That's longer odds than Badenoch making it past 2028 and if she does that she's probably PM.
If Starmer remains historically unpopular even Labour might road test a new leader a year out from the GE. Johnson at 20 seems very unlikely.
I've always assumed that Starmer would go before the next election, given his age and general temperament (he seems rather less likely to want to hang on to power than the average senior politician). The question is who comes next?
Reeves might once have been the front-runner, but clearly isn't now. Streeting has a tricky brief, and is deeply unpopular with the left. Rayner's a great campaigner but would likely be more successful attacking a Tory govt rather than defending the record of a Labour one.
I wouldn't count out any of Phillipson, Reynolds, Kyle, or Jones - but I do wonder if Ed Milliband might have sufficiently redeemed himself in the eyes of the party by then. He certainly seems to be on top of his brief, and there's a decent chance that in a few years' time he'll be seen as the most successful member of the current cabinet in terms of delivery.
Not sure I see it personally. I could see him going partway through a second term, at say 68-69. I’m not sure why you think he’s less likely to cling to power? He certainly seems to like the perks that go with it.
A PM who doesn’t try for a second term has the air of someone who hasn’t done a good enough job to get a second. Most politicians want to get the validation and endorsement of their actions, at least once. No. I think Starmer could leave by the next election, but only if he is persuaded that he would be severely damaging Labours chances by fighting it. The Biden gambit; if you will.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
I think it's the third time in the last fifteen years this has happened. Somebody overconfident goes into power and decides to do "the hard things first" or "dip their hands in the blood". Clegg did it on tuition fees, Truss did it with everything, and now Reeves did it with WFP. It doesn't work: it just destroys trust at the time when you need it the most.
It can work - but WFA is basically an economic sideshow. If you're going to get the unpopular stuff done, it has to be something with a big potential return in exchange.
WFA was a hugely unpopular decision with a small payback.
What if the WFA cut worked, but normal voters weren't the audience for it?
Consider why Truss/Kwarteng - massively increasing borrowing to fund tax cuts - lost the confidence of the markets, but Starmer/Reeves - considerably increasing borrowing to fund public spending - did not.
Cutting WFA was a signal that Starmer/Reeves are prepared to do unpopular things if necessary, and can face down sustained public opposition to do so. The markets believe they'll get their money back as a result, and Starmer/Reeves can borrow the money to spend on the NHS.
With the huge spending on energy support just prior to the mini-budget, Truss/Kwarteng weren't exactly sending the same sort of message to the markets.
Personally I think the WFA was a bit of political game playing that backfired. I think it was less to reassure markets and more as an opening shot that they thought would get blamed on the Tories. “They left us a black hole and this is what we have to do, all you lot can’t have this nice thing anymore. Isn’t that terrible!”
They then realised very quickly that isn’t how government works. You get the blame for what you do. It showed up a bit of naivety.
How about the more mundane explanation that chucking a few hundred quid each year at pensioners who really didn't need it (me, for example) was simply not justifiable in these straitened times, and that the money would be better spent on other stuff, even if it doesn't raise masses? Especially in the context of the State Pension rising over the last two years by several multiples of the WFA.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
If the US fails, everyone fails.
When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs came into effect, other countries responded and world trade collapsed... everyone suffered.
Relative outperformance was still shit.
America was a surplus nation then. You can’t compare it with the current situation.
Of course you can compare it to the current situation.
If every country tries to protect exports via the use of retaliatory tariffs - as is entirely possible - then we will all get poorer.
It is deeply naive to assume (a) that free trade is the cause of America's trade deficits, and (b) that tariffs are a consequence free way to solve the issue.
For what it's worth, I blame Germany and China at least as much as the US for the predicament: they should be consuming a lot more of what they produce, and they should be implementing pro-consumption policies. (Sadly the "Swabian housewife attitude still infects German politics.)
Talk about being deeply naive! You seem to have completely bought into the propaganda about free trade allowing everyone to get rich together as if we can all live in the 1990s forever, but the reality is that economics cannot be separated from politics. China is intentionally acquiring a dominant position in order to assert its political goals.
Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU. It's perverse to think you can solve anything by having them buy more of their own cars.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
I think it's the third time in the last fifteen years this has happened. Somebody overconfident goes into power and decides to do "the hard things first" or "dip their hands in the blood". Clegg did it on tuition fees, Truss did it with everything, and now Reeves did it with WFP. It doesn't work: it just destroys trust at the time when you need it the most.
It can work - but WFA is basically an economic sideshow. If you're going to get the unpopular stuff done, it has to be something with a big potential return in exchange.
WFA was a hugely unpopular decision with a small payback.
Yes. If Reeves had done some big stuff that was bound to be unpopular with punters and dim MPs but at least made intellectual sense to wonks, the financial sector, anoraks, academia, IFS and PB posters, there would have been a slow but sure tide of gradual comprehension and in due course it would show its effects.
Eg, plan to replace IHT with low wealth taxes, reform property taxes to stop them being regressive, merge NI and IT, smooth clifff edges, reform stamp duty, update petrol duty, abolish the triple lock, a lower rate of VAT on things currently zero rated and a higher luxury goods rate.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
If the US fails, everyone fails.
When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs came into effect, other countries responded and world trade collapsed... everyone suffered.
Relative outperformance was still shit.
So maybe Farage is playing a shrewd game of 12 dimensional chess. Farage supports Trump who crashes the World economy. Incumbent leaders fall like nine pins and radicals like Farage benefit from the fallout.
I think one-dimensional draughts would be more Farage's style.
That's longer odds than Badenoch making it past 2028 and if she does that she's probably PM.
If Starmer remains historically unpopular even Labour might road test a new leader a year out from the GE. Johnson at 20 seems very unlikely.
I've always assumed that Starmer would go before the next election, given his age and general temperament (he seems rather less likely to want to hang on to power than the average senior politician). The question is who comes next?
Reeves might once have been the front-runner, but clearly isn't now. Streeting has a tricky brief, and is deeply unpopular with the left. Rayner's a great campaigner but would likely be more successful attacking a Tory govt rather than defending the record of a Labour one.
I wouldn't count out any of Phillipson, Reynolds, Kyle, or Jones - but I do wonder if Ed Milliband might have sufficiently redeemed himself in the eyes of the party by then. He certainly seems to be on top of his brief, and there's a decent chance that in a few years' time he'll be seen as the most successful member of the current cabinet in terms of delivery.
I like Ed, but he'd lose the election for Labour. And anyway, the members wouldn't elect him. Never go back to an old job.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
I think it's the third time in the last fifteen years this has happened. Somebody overconfident goes into power and decides to do "the hard things first" or "dip their hands in the blood". Clegg did it on tuition fees, Truss did it with everything, and now Reeves did it with WFP. It doesn't work: it just destroys trust at the time when you need it the most.
It can work - but WFA is basically an economic sideshow. If you're going to get the unpopular stuff done, it has to be something with a big potential return in exchange.
WFA was a hugely unpopular decision with a small payback.
What if the WFA cut worked, but normal voters weren't the audience for it?
Consider why Truss/Kwarteng - massively increasing borrowing to fund tax cuts - lost the confidence of the markets, but Starmer/Reeves - considerably increasing borrowing to fund public spending - did not.
