else? To liberate women into not wearing mini-skirts or going to university again. That has nothing to do with 'the Russian world view' - it's basic humanity.
Basic humanity. What an angel you are. Semi-free? A fascist state, which had repeatedly killed tens of thousands of its own people in purges under both Assad senior and junior, the senior of course having buried the city of Homs in the full gaze of both East and West, the junior who has now killed many thousands more not only with chemical weapons but using Russian proxy bombers. This is really all apres moi le deluge nonsense.
And if given a forced choice, you'd race your family and whatever belongings you could collect to that evil fascist state and away from the 'liberated' one.
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.
Your last two sentences, I largely agree. My worry is that that is not necessarily the outcome of this legislation.
On a related note, A thought experiment - what if there were an easily accessed 'off' button on the back of your head. Any time it all gets too much, you can just end it painlessly. You can even make it look accifental. Would any of us have got even to the age of 25?
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
Nonsense!
I love the arts. Culture is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use the created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON.
Man needs culture as much as he needs food, wine and sex
I create that culture, those artefacts, that art, which people then buy coz they want and need it. Like a farmer growing corn, creating wealth from dull soil
That's well put. Persuasive even. (You should be a writer!)
There's truth in what you say but... the productivity thing doesn't apply surely? Or will 'that new technology that you're not allowed to discuss' start knocking out all the art we want soon? And if so will it create wealth?
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
I gave a strong answer to the question though 😌 I’m with Janan Ganesh, who has been pushing this route to growth for donkeys ears.
Right wing free market economic think tanks have been calling for someone to climb aboard bulldozers and flatten bureaucratic planning laws, red tape and nimbyism that’s been holding UK back and strangling it - that’s where Premier Liz Truss got her “Growth. Growth. And More Growth” from. They wrote the speech for her, and how to achieve it. MPs in own party didn’t give her a chance to do it, largely because they decided long before her first budget Sunak was better communicator, would be far more liked by the electorate, and clever at economics so would gain more growth than Truss.
Everything needs to be weighed up carefully. Bulldozer keys in Starmer’s hands, and I don’t trust this Labour government to take care of the countryside and environment, as much as I would trust a Conservative government to take this route properly.
This Labour Government doesn’t have a single clue how to offset any of their painful decisions. But that should be the first rule of politics, selling things as win wins with sweeteners and offsets? “Here we are on our Labour bulldozers, about to knock down fifty million trees to boost house building. But we are not going to plant a single tree to compensate. In fact we are cutting the nature friendly budget, to pay for the diesel in our bulldozers and excavators.”
Don’t listen to all the other Tories on PB, the main danger from this Labour government isn’t lefty ideology. It’s the fact they are thick, and couldn’t see or smell inherent vice, even if you have it in a bucket, and pour it over their heads.
PS with a Parliament swamped by clueless newbie Labour MPs, voting to endorse and promote suicide, a cynical decision was made, this would be a good day to bury a bad haircut. Then again, fact she hushed up she was a serial works phone mislayer, quite right such deceit and criminality is out of government. How much did Starmer seek to know when Sue Gray foistered this loud lefty on him?
Streeting will be next out of cabinet, de-barred from politics for fiddling election expenses.
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?
Knowing the Daily Star probably depends on how you are prepared to pose for the picture.
The daily star is very sharp and modern these days. Their “Liz Lettuce” was a world wide hit. And the animal and insect stories great too.
If you want something leaning heavily on old fashioned “glamour” look no further than MailOnline.
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
Nonsense!
I love the arts. Culture is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use the created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON.
That argument is seriously retarded. "I love milling machines. Sculpting metal is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON".
WTAF are you talking about?
If you can't see the difference between 1) a milling machine that can make e.g. tools that can grow, preserve or transport food more efficiently and 2) a piece of art that inspires, provokes, entertains, shocks etc...
...then it's impossible to debate with you.
I can a see a "difference", but it's economically illiterate to arbitarily pick some kinds of wealth creation and decide they aren't wealth just because. If producing arts isn't wealth creation, why do people buy art? Are they throwing money away?
And art can lead to further growth in unrelated sectors. Ask Roger for examples
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
Nonsense!
I love the arts. Culture is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use the created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON.
Man needs culture as much as he needs food, wine and sex
I create that culture, those artefacts, that art, which people then buy coz they want and need it. Like a farmer growing corn, creating wealth from dull soil
That's well put. Persuasive even. (You should be a writer!)
There's truth in what you say but... the productivity thing doesn't apply surely? Or will 'that new technology that you're not allowed to discuss' start knocking out all the art we want soon? And if so will it create wealth?
A question which vexes me daily! If not more often, as the days go by
But I am not allowed to discuss it, which is likely for the best, as I have quite obsessive thoughts on it, on all fronts. And also some recent experiences which are truly mind-boggling
RTÉ suggesting that a four-party coalition led by FF & FG is the most likely outcome. No route for Sinn Fein to form a government.
A lot will depend on transfers, but with only modest changes in the first preference vote suggested by the exit poll, you wouldn't expect much change in the transfers either.
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
Nonsense!
I love the arts. Culture is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use the created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON.
That argument is seriously retarded. "I love milling machines. Sculpting metal is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON".
WTAF are you talking about?
If you can't see the difference between 1) a milling machine that can make e.g. tools that can grow, preserve or transport food more efficiently and 2) a piece of art that inspires, provokes, entertains, shocks etc...
...then it's impossible to debate with you.
This boils down to the definition of wealth, and it differs by discipline. But from investopedia:
It's measured by taking the market value of all physical and intangible assets owned, then subtracting all debts. It can be seen in either absolute or relative terms.
From that, Leon is certainly a "wealth creator", in that he is wealthier than he would have been had he not done his work, and he has contributed to the wealth of others if we assume the exchange of money for his work indicates a consumer surplus.
A different question is how much he has contributed to economic growth - probably a net negative, given the people reading those books could have probably been doing something more useful with their time.