Cutting WFA was a signal that Starmer/Reeves are prepared to do unpopular things if necessary, and can face down sustained public opposition to do so. The markets believe they'll get their money back as a result, and Starmer/Reeves can borrow the money to spend on the NHS.
With the huge spending on energy support just prior to the mini-budget, Truss/Kwarteng weren't exactly sending the same sort of message to the markets.
Personally I think the WFA was a bit of political game playing that backfired. I think it was less to reassure markets and more as an opening shot that they thought would get blamed on the Tories. “They left us a black hole and this is what we have to do, all you lot can’t have this nice thing anymore. Isn’t that terrible!”
They then realised very quickly that isn’t how government works. You get the blame for what you do. It showed up a bit of naivety.
How about the more mundane explanation that chucking a few hundred quid each year at pensioners who really didn't need it (me, for example) was simply not justifiable in these straitened times, and that the money would be better spent on other stuff, even if it doesn't raise masses? Especially in the context of the State Pension rising over the last two years by several multiples of the WFA.
I don’t believe it’s a decision they needed to make as one of their very first, that’s the thing. Whatever the merits of the change, they mishandled the politics of it, badly.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
They’ll simply go for the four day week with no loss of pay option.
On the BBC's 1983 election night show, which went on for more than 10 hours, the Falklands War was mentioned precisely once, by David Owen IIRC. If it had been an important factor in the result, you would have expected it to have been referenced a lot more.
That does seem odd. But how do you know this as a matter of interest? Is it something you've watched recently?
I've watched it countless times, and the other election night shows. Used to be my main interest.
However, there is another possibility, of course: that the Falklands War was indeed an important factor in the result, but it was so obvious that almost nobody bothered to talk about it.
That's longer odds than Badenoch making it past 2028 and if she does that she's probably PM.
If Starmer remains historically unpopular even Labour might road test a new leader a year out from the GE. Johnson at 20 seems very unlikely.
I've always assumed that Starmer would go before the next election, given his age and general temperament (he seems rather less likely to want to hang on to power than the average senior politician). The question is who comes next?
Reeves might once have been the front-runner, but clearly isn't now. Streeting has a tricky brief, and is deeply unpopular with the left. Rayner's a great campaigner but would likely be more successful attacking a Tory govt rather than defending the record of a Labour one.
I wouldn't count out any of Phillipson, Reynolds, Kyle, or Jones - but I do wonder if Ed Milliband might have sufficiently redeemed himself in the eyes of the party by then. He certainly seems to be on top of his brief, and there's a decent chance that in a few years' time he'll be seen as the most successful member of the current cabinet in terms of delivery.
Not sure I see it personally. I could see him going partway through a second term, at say 68-69. I’m not sure why you think he’s less likely to cling to power? He certainly seems to like the perks that go with it.
A PM who doesn’t try for a second term has the air of someone who hasn’t done a good enough job to get a second. Most politicians want to get the validation and endorsement of their actions, at least once. No. I think Starmer could leave by the next election, but only if he is persuaded that he would be severely damaging Labours chances by fighting it. The Biden gambit; if you will.
Starmer considered resigning after Labour lost the Hartlepool by-election (reiterated in Landslide by Tim Ross and Rachel Wearmouth). He isn't Corbyn or Gordon Brown. He'd go if he thought he was a block on Labour winning a 2nd term.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
I think it's the third time in the last fifteen years this has happened. Somebody overconfident goes into power and decides to do "the hard things first" or "dip their hands in the blood". Clegg did it on tuition fees, Truss did it with everything, and now Reeves did it with WFP. It doesn't work: it just destroys trust at the time when you need it the most.
It can work - but WFA is basically an economic sideshow. If you're going to get the unpopular stuff done, it has to be something with a big potential return in exchange.
WFA was a hugely unpopular decision with a small payback.
What if the WFA cut worked, but normal voters weren't the audience for it?
Consider why Truss/Kwarteng - massively increasing borrowing to fund tax cuts - lost the confidence of the markets, but Starmer/Reeves - considerably increasing borrowing to fund public spending - did not.
Cutting WFA was a signal that Starmer/Reeves are prepared to do unpopular things if necessary, and can face down sustained public opposition to do so. The markets believe they'll get their money back as a result, and Starmer/Reeves can borrow the money to spend on the NHS.
With the huge spending on energy support just prior to the mini-budget, Truss/Kwarteng weren't exactly sending the same sort of message to the markets.
Personally I think the WFA was a bit of political game playing that backfired. I think it was less to reassure markets and more as an opening shot that they thought would get blamed on the Tories. “They left us a black hole and this is what we have to do, all you lot can’t have this nice thing anymore. Isn’t that terrible!”
They then realised very quickly that isn’t how government works. You get the blame for what you do. It showed up a bit of naivety.
How about the more mundane explanation that chucking a few hundred quid each year at pensioners who really didn't need it (me, for example) was simply not justifiable in these straitened times, and that the money would be better spent on other stuff, even if it doesn't raise masses? Especially in the context of the State Pension rising over the last two years by several multiples of the WFA.
I don’t believe it’s a decision they needed to make as one of their very first, that’s the thing. Whatever the merits of the change, they mishandled the politics of it, badly.
But that was my point. Doing the right thing should sometimes override short-term political considerations. I actually think that's one of Starmer's strengths - politics is not just about courting popularity, but about doing the right thing.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
One might also argue that the US could quickly become a failed State if they don’t do something about their budget.
“The U.S. federal budget for fiscal year 2024 totals approximately $6.752 trillion in expenditures, with a revenue of about $4.919 trillion, resulting in a deficit of around $1.833 trillion.”
That’s roughly the equivalent of the UK gov borrowing £250bn this year.
To pick one not-quite-random example, Medicare and Medicaid are prohibited from negotiating prices for their drugs with the suppliers. They either have to pay the list price or not carry the drugs, which of course are being marketed heavily on TV to the end user. There’s an easy 50% saving there, if Congress dares to overturn the laws they were bought and paid for in the past.
Keep calm and understand that polls 4 and a half years out from the GE are not that important.
Yes, only 4.5 years of this shitshow left.
No extra housing being built
Why are you saying that on housing? They've put it up in lights as a priority, I believe?
Well where are all the extra houses ? So far housing starts are down on last year and last quarter. They havent passed any enabling legislation to accelerate house building, or new towns. And if they do it will take about a year to get done and then you have to go though the planning process. So no extra houses for at least two years. We had a similar issue in 2009 when the Tories wittered on about spade ready projects and then did nothing. It's all hot air
And is why you are hearing comments about Civil Service obstructionism.
The Civil Service, when confronted by the idea of speeding up the 5-10 year planning time, will react to defend the Proper Process.
Just say no to them.
Now that would be a policy worth expending political capital on.
Read Rory Stewart's book.
Short version - he discovered that money was being given to an "aid charity" that had never been vetted and was, in fact, a head-choppers front. So he tried to stop the money. He was obstructed and lied to multiple times. even when ordered the money to stop, it didn't Because there was a target to spend the money on international aid.
Reading between the lines on that one... I think someone in national security/another more senior minister wanted that money spent. Whether it was well spent I can't say.