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.
We do not have windows into other men's souls.
All we can see with any certainty is that we would all prefer to live in Assad's Syria than in rebel Syria. And if you say otherwise you're simply a liar.
But happily you don't have to make that choice - do continue to enjoy the Maconnais, where I understand joyous rebel car bombings are few.
No, I’m not having that. It’s the argument Israeli extremists have made since forever whenever someone accuses them of excesses in Palestine. It’s no doubt the same argument Nazis made about the Russians in WW2 or Afrikaaners made about those awful do-gooders who moaned about apartheid. In fact we know that’s exactly what they did.
You seem to think you have a window into the souls of all of us, including the Syrian rebels. Everything you write comes from your world view, which is utterly at odds with mine and is bizarrely comfortable and confluent with the Russian world view.
No it is not the same argument, because the undoubted privileges of the Israeli state have never been available to the Palestinians as equal citizens, nor were the privileges of the apartheid state available to black people. Under those circumstances, it is/was entirely understandable for those groups to try to change the status quo.
The prosperity, relative calm and undoubted religious tolerance of the Assad's regime were fully enjoyed by the Syrian rebels, and were exactly the things they wanted to overturn. Despite being able to practice their version of Islam as they saw fit, they didn't want the same freedoms to apply to everyone else. Despicably, we abetted them in attempting to overthrow one of the few semi-free societies in the region in favour of creating an Islamist hell-hole. One that you would never live in yourself or subject your family too. How dare you presume to make that choice for someone else? To liberate women into not wearing mini-skirts or going to university again. That has nothing to do with 'the Russian world view' - it's basic humanity.
You are quite right about Syria. Before the Arab spring it was one of the most tolerant and livable places in the Middle East (a low bar, but true). I travelled there several times. Minorities - Christians, Druze, you name it - were unpersecuted. Sure there was a thuggish autocracy at the top and a secret police with a vague penchant for torture, but then that was/is true of most of the MENA. However you could walk into a cafe and have arguments about Israel and no one got angry and foreigners were welcome. And it had marvellous churches and monasteries - which were unmolested
The Arab spring destroyed Syria and, as far as I can see, all those that seek to replace the Assad regime are, remarkably, very probably WORSE. And many of the Christians have been killed or driven out and their beautiful churches destroyed. See also: Palmyra
I had friends who travelled to Syria back then and enjoyed it, describing what you describe. But the Arab spring happened, Assad was faced with a choice, and like Gaddafi he made the wrong one, destroying his country in the process.
Other leaders made the right choice. They made concessions and listened, as happened in many of the monarchies of the region from Morocco to Oman, or they packed their bags and left. Assad chose to slaughter his own people.
Once he’d crossed the Rubicon, the country entered hell. The blame lies squarely with him.
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.
We do not have windows into other men's souls.
All we can see with any certainty is that we would all prefer to live in Assad's Syria than in rebel Syria. And if you say otherwise you're simply a liar.
But happily you don't have to make that choice - do continue to enjoy the Maconnais, where I understand joyous rebel car bombings are few.
No, I’m not having that. It’s the argument Israeli extremists have made since forever whenever someone accuses them of excesses in Palestine. It’s no doubt the same argument Nazis made about the Russians in WW2 or Afrikaaners made about those awful do-gooders who moaned about apartheid. In fact we know that’s exactly what they did.
You seem to think you have a window into the souls of all of us, including the Syrian rebels. Everything you write comes from your world view, which is utterly at odds with mine and is bizarrely comfortable and confluent with the Russian world view.
No it is not the same argument, because the undoubted privileges of the Israeli state have never been available to the Palestinians as equal citizens, nor were the privileges of the apartheid state available to black people. Under those circumstances, it is/was entirely understandable for those groups to try to change the status quo.
The prosperity, relative calm and undoubted religious tolerance of the Assad's regime were fully enjoyed by the Syrian rebels, and were exactly the things they wanted to overturn. Despite being able to practice their version of Islam as they saw fit, they didn't want the same freedoms to apply to everyone else. Despicably, we abetted them in attempting to overthrow one of the few semi-free societies in the region in favour of creating an Islamist hell-hole. One that you would never live in yourself or subject your family too. How dare you presume to make that choice for someone else? To liberate women into not wearing mini-skirts or going to university again. That has nothing to do with 'the Russian world view' - it's basic humanity.
You are quite right about Syria. Before the Arab spring it was one of the most tolerant and livable places in the Middle East (a low bar, but true). I travelled there several times. Minorities - Christians, Druze, you name it - were unpersecuted. Sure there was a thuggish autocracy at the top and a secret police with a vague penchant for torture, but then that was/is true of most of the MENA. However you could walk into a cafe and have arguments about Israel and no one got angry and foreigners were welcome. And it had marvellous churches and monasteries - which were unmolested
The Arab spring destroyed Syria and, as far as I can see, all those that seek to replace the Assad regime are, remarkably, very probably WORSE. And many of the Christians have been killed or driven out and their beautiful churches destroyed. See also: Palmyra
I had friends who travelled to Syria back then and enjoyed it, describing what you describe. But the Arab spring happened, Assad was faced with a choice, and like Gaddafi he made the wrong one, destroying his country in the process.
Other leaders made the right choice. They made concessions and listened, as happened in many of the monarchies of the region from Morocco to Oman, or they packed their bags and left. Assad chose to slaughter his own people.
Once he’d crossed the Rubicon, the country entered hell. The blame lies squarely with him.
There was an Islamist insurrection in his country, and the blame for it getting ugly lies squarely with him for resisting it. OK dear.
Make a government out of that. The results of the poll, conducted by Ipsos B&A today for The Irish Times/RTÉ/TG4/TCD, and released just after polls closed, are as follows: Sinn Féin 21.1 per cent, Fianna Fáil 19.5 per cent, Fine Gael 21 per cent, the Green Party 4 per cent, Labour 5 per cent, the Social Democrats 5.8 per cent, Solidarity-People Before Profit 3.1 per cent, Aontú 3.6 per cent, Independents/others 14.6 per cent and Independent Ireland 2.2 per cent.
That’s a Fianna fail - third party of Irish politics, shrinking away till it becomes junior member of Sinn Féin governments, then vanishes completely.
Rep of Ireland is a country defined by Nationalism, with Nationalism at the heart of its politics. About as much difference between parties and candidates today, as there was in voting in Soviet Union. Put me right if I’m wrong.
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
You must accept that successful artists also needed a lot more luck than, say, successful lawyers though?
Take an extreme. JK Rowling is a brilliant write and Harry Potter was a great series of children’s books; but she very easily might never have got it in front of an agent/publisher, or been signed. And once she did, the market had to be in exactly the right place to want a boy wizard for her to make billions.
There aren’t an unlimited number of people who can write as well as her, but more can do it than get well paid to. On the other hand, if you have an aptitude for law, you’ll make cash from it.
My point being - you are self made, and good at what you do, but you are also lucky, and lots of other people and events got you where you are.
You have no idea. Could be I am just good at it. Sorry
Yes, with such a tightly written repudiation we can all see your immense talent. Does the editor usually add the punctuation?
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.
We do not have windows into other men's souls.
All we can see with any certainty is that we would all prefer to live in Assad's Syria than in rebel Syria. And if you say otherwise you're simply a liar.
But happily you don't have to make that choice - do continue to enjoy the Maconnais, where I understand joyous rebel car bombings are few.
No, I’m not having that. It’s the argument Israeli extremists have made since forever whenever someone accuses them of excesses in Palestine. It’s no doubt the same argument Nazis made about the Russians in WW2 or Afrikaaners made about those awful do-gooders who moaned about apartheid. In fact we know that’s exactly what they did.
You seem to think you have a window into the souls of all of us, including the Syrian rebels. Everything you write comes from your world view, which is utterly at odds with mine and is bizarrely comfortable and confluent with the Russian world view.
No it is not the same argument, because the undoubted privileges of the Israeli state have never been available to the Palestinians as equal citizens, nor were the privileges of the apartheid state available to black people. Under those circumstances, it is/was entirely understandable for those groups to try to change the status quo.
The prosperity, relative calm and undoubted religious tolerance of the Assad's regime were fully enjoyed by the Syrian rebels, and were exactly the things they wanted to overturn. Despite being able to practice their version of Islam as they saw fit, they didn't want the same freedoms to apply to everyone else. Despicably, we abetted them in attempting to overthrow one of the few semi-free societies in the region in favour of creating an Islamist hell-hole. One that you would never live in yourself or subject your family too. How dare you presume to make that choice for someone else? To liberate women into not wearing mini-skirts or going to university again. That has nothing to do with 'the Russian world view' - it's basic humanity.
You are quite right about Syria. Before the Arab spring it was one of the most tolerant and livable places in the Middle East (a low bar, but true). I travelled there several times. Minorities - Christians, Druze, you name it - were unpersecuted. Sure there was a thuggish autocracy at the top and a secret police with a vague penchant for torture, but then that was/is true of most of the MENA. However you could walk into a cafe and have arguments about Israel and no one got angry and foreigners were welcome. And it had marvellous churches and monasteries - which were unmolested
The Arab spring destroyed Syria and, as far as I can see, all those that seek to replace the Assad regime are, remarkably, very probably WORSE. And many of the Christians have been killed or driven out and their beautiful churches destroyed. See also: Palmyra
I had friends who travelled to Syria back then and enjoyed it, describing what you describe. But the Arab spring happened, Assad was faced with a choice, and like Gaddafi he made the wrong one, destroying his country in the process.
Other leaders made the right choice. They made concessions and listened, as happened in many of the monarchies of the region from Morocco to Oman, or they packed their bags and left. Assad chose to slaughter his own people.
Once he’d crossed the Rubicon, the country entered hell. The blame lies squarely with him.
There was an Islamist insurrection in his country, and the blame for it getting ugly lies squarely with him for resisting it. OK dear.
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
Nonsense!
I love the arts. Culture is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use the created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON.
That argument is seriously retarded. "I love milling machines. Sculpting metal is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON".
WTAF are you talking about?
If you can't see the difference between 1) a milling machine that can make e.g. tools that can grow, preserve or transport food more efficiently and 2) a piece of art that inspires, provokes, entertains, shocks etc...
...then it's impossible to debate with you.
This boils down to the definition of wealth, and it differs by discipline. But from investopedia:
It's measured by taking the market value of all physical and intangible assets owned, then subtracting all debts. It can be seen in either absolute or relative terms.
From that, Leon is certainly a "wealth creator", in that he is wealthier than he would have been had he not done his work, and he has contributed to the wealth of others if we assume the exchange of money for his work indicates a consumer surplus.
A different question is how much he has contributed to economic growth - probably a net negative, given the people reading those books could have probably been doing something more useful with their time.
In that case, we'd probably best switch off the internet...
I don't understand this argument at all. Wealth isn't just worthy stuff, its anything that has a perceived value.
Even bits of ink on paper. Unless it says Rubles on it, obviously.
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.
No. If you are self employed and a successful primary producer - like a gold miner or a farmer or, most of all, an artist - you are creating wealth and value when there was none before. It comes out of my mind and with hard work I turn my thoughts into something that can make a six figure salary. That is taxed by HMRC, and it also brings in lots of money from abroad, also taxed by HMRC
At the same time the promoting, making, advertising and selling of my mental efforts turned into flints itself generates employment, and profit, and thus further adds to the wealth of the UK and money the government can then spend as it wishes, eg stimulating more business elsewhere
If that doesn't boost growth, what does? I readily confess I am not exactly James Dyson, but I am pretty sure I do more for the UK economy and UK "growth" than 19 out of 20 of my fellow Brits. I create valuable stuff from scratch
This government feels you're nothing but a cash cow.
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.