No, he checked. At one point they lied to him and told him the Americans wanted the funding sent. He contacted some Americans in the sneaky side of things and was told that this wasn't true. And that they were staggered that money was going to these people.
The response from the civil servants was to be upset that he had checked.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
That's longer odds than Badenoch making it past 2028 and if she does that she's probably PM.
If Starmer remains historically unpopular even Labour might road test a new leader a year out from the GE. Johnson at 20 seems very unlikely.
I've always assumed that Starmer would go before the next election, given his age and general temperament (he seems rather less likely to want to hang on to power than the average senior politician). The question is who comes next?
Reeves might once have been the front-runner, but clearly isn't now. Streeting has a tricky brief, and is deeply unpopular with the left. Rayner's a great campaigner but would likely be more successful attacking a Tory govt rather than defending the record of a Labour one.
I wouldn't count out any of Phillipson, Reynolds, Kyle, or Jones - but I do wonder if Ed Milliband might have sufficiently redeemed himself in the eyes of the party by then. He certainly seems to be on top of his brief, and there's a decent chance that in a few years' time he'll be seen as the most successful member of the current cabinet in terms of delivery.
Jones or Streeting by a country mile have the required charisma, but everyone says the next leader has to be a female. That being so, maybe Phillipson.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
One might also argue that the US could quickly become a failed State if they don’t do something about their budget.
“The U.S. federal budget for fiscal year 2024 totals approximately $6.752 trillion in expenditures, with a revenue of about $4.919 trillion, resulting in a deficit of around $1.833 trillion.”
That’s roughly the equivalent of the UK gov borrowing £250bn this year.
The problem with the US - and with almost all developed countries - is that they have lots of retirees to which they have obligations. Every year the number of retirees - with associated Social Security / Pensions and healthcare costs - increases.
Don't forget that the US spends more on Medicare/Medicaid than we do on the NHS, both on a per person and a percentage of GDP basis. You then also have the incredibly expensive health care system that's part of Veterans Affairs.
Musk is great at identifying civil servants and departments where you might be able to save money. But in the general scheme of things that stuff is chump change.
Unless the US can get a grip on Medicare and Social Security, which is going to be extremely unpopular (see France), then it will continue to struggle with its finances.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
If the US fails, everyone fails.
When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs came into effect, other countries responded and world trade collapsed... everyone suffered.
Relative outperformance was still shit.
America was a surplus nation then. You can’t compare it with the current situation.
Of course you can compare it to the current situation.
If every country tries to protect exports via the use of retaliatory tariffs - as is entirely possible - then we will all get poorer.
It is deeply naive to assume (a) that free trade is the cause of America's trade deficits, and (b) that tariffs are a consequence free way to solve the issue.
For what it's worth, I blame Germany and China at least as much as the US for the predicament: they should be consuming a lot more of what they produce, and they should be implementing pro-consumption policies. (Sadly the "Swabian housewife attitude still infects German politics.)
Talk about being deeply naive! You seem to have completely bought into the propaganda about free trade allowing everyone to get rich together as if we can all live in the 1990s forever, but the reality is that economics cannot be separated from politics. China is intentionally acquiring a dominant position in order to assert its political goals.
Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU. It's perverse to think you can solve anything by having them buy more of their own cars.
"Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU."
So what? It's consumption relative to income that determines your trade balance.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
If the US fails, everyone fails.
When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs came into effect, other countries responded and world trade collapsed... everyone suffered.
Relative outperformance was still shit.
America was a surplus nation then. You can’t compare it with the current situation.
Of course you can compare it to the current situation.
If every country tries to protect exports via the use of retaliatory tariffs - as is entirely possible - then we will all get poorer.
It is deeply naive to assume (a) that free trade is the cause of America's trade deficits, and (b) that tariffs are a consequence free way to solve the issue.
For what it's worth, I blame Germany and China at least as much as the US for the predicament: they should be consuming a lot more of what they produce, and they should be implementing pro-consumption policies. (Sadly the "Swabian housewife attitude still infects German politics.)
Talk about being deeply naive! You seem to have completely bought into the propaganda about free trade allowing everyone to get rich together as if we can all live in the 1990s forever, but the reality is that economics cannot be separated from politics. China is intentionally acquiring a dominant position in order to assert its political goals.
Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU. It's perverse to think you can solve anything by having them buy more of their own cars.
"Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU."
So what? It's consumption relative to income that determines your trade balance.
That's longer odds than Badenoch making it past 2028 and if she does that she's probably PM.
If Starmer remains historically unpopular even Labour might road test a new leader a year out from the GE. Johnson at 20 seems very unlikely.
I've always assumed that Starmer would go before the next election, given his age and general temperament (he seems rather less likely to want to hang on to power than the average senior politician). The question is who comes next?
Reeves might once have been the front-runner, but clearly isn't now. Streeting has a tricky brief, and is deeply unpopular with the left. Rayner's a great campaigner but would likely be more successful attacking a Tory govt rather than defending the record of a Labour one.
I wouldn't count out any of Phillipson, Reynolds, Kyle, or Jones - but I do wonder if Ed Milliband might have sufficiently redeemed himself in the eyes of the party by then. He certainly seems to be on top of his brief, and there's a decent chance that in a few years' time he'll be seen as the most successful member of the current cabinet in terms of delivery.
Jones or Streeting by a country mile have the required charisma, but everyone says the next leader has to be a female. That being so, maybe Phillipson.
I rather like Bridget Phillipson.
So do I, but I don't think she is in the same league as Streeting. Labour will, I think, choose the person most likely to win an election. I think that is more likely to be Streeting than Phillipson.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
If the US fails, everyone fails.
When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs came into effect, other countries responded and world trade collapsed... everyone suffered.
Relative outperformance was still shit.
America was a surplus nation then. You can’t compare it with the current situation.
Of course you can compare it to the current situation.
If every country tries to protect exports via the use of retaliatory tariffs - as is entirely possible - then we will all get poorer.
It is deeply naive to assume (a) that free trade is the cause of America's trade deficits, and (b) that tariffs are a consequence free way to solve the issue.
For what it's worth, I blame Germany and China at least as much as the US for the predicament: they should be consuming a lot more of what they produce, and they should be implementing pro-consumption policies. (Sadly the "Swabian housewife attitude still infects German politics.)
Talk about being deeply naive! You seem to have completely bought into the propaganda about free trade allowing everyone to get rich together as if we can all live in the 1990s forever, but the reality is that economics cannot be separated from politics. China is intentionally acquiring a dominant position in order to assert its political goals.
Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU. It's perverse to think you can solve anything by having them buy more of their own cars.
"Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU."
So what? It's consumption relative to income that determines your trade balance.
Of course but it's a form of denial to think that you can redress the balance by increasing their domestic consumption. You need to destroy Germany's productive capacity and move it somewhere else if that's your goal.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
I think it's a bit of both: the share of Muslims has risen in the population, and at the same time other names have fragmented. (It's also worth remembering that Mohammed became the second most popular name in 2007. So it's taken it 15 years to rise one place.)
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
The Baby Name Data is available for download from the ONS website, and it's absolutely fascinating.
So, "Muhammad" is the number one boys Muslim name, with 3,722 babies born with it. And you might think that the peak incidence, given that it has become the most popular boys name.
But actually it's not. "Muhammad" was actually more popular back in 2016 when 3,908 babies got that name.
The alternative spelling - "Muhammed" - goes on a really weird rollercoaster of popularity: only 354 babies were named it, against over 500 in every year between 2008 and 2016.
There are also some interesting - and probably biracial names - that have picked up popularity, such as "Muhammad-Adam".
As someone who does quite a lot of Family History I've only ever found half-a dozen other people with my first name.
"Old" is perhaps not the most appropriate name for a new born baby 😄
Alan is increasingly rare as a first name. I blame films like The Hangover and Love, Honour and Obey where Alan, or Fat Alan is the butt of the jokes. And don't get me started on that bloody prairie dog.
Keep calm and understand that polls 4 and a half years out from the GE are not that important.
Yes, only 4.5 years of this shitshow left.
No extra housing being built
Why are you saying that on housing? They've put it up in lights as a priority, I believe?
Well where are all the extra houses ? So far housing starts are down on last year and last quarter. They havent passed any enabling legislation to accelerate house building, or new towns. And if they do it will take about a year to get done and then you have to go though the planning process. So no extra houses for at least two years. We had a similar issue in 2009 when the Tories wittered on about spade ready projects and then did nothing. It's all hot air
And is why you are hearing comments about Civil Service obstructionism.
The Civil Service, when confronted by the idea of speeding up the 5-10 year planning time, will react to defend the Proper Process.
Just say no to them.
Now that would be a policy worth expending political capital on.
Read Rory Stewart's book.
Short version - he discovered that money was being given to an "aid charity" that had never been vetted and was, in fact, a head-choppers front. So he tried to stop the money. He was obstructed and lied to multiple times. even when ordered the money to stop, it didn't Because there was a target to spend the money on international aid.
Reading between the lines on that one... I think someone in national security/another more senior minister wanted that money spent. Whether it was well spent I can't say.
No, he checked. At one point they lied to him and told him the Americans wanted the funding sent. He contacted some Americans in the sneaky side of things and was told that this wasn't true. And that they were staggered that money was going to these people.
The response from the civil servants was to be upset that he had checked.
Think about it. Why would Civil servants who know sod all about Syria be so keen to send money to a particular group? Why would they obfuscate from a minister? Why when the culture is extremely risk averse would they want to do anything with a potentially dodgy group? They would have been instructed by a more senior figure - maybe the secretary of state, maybe someone at defence.
When I worked in Civil service we were placed in an awkward situation once. SoS said she didn't want a junior minister to receive a briefing she had requested. And we werent allowed to say why. So we had to pretend we were really slow/invent reasons it was delayed.
Starmer’s polling performance reinforces my sense that only major charisma cuts it in today’s social media led political environment.
Who do people remember quasi-fondly in recent history? Blair, Thatcher, Boris (a bit), Cameron (sometimes). The charismatics.
Yup. I like Starmer - he's a serious and intelligent man doing his best for the country he loves - but I didn't vote for him as leader and that's because I've met him and he has zero rizz. With the exception of John Redwood, probably the least engaging politician I've ever met. Maybe this stuff shouldn't matter, but it does.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
They’ll simply go for the four day week with no loss of pay option.
Ah yes, the option that might make mathematical ‘productivity’ slightly better, while having 20% less work done and almost certainly less output overall, but making no cost savings whatsoever.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Ban consultancy and agency workers for a period of 2 years and implement a one in one out policy if they need expertise. Get rid of people before anyone can be hired. Also, most of the management consultants are shit anyway.
That's longer odds than Badenoch making it past 2028 and if she does that she's probably PM.
If Starmer remains historically unpopular even Labour might road test a new leader a year out from the GE. Johnson at 20 seems very unlikely.
I've always assumed that Starmer would go before the next election, given his age and general temperament (he seems rather less likely to want to hang on to power than the average senior politician). The question is who comes next?
Reeves might once have been the front-runner, but clearly isn't now. Streeting has a tricky brief, and is deeply unpopular with the left. Rayner's a great campaigner but would likely be more successful attacking a Tory govt rather than defending the record of a Labour one.
I wouldn't count out any of Phillipson, Reynolds, Kyle, or Jones - but I do wonder if Ed Milliband might have sufficiently redeemed himself in the eyes of the party by then. He certainly seems to be on top of his brief, and there's a decent chance that in a few years' time he'll be seen as the most successful member of the current cabinet in terms of delivery.
I like Ed, but he'd lose the election for Labour. And anyway, the members wouldn't elect him. Never go back to an old job.
Phillips is very talented and her back story is compelling.
Angela is Angela a female Prezza. McFadden and Cooper too old by 2031.
Reynolds reminds me of Robin Cook, politically very capable.
I think Ellie Reeves has more political nous and communication skills than her sister.
Darren Jones though is probably the most impressive politician in any Party in the past 20 years.
I've liked Darren Jones from the start. A smart, well presented and seemingly sound chap. But VERY inexperienced. Perhaps that's an advantage?
I agree - he comes across as sensible and principled on the media, and is one of the few politicians who actually appears to think about what he has been asked. He will have done a lot of thinking behind the budget and financial strategy.
But I wouldn’t back him as a future leader - some people are destined to be in the top team but not the top job, and he is clearly one such.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
They’ll simply go for the four day week with no loss of pay option.
Ah yes, the option that might make mathematical ‘productivity’ slightly better, while having 20% less work done and almost certainly less output overall, but making no cost savings whatsoever.
The actual work done by those in the public sector is a national scandal. The wisdom of the work they do, possibly a bigger one.
There are huge exceptions to this, but I doubt a single public sector worker in the UK could honestly say this was wrong.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
I think it's a bit of both: the share of Muslims has risen in the population, and at the same time other names have fragmented. (It's also worth remembering that Mohammed became the second most popular name in 2007. So it's taken it 15 years to rise one place.)
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
The Baby Name Data is available for download from the ONS website, and it's absolutely fascinating.
So, "Muhammad" is the number one boys Muslim name, with 3,722 babies born with it. And you might think that the peak incidence, given that it has become the most popular boys name.
But actually it's not. "Muhammad" was actually more popular back in 2016 when 3,908 babies got that name.
The alternative spelling - "Muhammed" - goes on a really weird rollercoaster of popularity: only 354 babies were named it, against over 500 in every year between 2008 and 2016.
There are also some interesting - and probably biracial names - that have picked up popularity, such as "Muhammad-Adam".
As someone who does quite a lot of Family History I've only ever found half-a dozen other people with my first name.
"Old" is perhaps not the most appropriate name for a new born baby 😄
Alan is increasingly rare as a first name. I blame films like The Hangover and Love, Honour and Obey where Alan, or Fat Alan is the butt of the jokes. And don't get me started on that bloody prairie dog.
Tim declined precipitously after the mid 90s as a direct result of Harry Enfield’s Tim nice but Dim.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
I think it's a bit of both: the share of Muslims has risen in the population, and at the same time other names have fragmented. (It's also worth remembering that Mohammed became the second most popular name in 2007. So it's taken it 15 years to rise one place.)
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
The Baby Name Data is available for download from the ONS website, and it's absolutely fascinating.