Given that the rebels consist of a huge variety of different groups, some good and some bad, whilst the Syrian Army as a whole is responsible for some of the worst crimes in Syria, I know which one I would take my chances with. Of course your simplistic world view seems to be incapable fo processing such nuance.
Make a government out of that. The results of the poll, conducted by Ipsos B&A today for The Irish Times/RTÉ/TG4/TCD, and released just after polls closed, are as follows: Sinn Féin 21.1 per cent, Fianna Fáil 19.5 per cent, Fine Gael 21 per cent, the Green Party 4 per cent, Labour 5 per cent, the Social Democrats 5.8 per cent, Solidarity-People Before Profit 3.1 per cent, Aontú 3.6 per cent, Independents/others 14.6 per cent and Independent Ireland 2.2 per cent.
That’s a Fianna fail - third party of Irish politics, shrinking away till it becomes junior member of Sinn Féin governments, then vanishes completely.
Rep of Ireland is a country defined by Nationalism, with Nationalism at the heart of its politics. About as much difference between parties and candidates today, as there was in voting in Soviet Union. Put me right if I’m wrong.
I would define Irish politics by local loyalties. This is why so many people still vote on civil war lines inherited by their family. It's why independents do so well.
The loyalties are on a much smaller scale than the national level.
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.
We do not have windows into other men's souls.
All we can see with any certainty is that we would all prefer to live in Assad's Syria than in rebel Syria. And if you say otherwise you're simply a liar.
But happily you don't have to make that choice - do continue to enjoy the Maconnais, where I understand joyous rebel car bombings are few.
No, I’m not having that. It’s the argument Israeli extremists have made since forever whenever someone accuses them of excesses in Palestine. It’s no doubt the same argument Nazis made about the Russians in WW2 or Afrikaaners made about those awful do-gooders who moaned about apartheid. In fact we know that’s exactly what they did.
You seem to think you have a window into the souls of all of us, including the Syrian rebels. Everything you write comes from your world view, which is utterly at odds with mine and is bizarrely comfortable and confluent with the Russian world view.
No it is not the same argument, because the undoubted privileges of the Israeli state have never been available to the Palestinians as equal citizens, nor were the privileges of the apartheid state available to black people. Under those circumstances, it is/was entirely understandable for those groups to try to change the status quo.
The prosperity, relative calm and undoubted religious tolerance of the Assad's regime were fully enjoyed by the Syrian rebels, and were exactly the things they wanted to overturn. Despite being able to practice their version of Islam as they saw fit, they didn't want the same freedoms to apply to everyone else. Despicably, we abetted them in attempting to overthrow one of the few semi-free societies in the region in favour of creating an Islamist hell-hole. One that you would never live in yourself or subject your family too. How dare you presume to make that choice for someone else? To liberate women into not wearing mini-skirts or going to university again. That has nothing to do with 'the Russian world view' - it's basic humanity.
You are quite right about Syria. Before the Arab spring it was one of the most tolerant and livable places in the Middle East (a low bar, but true). I travelled there several times. Minorities - Christians, Druze, you name it - were unpersecuted. Sure there was a thuggish autocracy at the top and a secret police with a vague penchant for torture, but then that was/is true of most of the MENA. However you could walk into a cafe and have arguments about Israel and no one got angry and foreigners were welcome. And it had marvellous churches and monasteries - which were unmolested
The Arab spring destroyed Syria and, as far as I can see, all those that seek to replace the Assad regime are, remarkably, very probably WORSE. And many of the Christians have been killed or driven out and their beautiful churches destroyed. See also: Palmyra
I had friends who travelled to Syria back then and enjoyed it, describing what you describe. But the Arab spring happened, Assad was faced with a choice, and like Gaddafi he made the wrong one, destroying his country in the process.
Other leaders made the right choice. They made concessions and listened, as happened in many of the monarchies of the region from Morocco to Oman, or they packed their bags and left. Assad chose to slaughter his own people.
Once he’d crossed the Rubicon, the country entered hell. The blame lies squarely with him.
There was an Islamist insurrection in his country, and the blame for it getting ugly lies squarely with him for resisting it. OK dear.
Yet you still don't have the balls to say whether you'd prefer to live in pre-glorious revolution Syria or post-glorious revolution Syria, because you'd either be caught in a ridiculous, risible lie, or be forced to acknowledge that you support the 'liberation' of a country into a worse one for its citizens to live in.
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
Nonsense!
I love the arts. Culture is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use the created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON.
Man needs culture as much as he needs food, wine and sex
I create that culture, those artefacts, that art, which people then buy coz they want and need it. Like a farmer growing corn, creating wealth from dull soil
That's well put. Persuasive even. (You should be a writer!)
There's truth in what you say but... the productivity thing doesn't apply surely? Or will 'that new technology that you're not allowed to discuss' start knocking out all the art we want soon? And if so will it create wealth?
You keep veering towards Lump of Work… :-)
Wealth is created by rearranging stuff into other stuff that is more useful.
Homer (if he existed as a singular being) re-arranged some synaptic connections and created the Iliad. A mountain a treasure, there.
Sinn Fein second preferences on 17%, up from 11.7%, so that's quite a difference. Combined with running lots more candidates than in 2020 then there might be quite a bump in Sinn Fein's seats.
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.
We do not have windows into other men's souls.
All we can see with any certainty is that we would all prefer to live in Assad's Syria than in rebel Syria. And if you say otherwise you're simply a liar.
But happily you don't have to make that choice - do continue to enjoy the Maconnais, where I understand joyous rebel car bombings are few.
No, I’m not having that. It’s the argument Israeli extremists have made since forever whenever someone accuses them of excesses in Palestine. It’s no doubt the same argument Nazis made about the Russians in WW2 or Afrikaaners made about those awful do-gooders who moaned about apartheid. In fact we know that’s exactly what they did.
You seem to think you have a window into the souls of all of us, including the Syrian rebels. Everything you write comes from your world view, which is utterly at odds with mine and is bizarrely comfortable and confluent with the Russian world view.