So, "Muhammad" is the number one boys Muslim name, with 3,722 babies born with it. And you might think that the peak incidence, given that it has become the most popular boys name.
But actually it's not. "Muhammad" was actually more popular back in 2016 when 3,908 babies got that name.
The alternative spelling - "Muhammed" - goes on a really weird rollercoaster of popularity: only 354 babies were named it, against over 500 in every year between 2008 and 2016.
There are also some interesting - and probably biracial names - that have picked up popularity, such as "Muhammad-Adam".
As someone who does quite a lot of Family History I've only ever found half-a dozen other people with my first name.
"Old" is perhaps not the most appropriate name for a new born baby 😄
Alan is increasingly rare as a first name. I blame films like The Hangover and Love, Honour and Obey where Alan, or Fat Alan is the butt of the jokes. And don't get me started on that bloody prairie dog.
I had a (primary) school-mate called Alan. Ended up as a bit of a thug. Did his National Service in the Paras. IME, he was a nice enough chap, though. Wouldn't mind meeting him again.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Ban consultancy and agency workers for a period of 2 years and implement a one in one out policy if they need expertise. Get rid of people before anyone can be hired. Also, most of the management consultants are shit anyway.
Also allow much more flexibility to hiring managers regarding grade systems.
If you need to hire a database developer on £120k, then hire a database developer on £120k.
Don’t say that you only have a £60k grade to pay for him, so you can’t find anyone, then let McKinsey pay him £150k and charge him back to you at £3k a day.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
Someone somewhere will have to explain to me one day why Labour thought it was good for their first thing to be 'lets screw over the pensioners'.
Somehow pensioners are going to have to be made to pay more tax because everyone else is basically tapped out. Given that almost all the growth in government expenditure is going on pensioners (pensions, NHS, social care) this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but implementing it is going to be a conundrum for any government.
You absolutely moronic halfwitted clown , apart from NI after pension age if working , pensioners pay the same as everyon else.
Pensioners (should) pay the same tax everyone else does? I’m glad you agree with me: Pensioners should pay NI just like everyone does.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
I think it's a bit of both: the share of Muslims has risen in the population, and at the same time other names have fragmented. (It's also worth remembering that Mohammed became the second most popular name in 2007. So it's taken it 15 years to rise one place.)
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
The Baby Name Data is available for download from the ONS website, and it's absolutely fascinating.
So, "Muhammad" is the number one boys Muslim name, with 3,722 babies born with it. And you might think that the peak incidence, given that it has become the most popular boys name.
But actually it's not. "Muhammad" was actually more popular back in 2016 when 3,908 babies got that name.
The alternative spelling - "Muhammed" - goes on a really weird rollercoaster of popularity: only 354 babies were named it, against over 500 in every year between 2008 and 2016.
There are also some interesting - and probably biracial names - that have picked up popularity, such as "Muhammad-Adam".
As someone who does quite a lot of Family History I've only ever found half-a dozen other people with my first name.
"Old" is perhaps not the most appropriate name for a new born baby 😄
Alan is increasingly rare as a first name. I blame films like The Hangover and Love, Honour and Obey where Alan, or Fat Alan is the butt of the jokes. And don't get me started on that bloody prairie dog.
Tim declined precipitously after the mid 90s as a direct result of Harry Enfield’s Tim nice but Dim.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
One might also argue that the US could quickly become a failed State if they don’t do something about their budget.
“The U.S. federal budget for fiscal year 2024 totals approximately $6.752 trillion in expenditures, with a revenue of about $4.919 trillion, resulting in a deficit of around $1.833 trillion.”
That’s roughly the equivalent of the UK gov borrowing £250bn this year.
To pick one not-quite-random example, Medicare and Medicaid are prohibited from negotiating prices for their drugs with the suppliers. They either have to pay the list price or not carry the drugs, which of course are being marketed heavily on TV to the end user. There’s an easy 50% saving there, if Congress dares to overturn the laws they were bought and paid for in the past.
I came across a surprising statistic recently, highlighted somewhere during our assisted dying debate, which is that in the US, a staggering 35% of all healthcare spending is on the last three months of people’s lifespan. Or, to put it another way, the Americans spend an absolute fortune on prolonging patients’ lives by a relatively small number of weeks.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
One might also argue that the US could quickly become a failed State if they don’t do something about their budget.
“The U.S. federal budget for fiscal year 2024 totals approximately $6.752 trillion in expenditures, with a revenue of about $4.919 trillion, resulting in a deficit of around $1.833 trillion.”
That’s roughly the equivalent of the UK gov borrowing £250bn this year.
To pick one not-quite-random example, Medicare and Medicaid are prohibited from negotiating prices for their drugs with the suppliers. They either have to pay the list price or not carry the drugs, which of course are being marketed heavily on TV to the end user. There’s an easy 50% saving there, if Congress dares to overturn the laws they were bought and paid for in the past.
I came across a surprising statistic recently, highlighted somewhere during our assisted dying debate, which is that in the US, a staggering 35% of all healthcare spending is on the last three months of people’s lifespan. Or, to put it another way, the Americans spend an absolute fortune on prolonging patients’ lives by a relatively small number of weeks.
Huge ‘productivity gains’ to be made from assisted dying…
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
They’ll simply go for the four day week with no loss of pay option.
Ah yes, the option that might make mathematical ‘productivity’ slightly better, while having 20% less work done and almost certainly less output overall, but making no cost savings whatsoever.
This is incoherent. If output falls by 20% due to a move to a four day week, it makes no difference to measured labour productivity.
I've liked Darren Jones from the start. A smart, well presented and seemingly sound chap. But VERY inexperienced. Perhaps that's an advantage?
I agree - he comes across as sensible and principled on the media, and is one of the few politicians who actually appears to think about what he has been asked. He will have done a lot of thinking behind the budget and financial strategy.
But I wouldn’t back him as a future leader - some people are destined to be in the top team but not the top job, and he is clearly one such.
SKS, as I've posted before, should never have been Leader. He's less charisma, or chairmanship ability, than Attlee.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
Someone somewhere will have to explain to me one day why Labour thought it was good for their first thing to be 'lets screw over the pensioners'.
Somehow pensioners are going to have to be made to pay more tax because everyone else is basically tapped out. Given that almost all the growth in government expenditure is going on pensioners (pensions, NHS, social care) this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but implementing it is going to be a conundrum for any government.
You absolutely moronic halfwitted clown , apart from NI after pension age if working , pensioners pay the same as everyon else.
Strictly speaking, not quite - but one has to be 80+ which doesn't really seem much of an exchange for the very small difference in overall taxation.
My wife and I are both over 80 and pay income tax, although my wife pays less than I do, and some years drops out altogether. Makes Gift Aid problematic.
I cannot understand the halfwits on here that keep saying pensioners don't pay the same tax as everyone else, if only.
They don’t pay “student loan repayments” which is in effect a tax that a lot of people under the age of 35 pays and it is significant but of course you don’t give a shit about that
National Insurance is also a significant tax
They don't have student loans you fool. Clue si in the "LOAN" word. If they had a loan they would have to pay it.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
They’ll simply go for the four day week with no loss of pay option.
Ah yes, the option that might make mathematical ‘productivity’ slightly better, while having 20% less work done and almost certainly less output overall, but making no cost savings whatsoever.
This is incoherent. If output falls by 20% due to a move to a four day week, it makes no difference to measured labour productivity.
I’m not suggesting output falls by 20%, I’m actually suggesting it falls by less than 20%, making the ‘productivity’ stats brilliant while spending the same amount of money on less work done.
I've liked Darren Jones from the start. A smart, well presented and seemingly sound chap. But VERY inexperienced. Perhaps that's an advantage?
I agree - he comes across as sensible and principled on the media, and is one of the few politicians who actually appears to think about what he has been asked. He will have done a lot of thinking behind the budget and financial strategy.
But I wouldn’t back him as a future leader - some people are destined to be in the top team but not the top job, and he is clearly one such.
SKS, as I've posted before, should never have been Leader. He's less charisma, or chairmanship ability, than Attlee.
Charisma in politicians, except when campaigning, is hugely overrated. And haven’t we suffered enough from its excesses?
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
I think it's the third time in the last fifteen years this has happened. Somebody overconfident goes into power and decides to do "the hard things first" or "dip their hands in the blood". Clegg did it on tuition fees, Truss did it with everything, and now Reeves did it with WFP. It doesn't work: it just destroys trust at the time when you need it the most.
It can work - but WFA is basically an economic sideshow. If you're going to get the unpopular stuff done, it has to be something with a big potential return in exchange.
WFA was a hugely unpopular decision with a small payback.
What if the WFA cut worked, but normal voters weren't the audience for it?
Consider why Truss/Kwarteng - massively increasing borrowing to fund tax cuts - lost the confidence of the markets, but Starmer/Reeves - considerably increasing borrowing to fund public spending - did not.
Cutting WFA was a signal that Starmer/Reeves are prepared to do unpopular things if necessary, and can face down sustained public opposition to do so. The markets believe they'll get their money back as a result, and Starmer/Reeves can borrow the money to spend on the NHS.
With the huge spending on energy support just prior to the mini-budget, Truss/Kwarteng weren't exactly sending the same sort of message to the markets.
Hard to see given it will save a miniscule amount and has angered many many people. They could hav ebeen tough on other things which would not have cost anywhere near as much political collateral.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
Someone somewhere will have to explain to me one day why Labour thought it was good for their first thing to be 'lets screw over the pensioners'.
Somehow pensioners are going to have to be made to pay more tax because everyone else is basically tapped out. Given that almost all the growth in government expenditure is going on pensioners (pensions, NHS, social care) this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but implementing it is going to be a conundrum for any government.
You absolutely moronic halfwitted clown , apart from NI after pension age if working , pensioners pay the same as everyon else.
Strictly speaking, not quite - but one has to be 80+ which doesn't really seem much of an exchange for the very small difference in overall taxation.
My wife and I are both over 80 and pay income tax, although my wife pays less than I do, and some years drops out altogether. Makes Gift Aid problematic.
I cannot understand the halfwits on here that keep saying pensioners don't pay the same tax as everyone else, if only.
They don’t pay “student loan repayments” which is in effect a tax that a lot of people under the age of 35 pays and it is significant but of course you don’t give a shit about that
National Insurance is also a significant tax
They don't have student loans you fool. Clue si in the "LOAN" word. If they had a loan they would have to pay it.
No Malc. I feel very sorry for my grandchildren with that load. I walked out of Higher Education with enough to pay my bus fares to work before I got paid. I'd already paid for my first week's lodgings.
In 20 years time we'll look back on this (probably not me!) and wonder what all the fuss was about. Similar to the 1967 Abortion Act.
I hope that a widespread compassionate but common sense approach to assisted dying will be normalised, possibly to the extent that the majority of deaths will be assisted. The current approach will be seen as barbaric.
I undertand that the Committee stage will start on 17th December and will include MPs who voted against in the 2nd reading. The Chair of the Committee will be neutral.
It will require a delicate trade off between removing unnecessary restrictions like the role of a judge (pure box ticking and a source of delay and expense) while still retaining sufficient support for the bill.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Yes, there are huge numbers of permanently-unfilled specialist roles in the civil service that are being advertised at half the market rate, with the work actually being done by consultants at three or four times as much.
But the bigger problem, from what I've seen, is the result of political uncertainty. When political priorities change radically every 12-18 months, projects become obsolete before they're finished and are either dumped or drastically changed, pushing costs through the roof.
And then there's the whole set of second order effects that flow from that - to account for the uncertainty, every new project has far more padding built in than you would get in the private sector, and perhaps even a tendency to plan for failure right from the start.
The new govt is actually well-placed to bring some much-needed stability, but it'll take a while for the culture to recover after the past decade of chaos.
Keep calm and understand that polls 4 and a half years out from the GE are not that important.
Yes, only 4.5 years of this shitshow left.
No extra housing being built
Why are you saying that on housing? They've put it up in lights as a priority, I believe?
Well where are all the extra houses ? So far housing starts are down on last year and last quarter. They havent passed any enabling legislation to accelerate house building, or new towns. And if they do it will take about a year to get done and then you have to go though the planning process. So no extra houses for at least two years. We had a similar issue in 2009 when the Tories wittered on about spade ready projects and then did nothing. It's all hot air
And is why you are hearing comments about Civil Service obstructionism.
The Civil Service, when confronted by the idea of speeding up the 5-10 year planning time, will react to defend the Proper Process.
Just say no to them.
Now that would be a policy worth expending political capital on.
Read Rory Stewart's book.
Short version - he discovered that money was being given to an "aid charity" that had never been vetted and was, in fact, a head-choppers front. So he tried to stop the money. He was obstructed and lied to multiple times. even when ordered the money to stop, it didn't Because there was a target to spend the money on international aid.
As I tried to point out in my Blob article, you have to literally destroy the bodies, be they third sector, civil service, whatever. If they do not do what you say, then you fire them. Don't waste your time admonishing them or instructing them, simply fire them.
Keep calm and understand that polls 4 and a half years out from the GE are not that important.
Yes, only 4.5 years of this shitshow left.
No extra housing being built
Why are you saying that on housing? They've put it up in lights as a priority, I believe?
Well where are all the extra houses ? So far housing starts are down on last year and last quarter. They havent passed any enabling legislation to accelerate house building, or new towns. And if they do it will take about a year to get done and then you have to go though the planning process. So no extra houses for at least two years. We had a similar issue in 2009 when the Tories wittered on about spade ready projects and then did nothing. It's all hot air
And is why you are hearing comments about Civil Service obstructionism.
The Civil Service, when confronted by the idea of speeding up the 5-10 year planning time, will react to defend the Proper Process.
Just say no to them.
Now that would be a policy worth expending political capital on.
Read Rory Stewart's book.
Short version - he discovered that money was being given to an "aid charity" that had never been vetted and was, in fact, a head-choppers front. So he tried to stop the money. He was obstructed and lied to multiple times. even when ordered the money to stop, it didn't Because there was a target to spend the money on international aid.
As I tried to point out in my Blob article, you have to literally destroy the bodies, be they third sector, civil service, whatever. If they do not do what you say, then you fire them. Don't waste your time admonishing them or instructing them, simply fire them.