No it is not the same argument, because the undoubted privileges of the Israeli state have never been available to the Palestinians as equal citizens, nor were the privileges of the apartheid state available to black people. Under those circumstances, it is/was entirely understandable for those groups to try to change the status quo.
The prosperity, relative calm and undoubted religious tolerance of the Assad's regime were fully enjoyed by the Syrian rebels, and were exactly the things they wanted to overturn. Despite being able to practice their version of Islam as they saw fit, they didn't want the same freedoms to apply to everyone else. Despicably, we abetted them in attempting to overthrow one of the few semi-free societies in the region in favour of creating an Islamist hell-hole. One that you would never live in yourself or subject your family too. How dare you presume to make that choice for someone else? To liberate women into not wearing mini-skirts or going to university again. That has nothing to do with 'the Russian world view' - it's basic humanity.
You are quite right about Syria. Before the Arab spring it was one of the most tolerant and livable places in the Middle East (a low bar, but true). I travelled there several times. Minorities - Christians, Druze, you name it - were unpersecuted. Sure there was a thuggish autocracy at the top and a secret police with a vague penchant for torture, but then that was/is true of most of the MENA. However you could walk into a cafe and have arguments about Israel and no one got angry and foreigners were welcome. And it had marvellous churches and monasteries - which were unmolested
The Arab spring destroyed Syria and, as far as I can see, all those that seek to replace the Assad regime are, remarkably, very probably WORSE. And many of the Christians have been killed or driven out and their beautiful churches destroyed. See also: Palmyra
I had friends who travelled to Syria back then and enjoyed it, describing what you describe. But the Arab spring happened, Assad was faced with a choice, and like Gaddafi he made the wrong one, destroying his country in the process.
Other leaders made the right choice. They made concessions and listened, as happened in many of the monarchies of the region from Morocco to Oman, or they packed their bags and left. Assad chose to slaughter his own people.
Once he’d crossed the Rubicon, the country entered hell. The blame lies squarely with him.
There was an Islamist insurrection in his country, and the blame for it getting ugly lies squarely with him for resisting it. OK dear.
Yet you still don't have the balls to say whether you'd prefer to live in pre-glorious revolution Syria or post-glorious revolution Syria, because you'd either be caught in a ridiculous, risible lie, or be forced to acknowledge that you support the 'liberation' of a country into a worse one for its citizens to live in.
Seriously, that’s gotcha argument at its most juvenile. There was no glorious Syrian revolution, there wasn’t even an inglorious revolution, because Assad crushed it with Russian carpet bombing and Syrian chemical weapons.
There is no such choice available. By similar logic one should always prefer the peaceful tyranny before the messy revolution, which of course in Syria’s case would mean the regime before Hafez al Assad’s coup d’etat. The Assads are themselves revolutionaries turned monarchs, just like the Kims in North Korea.
NEW: Parents of Labour MP Henry Tufnell gave 2,200 acres of land to his brother 20 days before Rachel Reeves put Inheritance Tax on land worth more than £1m [
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
Nonsense!
I love the arts. Culture is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use the created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON.
Man needs culture as much as he needs food, wine and sex
I create that culture, those artefacts, that art, which people then buy coz they want and need it. Like a farmer growing corn, creating wealth from dull soil
That's well put. Persuasive even. (You should be a writer!)
There's truth in what you say but... the productivity thing doesn't apply surely? Or will 'that new technology that you're not allowed to discuss' start knocking out all the art we want soon? And if so will it create wealth?
You keep veering towards Lump of Work… :-)
Wealth is created by rearranging stuff into other stuff that is more useful.
Homer (if he existed as a singular being) re-arranged some synaptic connections and created the Iliad. A mountain a treasure, there.
But only if those who already want said improved stuff have money. We are constrained by the allocation of capital in society so IMO what you produce and its value skews towards fripperies and not societally useful things..
NEW: Parents of Labour MP Henry Tufnell gave 2,200 acres of land to his brother 20 days before Rachel Reeves put Inheritance Tax on land worth more than £1m [
NEW: Parents of Labour MP Henry Tufnell gave 2,200 acres of land to his brother 20 days before Rachel Reeves put Inheritance Tax on land worth more than £1m [
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.
What most people call 'wealth creation' is actually just 'wealth accumulation'.
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
But I am. I am a weath creator. Self employed and self made. Without me, "me" would not exist, paying over the years a shitload of cash to the Revenue (so much so I sometimes wince in retrospect, I could probably have organised my affairs a lot more wisely and evaded a lot of tax)
But with respect, you do not 'create' any wealth - at least not to significant extent.
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
Nonsense!
I love the arts. Culture is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use the created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON.
That argument is seriously retarded. "I love milling machines. Sculpting metal is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON".
WTAF are you talking about?
If you can't see the difference between 1) a milling machine that can make e.g. tools that can grow, preserve or transport food more efficiently and 2) a piece of art that inspires, provokes, entertains, shocks etc...
...then it's impossible to debate with you.
This boils down to the definition of wealth, and it differs by discipline. But from investopedia:
It's measured by taking the market value of all physical and intangible assets owned, then subtracting all debts. It can be seen in either absolute or relative terms.
From that, Leon is certainly a "wealth creator", in that he is wealthier than he would have been had he not done his work, and he has contributed to the wealth of others if we assume the exchange of money for his work indicates a consumer surplus.
A different question is how much he has contributed to economic growth - probably a net negative, given the people reading those books could have probably been doing something more useful with their time.
And then they spend even more time going on holiday overseas, destroying the wealth of the nation. Or is that not how it works?
I've just spent a lovely week with Primary school kids who are struggling with emotional, social and mental difficulties. And bearing a weight of familial misfortune which none of us would wish on anybody. I like them, and they love me. They want me full time! It won't make me wealthy, but, I go to bed joyous that I have done " a good thing" this week. I don't know how you would begin to measure my "productivity". But I don't care. Some things don't need to be measured.
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.
"Atkins, rh Victoria Bedford, Mr Peter Brandreth, Aphra Cartlidge, James Davis, rh David Dinenage, Dame Caroline Dowden, rh Sir Oliver Evans, Dr Luke Fox, Sir Ashley Freeman, George Garnier, Mark Hollinrake, Kevin Hunt, rh Jeremy Kearns, Alicia Malthouse, rh Kit Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Philp, rh Chris Shastri-Hurst, Dr Neil Snowden, Mr Andrew Stride, rh Mel Sunak, rh Rishi Trott, rh Laura Wild, James"
NEW: Parents of Labour MP Henry Tufnell gave 2,200 acres of land to his brother 20 days before Rachel Reeves put Inheritance Tax on land worth more than £1m [
"Atkins, rh Victoria Bedford, Mr Peter Brandreth, Aphra Cartlidge, James Davis, rh David Dinenage, Dame Caroline Dowden, rh Sir Oliver Evans, Dr Luke Fox, Sir Ashley Freeman, George Garnier, Mark Hollinrake, Kevin Hunt, rh Jeremy Kearns, Alicia Malthouse, rh Kit Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Philp, rh Chris Shastri-Hurst, Dr Neil Snowden, Mr Andrew Stride, rh Mel Sunak, rh Rishi Trott, rh Laura Wild, James"
NEW: Parents of Labour MP Henry Tufnell gave 2,200 acres of land to his brother 20 days before Rachel Reeves put Inheritance Tax on land worth more than £1m [
It remains to be seen quite what the new occupiers are, but Aleppo appears to have changed hands without the many tens of thousands of casualties - and hundreds of thousands of refugees - that it cost last time round.
I don't think anyone, myself included, the media, Western governments, etc. have actually processed what just happened.
It remains to be seen quite what the new occupiers are, but Aleppo appears to have changed hands without the many tens of thousands of casualties - and hundreds of thousands of refugees - that it cost last time round.
I don't think anyone, myself included, the media, Western governments, etc. have actually processed what just happened.
"Atkins, rh Victoria Bedford, Mr Peter Brandreth, Aphra Cartlidge, James Davis, rh David Dinenage, Dame Caroline Dowden, rh Sir Oliver Evans, Dr Luke Fox, Sir Ashley Freeman, George Garnier, Mark Hollinrake, Kevin Hunt, rh Jeremy Kearns, Alicia Malthouse, rh Kit Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Philp, rh Chris Shastri-Hurst, Dr Neil Snowden, Mr Andrew Stride, rh Mel Sunak, rh Rishi Trott, rh Laura Wild, James"
Michael Weiss @michaeldweiss · 3h Assad is in Moscow as Aleppo is falling.
There's going to be a lot of gaslighting on Syria from the people that did the same routine 10 years ago, that the Islamist rebels could potentially end up worse than the dictator who runs death camps & gasses children.
They simply don't know what the fuck they're talking about
Michael Weiss @michaeldweiss · 3h Assad is in Moscow as Aleppo is falling.
A fascinating character. A mild mannered boy who was never supposed to be president. He was in London training to be an opthalmologist when his elder brother died in a car crash. Apparently power corrupted nonetheless.
Michael Weiss @michaeldweiss · 3h Assad is in Moscow as Aleppo is falling.
There's going to be a lot of gaslighting on Syria from the people that did the same routine 10 years ago, that the Islamist rebels could potentially end up worse than the dictator who runs death camps & gasses children.
They simply don't know what the fuck they're talking about
One thing I’ve been struck by today is the frustration (among ppl who do this stuff, not ppl walking around doing normal things) in the north of England re the transport secretary resignation. Some of that is inevitably that people here are more likely to have known her. But it’s not just that
There is/was a general sense that Haigh might have understood where they were coming from. That perhaps it’s not a total no brainer to think about transport investment as a growth strategy, or to take seriously the idea that places outside of London could also work like London
Comments
I spent my whole career working in IT. Boring as fuck, I hear you say. But every IT project I worked on was about increasing efficiency and productivity. And quite a few of them achieved that too. That's wealth creation. (Sadly the people in the bank who speculated with other peoples money ended up being much more successful with wealth accumulation.)
I admire entrepreneurs - people who start up and build their own business. But not many of them are wealth creators.
All we can see with any certainty is that we would all prefer to live in Assad's Syria than in rebel Syria. And if you say otherwise you're simply a liar.
But happily you don't have to make that choice - do continue to enjoy the Maconnais, where I understand joyous rebel car bombings are few.
The revaluation that the American version is regulated to *excludes* poor people stunned him.
This is because you have to have actual money to invest, not leveraged stuff.
The repeated explosions of creativity in Silicon Valley are caused by a river of money looking for a serious return.
I shall file my email.
😃😃😃😃
At the same time the promoting, making, advertising and selling of my mental efforts turned into flints itself generates employment, and profit, and thus further adds to the wealth of the UK and money the government can then spend as it wishes, eg stimulating more business elsewhere
If that doesn't boost growth, what does? I readily confess I am not exactly James Dyson, but I am pretty sure I do more for the UK economy and UK "growth" than 19 out of 20 of my fellow Brits. I create valuable stuff from scratch
It was 40C+ for day after day in Provence last August. It's not fun
You seem to think you have a window into the souls of all of us, including the Syrian rebels. Everything you write comes from your world view, which is utterly at odds with mine and is bizarrely comfortable and confluent with the Russian world view.
I would like to see continual growth, where the benefits of growth are shared more evenly so that everyone, particularly those most disadvantaged, can see their living standards improve.
If you think my policies and proposals are wrong-headed that's fair enough but please don't misrepresent my intent.
I swear this government thinks it can just help itself to money without it having a knock on impact. I believe many of them do think the money in banks is just sitting there in drawers.
There y'go. That's proper economics. You can carve it into your goods if you like.