In 20 years time we'll look back on this (probably not me!) and wonder what all the fuss was about. Similar to the 1967 Abortion Act.
I hope that a widespread compassionate but common sense approach to assisted dying will be normalised, possibly to the extent that the majority of deaths will be assisted. The current approach will be seen as barbaric.
I undertand that the Committee stage will start on 17th December and will include MPs who voted against in the 2nd reading. The Chair of the Committee will be neutral.
It will require a delicate trade off between removing unnecessary restrictions like the role of a judge (pure box ticking and a source of delay and expense) while still retaining sufficient support for the bill.
Well said.
I hope the 6 month restriction goes too. Utterly absurd, especially when the Supreme Court has already had cases from people who want to die who said it was a matter for Parliament.
Parliament isn't doing its job if they don't find a solution for them.
The trouble with Starmer absolutely ISN'T lack of va va voom. Nobody could sell this turd sandwich of a Government.
Politics watchers, especially those on the left it seems to me, are constantly on the lookout for someone more telegenic, better back story, better communicator, more gutsy and working class, but these days, people don't want optics, they want to prosper. You can't heat your house with optics.
Sir Bellend is in the business of making people poorer. His policies set out to make people poorer. They will raise the price of energy, raise the price of having a car, raise the price of housing, raise the costs of doing business. That's quite apart from his bans on things and ugly disregard for free speech. Any party that wishes to survive will turn away from these policies quick sticks, but Labour has doubled-down. They will rightly be booted out hopefully never to return.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
I think it's a bit of both: the share of Muslims has risen in the population, and at the same time other names have fragmented. (It's also worth remembering that Mohammed became the second most popular name in 2007. So it's taken it 15 years to rise one place.)
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
The Baby Name Data is available for download from the ONS website, and it's absolutely fascinating.
So, "Muhammad" is the number one boys Muslim name, with 3,722 babies born with it. And you might think that the peak incidence, given that it has become the most popular boys name.
But actually it's not. "Muhammad" was actually more popular back in 2016 when 3,908 babies got that name.
The alternative spelling - "Muhammed" - goes on a really weird rollercoaster of popularity: only 354 babies were named it, against over 500 in every year between 2008 and 2016.
There are also some interesting - and probably biracial names - that have picked up popularity, such as "Muhammad-Adam".
As someone who does quite a lot of Family History I've only ever found half-a dozen other people with my first name.
"Old" is perhaps not the most appropriate name for a new born baby 😄
Alan is increasingly rare as a first name. I blame films like The Hangover and Love, Honour and Obey where Alan, or Fat Alan is the butt of the jokes. And don't get me started on that bloody prairie dog.
Same with Peter. Although I never liked it. When my kids were born there was a tendency to name children with dogs' names. Max, Rex, Jack, etc. Boys names are far more exciting these days. "Bear", "Red", "Fox", "Blue". Mexicantyger has a ring to it.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
We don't often agree politically but I agree with this in relation to teaching. I think we are at a point where we could realise big productivity gains by embracing technology (particularly, but not limited to AI). This would allow us to do more productive work as skilled professionals (though productivity in teaching can be hard to define). And it doesn't need pay freezes and job cuts - we could realise huge gains just by not having to employ as much cover (I imagine the same might be true of locum GPs).
The challenge is that it is hard to do this stuff incrementally. I would say we are at a point where we need a wholesale restructuring of the school day (eg fewer hours of 30-35 kids in a classroom listening to one teacher, more time on personalised independent learning mediated by AI interspersed with small group or one-to-one tutoring).
Making structural changes like this will be hard to do well, carry big risks and will have the unions howling. But they are clearly needed.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
They’ll simply go for the four day week with no loss of pay option.
Ah yes, the option that might make mathematical ‘productivity’ slightly better, while having 20% less work done and almost certainly less output overall, but making no cost savings whatsoever.
This is incoherent. If output falls by 20% due to a move to a four day week, it makes no difference to measured labour productivity.
I’m not suggesting output falls by 20%, I’m actually suggesting it falls by less than 20%, making the ‘productivity’ stats brilliant while spending the same amount of money on less work done.
Well that would be a productivity increase. As all PBers know, hours worked and output do not necessarily correlate with earnings
The trouble with Starmer absolutely ISN'T lack of va va voom. Nobody could sell this turd sandwich of a Government.
Politics watchers, especially those on the left it seems to me, are constantly on the lookout for someone more telegenic, better back story, better communicator, more gutsy and working class, but these days, people don't want optics, they want to prosper. You can't heat your house with optics.
Sir Bellend is in the business of making people poorer. His policies set out to make people poorer. They will raise the price of energy, raise the price of having a car, raise the price of housing, raise the costs of doing business. That's quite apart from his bans on things and ugly disregard for free speech. Any party that wishes to survive will turn away from these policies quick sticks, but Labour has doubled-down. They will rightly be booted out hopefully never to return.
How do you explain Boris Johnson? Clearly all optics, no substance yet he won a decisive majority... the Tories were in power for a decade and consistently made us poorer yet kept winning elections.
"Six in ten French people are in favour of Emmanuel Macron resigning as president, according to a new poll conducted by Odaxa Backbone for Le Figaro newspaper.
“Only senior citizens are against,” said Gaël Sliman, president of Odoxa, adding: “The social categories most in favour are the working classes (72 per cent) and young people (70 per cent).”
The poll also suggests the French see ousted prime minister Michel Barnier as “collateral damage”, with only 4 per cent of those polled holding him personally responsible for the crisis - compared with 40 per cent who blame the French president."
The solution to productivity is not to work more hours. We already work the most hours in Europe.
Hours at work perhaps - hours actually working, I'd be amazed.
I regard myself as a very good employee - I really do work a lot nearly all of the time that my employer askes me to do so. Often much more. But even I as this self-anointed paragon, I probably only actually work about 70% of that time.
The trouble with Starmer absolutely ISN'T lack of va va voom. Nobody could sell this turd sandwich of a Government.
Politics watchers, especially those on the left it seems to me, are constantly on the lookout for someone more telegenic, better back story, better communicator, more gutsy and working class, but these days, people don't want optics, they want to prosper. You can't heat your house with optics.
Sir Bellend is in the business of making people poorer. His policies set out to make people poorer. They will raise the price of energy, raise the price of having a car, raise the price of housing, raise the costs of doing business. That's quite apart from his bans on things and ugly disregard for free speech. Any party that wishes to survive will turn away from these policies quick sticks, but Labour has doubled-down. They will rightly be booted out hopefully never to return.
How do you explain Boris Johnson? Clearly all optics, no substance yet he won a decisive majority... the Tories were in power for a decade and consistently made us poorer yet kept winning elections.
Two of those elections were versus Corbyn, and one versus Ed. David Miliband probably would have won easily.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
They’ll simply go for the four day week with no loss of pay option.
Ah yes, the option that might make mathematical ‘productivity’ slightly better, while having 20% less work done and almost certainly less output overall, but making no cost savings whatsoever.
This is incoherent. If output falls by 20% due to a move to a four day week, it makes no difference to measured labour productivity.
I’m not suggesting output falls by 20%, I’m actually suggesting it falls by less than 20%, making the ‘productivity’ stats brilliant while spending the same amount of money on less work done.