However elevated areas of central France will also benefit. Chunks of Aveyron are hilly but picturesque uplands, so the humidity and heat is a lot lower but they get the sun. Lush
And some innovations don't lead to more measurable economic output, but increased leisure, better health outcomes and so on. The 5 day week was a result of productivity growth, but that doesn't help economic output much.
And there is the opportunity cost of whatever you are doing. Could those people selling Leon's wares (ahem) be better put to use elsewhere in the economy? Could we invest in their education and have them sending satellites into space or something?
Everyone knows from the last time Labour was in office that Banks are always highly capitalised, flush with cash and never have any leverage ...
Rather, you suck it in from others. Through your own skill and efforts, by persuading them to by your wares, and unbegrudged by me, but you rely on the wealth genuinely created by others to be sat, surplus to their essential needs, in the accounts of your customers whom you then tempt to buy your creations from you.
And that's all fair and good. But you're not creating wealth.
But to do either you first need to create wealth.
If you don't then consumption requires the transfer of wealth to the people producing the good and services that are being consumed.
Do that on a national level, which is what the UK has been doing for a generation, leads to the assets of that nation being increasingly owned by foreigners.
And what else has the UK been doing ?
Borrowing money and giving it to the poor to spend ie the 'extra growth' you advocate.
It hasn't resulted in a more successful economy or even in fewer poor.
I literally CREATE wealth. Without me these artefacts would not exist. People want and need what I make and pay for them. I turn my own vague valueless thoughts into highly valuable things to be sold, and I do it by myself. And people are then gainfully employed to market and sell them
it's actually quite hard to find a purer form of wealth creation than a successful artist. It's like being a successful inventor
So much parliamentary "debate" is almost deliberately off-putting and childish to the average person, the jeering and theatrics (cough PMQ's cough), its hardly surprising that people have quite low opinions of politicians.
The collective process of individuals struggling with their own consciences is considerably more grown-up for it.
There is plenty of more productive stuff people could be doing and aren't. Though of course there's an army of people making a living from ensuring that others are less productive.
https://nitter.poast.org/timothy_stanley/status/1862476272321905098
The prosperity, relative calm and undoubted religious tolerance of the Assad's regime were fully enjoyed by the Syrian rebels, and were exactly the things they wanted to overturn. Despite being able to practice their version of Islam as they saw fit, they didn't want the same freedoms to apply to everyone else. Despicably, we abetted them in attempting to overthrow one of the few semi-free societies in the region in favour of creating an Islamist hell-hole. One that you would never live in yourself or subject your family too. How dare you presume to make that choice for someone else? To liberate women into not wearing mini-skirts or going to university again. That has nothing to do with 'the Russian world view' - it's basic humanity.
(We can amend to "next election" for simplicity)
I love the arts. Culture is the very essence of what it means to be human. But it's what we use the created wealth FOR, what we spend it ON.
The Arab spring destroyed Syria and, as far as I can see, all those that seek to replace the Assad regime are, remarkably, very probably WORSE. And many of the Christians have been killed or driven out and their beautiful churches destroyed. See also: Palmyra
Take an extreme. JK Rowling is a brilliant write and Harry Potter was a great series of children’s books; but she very easily might never have got it in front of an agent/publisher, or been signed. And once she did, the market had to be in exactly the right place to want a boy wizard for her to make billions.
There aren’t an unlimited number of people who can write as well as her, but more can do it than get well paid to. On the other hand, if you have an aptitude for law, you’ll make cash from it.
My point being - you are self made, and good at what you do, but you are also lucky, and lots of other people and events got you where you are.
If I am misremembering your post, or your meaning, I am very sorry, and very pleased that that wasn't what you meant. I can respect someone who has a different (obviously in my opinion wrong) approach to wanting our economy to thrive and grow far more than I can respect someone who has chucked in the towel.
The results of the poll, conducted by Ipsos B&A today for The Irish Times/RTÉ/TG4/TCD, and released just after polls closed, are as follows: Sinn Féin 21.1 per cent, Fianna Fáil 19.5 per cent, Fine Gael 21 per cent, the Green Party 4 per cent, Labour 5 per cent, the Social Democrats 5.8 per cent, Solidarity-People Before Profit 3.1 per cent, Aontú 3.6 per cent, Independents/others 14.6 per cent and Independent Ireland 2.2 per cent.
I create that culture, those artefacts, that art, which people then buy coz they want and need it. Like a farmer growing corn, creating wealth from dull soil
More likely is a hung parliament with a Con/Ref government to follow...
If you can't see the difference between 1) a milling machine that can make e.g. tools that can grow, preserve or transport food more efficiently and 2) a piece of art that inspires, provokes, entertains, shocks etc...
...then it's impossible to debate with you.
And the animal and insect stories great too.
If you want something leaning heavily on old fashioned “glamour” look no further than MailOnline.
On a related note, A thought experiment - what if there were an easily accessed 'off' button on the back of your head. Any time it all gets too much, you can just end it painlessly. You can even make it look accifental. Would any of us have got even to the age of 25?
There's truth in what you say but... the productivity thing doesn't apply surely? Or will 'that new technology that you're not allowed to discuss' start knocking out all the art we want soon? And if so will it create wealth?
Right wing free market economic think tanks have been calling for someone to climb aboard bulldozers and flatten bureaucratic planning laws, red tape and nimbyism that’s been holding UK back and strangling it - that’s where Premier Liz Truss got her “Growth. Growth. And More Growth” from. They wrote the speech for her, and how to achieve it. MPs in own party didn’t give her a chance to do it, largely because they decided long before her first budget Sunak was better communicator, would be far more liked by the electorate, and clever at economics so would gain more growth than Truss.
Everything needs to be weighed up carefully. Bulldozer keys in Starmer’s hands, and I don’t trust this Labour government to take care of the countryside and environment, as much as I would trust a Conservative government to take this route properly.
This Labour Government doesn’t have a single clue how to offset any of their painful decisions. But that should be the first rule of politics, selling things as win wins with sweeteners and offsets?
“Here we are on our Labour bulldozers, about to knock down fifty million trees to boost house building. But we are not going to plant a single tree to compensate. In fact we are cutting the nature friendly budget, to pay for the diesel in our bulldozers and excavators.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/sep/03/englands-nature-friendly-farming-budget-to-be-cut-by-100m
Don’t listen to all the other Tories on PB, the main danger from this Labour government isn’t lefty ideology. It’s the fact they are thick, and couldn’t see or smell inherent vice, even if you have it in a bucket, and pour it over their heads.
PS with a Parliament swamped by clueless newbie Labour MPs, voting to endorse and promote suicide, a cynical decision was made, this would be a good day to bury a bad haircut. Then again, fact she hushed up she was a serial works phone mislayer, quite right such deceit and criminality is out of government. How much did Starmer seek to know when Sue Gray foistered this loud lefty on him?
Streeting will be next out of cabinet, de-barred from politics for fiddling election expenses.
And art can lead to further growth in unrelated sectors. Ask Roger for examples
But I am not allowed to discuss it, which is likely for the best, as I have quite obsessive thoughts on it, on all fronts. And also some recent experiences which are truly mind-boggling
Anyway, to Masterchef. Later!
A lot will depend on transfers, but with only modest changes in the first preference vote suggested by the exit poll, you wouldn't expect much change in the transfers either.
It's measured by taking the market value of all physical and intangible assets owned, then subtracting all debts. It can be seen in either absolute or relative terms.
From that, Leon is certainly a "wealth creator", in that he is wealthier than he would have been had he not done his work, and he has contributed to the wealth of others if we assume the exchange of money for his work indicates a consumer surplus.
A different question is how much he has contributed to economic growth - probably a net negative, given the people reading those books could have probably been doing something more useful with their time.
Other leaders made the right choice. They made concessions and listened, as happened in many of the monarchies of the region from Morocco to Oman, or they packed their bags and left. Assad chose to slaughter his own people.
Once he’d crossed the Rubicon, the country entered hell. The blame lies squarely with him.
I shall shortly head to bed knowing that if that majority can be kept into third reading then I live in a better country.
Rep of Ireland is a country defined by Nationalism, with Nationalism at the heart of its politics. About as much difference between parties and candidates today, as there was in voting in Soviet Union. Put me right if I’m wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_revolution
I don't understand this argument at all. Wealth isn't just worthy stuff, its anything that has a perceived value.
Even bits of ink on paper. Unless it says Rubles on it, obviously.
The loyalties are on a much smaller scale than the national level.
Wealth is created by rearranging stuff into other stuff that is more useful.
Homer (if he existed as a singular being) re-arranged some synaptic connections and created the Iliad. A mountain a treasure, there.
There is no such choice available. By similar logic one should always prefer the peaceful tyranny before the messy revolution, which of course in Syria’s case would mean the regime before Hafez al Assad’s coup d’etat. The Assads are themselves revolutionaries turned monarchs, just like the Kims in North Korea.
Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
Follow
NEW: Parents of Labour MP Henry Tufnell gave 2,200 acres of land to his brother 20 days before Rachel Reeves put Inheritance Tax on land worth more than £1m [
@guyadams
]
Nowt the Tories do would surprise me.
I like them, and they love me. They want me full time!
It won't make me wealthy, but, I go to bed joyous that I have done " a good thing" this week.
I don't know how you would begin to measure my "productivity".
But I don't care.
Some things don't need to be measured.
The few left alive.
"Atkins, rh Victoria
Bedford, Mr Peter
Brandreth, Aphra
Cartlidge, James
Davis, rh David
Dinenage, Dame Caroline
Dowden, rh Sir Oliver
Evans, Dr Luke
Fox, Sir Ashley
Freeman, George
Garnier, Mark
Hollinrake, Kevin
Hunt, rh Jeremy
Kearns, Alicia
Malthouse, rh Kit
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Philp, rh Chris
Shastri-Hurst, Dr Neil
Snowden, Mr Andrew
Stride, rh Mel
Sunak, rh Rishi
Trott, rh Laura
Wild, James"
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-11-29/division/DFC68075-E80E-49C4-88D2-D81E39411D80/TerminallyIllAdults(EndOfLife)Bill?outputType=Party#party-yesConservativeAyes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Tufnell_(Welsh_politician)
Pretty, though.
I don't think anyone, myself included, the media, Western governments, etc. have actually processed what just happened.
Control of Aleppo, one of the most embattled cities of the 21st century, was just overthrown in a matter of three days — without major casualties.
https://x.com/KareemRifai/status/1862630095954850270
---
Ask the children of Ghouls.
The few left alive.
---
And thought it quite poetic. In a desperate, human condition kind of way.
Front page support again tonight with Esther Rantzen
Michael Weiss
@michaeldweiss
·
3h
Assad is in Moscow as Aleppo is falling.
They simply don't know what the fuck they're talking about
https://x.com/ozkaterji/status/1862563148588347554?s=46
NEXTA
@nexta_tv
·
12h
Enjoy drinking coffee with a view? A Starbucks has opened in South Korea overlooking the demilitarized zone and North Korea
https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/1862457576253776105
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidi_genocide
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/history-will-not-be-kind-to-the-mps-who-backed-assisted-dying/
Stephen Bush @stephenkb.bsky.social
·
15m
The final vote on assisted dying is still, I think, finely balanced.
Jennifer Williams
@jenwilliamsft.bsky.social
One thing I’ve been struck by today is the frustration (among ppl who do this stuff, not ppl walking around doing normal things) in the north of England re the transport secretary resignation. Some of that is inevitably that people here are more likely to have known her. But it’s not just that
There is/was a general sense that Haigh might have understood where they were coming from. That perhaps it’s not a total no brainer to think about transport investment as a growth strategy, or to take seriously the idea that places outside of London could also work like London
https://bsky.app/profile/jenwilliamsft.bsky.social/post/3lc4pyolh6c2z