Well that would be a productivity increase. As all PBers know, hours worked and output do not necessarily correlate with earnings
Yes, but it’s also the perfect example of lies, damn lies, and statistics.
The government would claim that “productivity is up”, and order trebles all round, while actually delivering less output for the same money.
Private-sector businesses measure outputs achieved against money spent, not some statistically-gamed anomaly achieved by paying people the same to do less work.
The trouble with Starmer absolutely ISN'T lack of va va voom. Nobody could sell this turd sandwich of a Government.
Politics watchers, especially those on the left it seems to me, are constantly on the lookout for someone more telegenic, better back story, better communicator, more gutsy and working class, but these days, people don't want optics, they want to prosper. You can't heat your house with optics.
Sir Bellend is in the business of making people poorer. His policies set out to make people poorer. They will raise the price of energy, raise the price of having a car, raise the price of housing, raise the costs of doing business. That's quite apart from his bans on things and ugly disregard for free speech. Any party that wishes to survive will turn away from these policies quick sticks, but Labour has doubled-down. They will rightly be booted out hopefully never to return.
How do you explain Boris Johnson? Clearly all optics, no substance yet he won a decisive majority... the Tories were in power for a decade and consistently made us poorer yet kept winning elections.
Two of those elections were versus Corbyn, and one versus Ed. David Miliband probably would have won easily.
Comments
A PM who doesn’t try for a second term has the air of someone who hasn’t done a good enough job to get a second. Most politicians want to get the validation and endorsement of their actions, at least once. No. I think Starmer could leave by the next election, but only if he is persuaded that he would be severely damaging Labours chances by fighting it. The Biden gambit; if you will.
Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU. It's perverse to think you can solve anything by having them buy more of their own cars.
Eg, plan to replace IHT with low wealth taxes, reform property taxes to stop them being regressive, merge NI and IT, smooth clifff edges, reform stamp duty, update petrol duty, abolish the triple lock, a lower rate of VAT on things currently zero rated and a higher luxury goods rate.
It is a long time since the BBC were prepared to substitute footage of a Prime Ministerial cock up with a Mayoral success at the Cenotaph.
Never go back to an old job.
AS Sir Mick Jagger once said, "You don't always get what you need ..."
However, there is another possibility, of course: that the Falklands War was indeed an important factor in the result, but it was so obvious that almost nobody bothered to talk about it.
“The U.S. federal budget for fiscal year 2024 totals approximately $6.752 trillion in expenditures, with a revenue of about $4.919 trillion, resulting in a deficit of around $1.833 trillion.”
That’s roughly the equivalent of the UK gov borrowing £250bn this year.
To pick one not-quite-random example, Medicare and Medicaid are prohibited from negotiating prices for their drugs with the suppliers. They either have to pay the list price or not carry the drugs, which of course are being marketed heavily on TV to the end user. There’s an easy 50% saving there, if Congress dares to overturn the laws they were bought and paid for in the past.
The response from the civil servants was to be upset that he had checked.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Here you go https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-madrid-built-its-metro-cheaply/
Don't forget that the US spends more on Medicare/Medicaid than we do on the NHS, both on a per person and a percentage of GDP basis. You then also have the incredibly expensive health care system that's part of Veterans Affairs.
Musk is great at identifying civil servants and departments where you might be able to save money. But in the general scheme of things that stuff is chump change.
Unless the US can get a grip on Medicare and Social Security, which is going to be extremely unpopular (see France), then it will continue to struggle with its finances.
So what? It's consumption relative to income that determines your trade balance.
I know Darren and he is an excellent choice
#disappointed#
When I worked in Civil service we were placed in an awkward situation once. SoS said she didn't want a junior minister to receive a briefing she had requested. And we werent allowed to say why. So we had to pretend we were really slow/invent reasons it was delayed.
Mind it was only the once, and briefly.
I'm amazed he didn't have his own personal security paid for by the company. I suspect that will change.
Something of a hypocrite, as he himself led a successful campaign for a 20mph limit inside his own constituency.
Angela is Angela a female Prezza. McFadden and Cooper too old by 2031.
Reynolds reminds me of Robin Cook, politically very capable.
I think Ellie Reeves has more political nous and communication skills than her sister.
Darren Jones though is probably the most impressive politician in any Party in the past 20 years.
But I wouldn’t back him as a future leader - some people are destined to be in the top team but not the top job, and he is clearly one such.
There are huge exceptions to this, but I doubt a single public sector worker in the UK could honestly say this was wrong.
IME, he was a nice enough chap, though. Wouldn't mind meeting him again.
If you need to hire a database developer on £120k, then hire a database developer on £120k.
Don’t say that you only have a £60k grade to pay for him, so you can’t find anyone, then let McKinsey pay him £150k and charge him back to you at £3k a day.
Who wants to live in the European equivalent of Haiti.
Two completely Narcissistic extremists.
I'd already paid for my first week's lodgings.
In 20 years time we'll look back on this (probably not me!) and wonder what all the fuss was about. Similar to the 1967 Abortion Act.
I hope that a widespread compassionate but common sense approach to assisted dying will be normalised, possibly to the extent that the majority of deaths will be assisted. The current approach will be seen as barbaric.
I undertand that the Committee stage will start on 17th December and will include MPs who voted against in the 2nd reading. The Chair of the Committee will be neutral.
It will require a delicate trade off between removing unnecessary restrictions like the role of a judge (pure box ticking and a source of delay and expense) while still retaining sufficient support for the bill.
But the bigger problem, from what I've seen, is the result of political uncertainty. When political priorities change radically every 12-18 months, projects become obsolete before they're finished and are either dumped or drastically changed, pushing costs through the roof.
And then there's the whole set of second order effects that flow from that - to account for the uncertainty, every new project has far more padding built in than you would get in the private sector, and perhaps even a tendency to plan for failure right from the start.
The new govt is actually well-placed to bring some much-needed stability, but it'll take a while for the culture to recover after the past decade of chaos.
See if autocorrect gives you the same result.
It is the right thing to do.
It is the only easy cut that could be made without harming public services.
Not one but two reasons. Any fiscal conservative should agree with both.
Political joke of the year, will become a generational classic
Perfectly delivered cuiing to the quick.
"She (Badenoch) thinks working a few shifts at McDonald's working class.... If I come here (Pinewood Studios) a few more times I'll be the next 007"
I hope the 6 month restriction goes too. Utterly absurd, especially when the Supreme Court has already had cases from people who want to die who said it was a matter for Parliament.
Parliament isn't doing its job if they don't find a solution for them.
Politics watchers, especially those on the left it seems to me, are constantly on the lookout for someone more telegenic, better back story, better communicator, more gutsy and working class, but these days, people don't want optics, they want to prosper. You can't heat your house with optics.
Sir Bellend is in the business of making people poorer. His policies set out to make people poorer. They will raise the price of energy, raise the price of having a car, raise the price of housing, raise the costs of doing business. That's quite apart from his bans on things and ugly disregard for free speech. Any party that wishes to survive will turn away from these policies quick sticks, but Labour has doubled-down. They will rightly be booted out hopefully never to return.
Unfortunately no amount of overtime will change the publics perception of Starmer
The challenge is that it is hard to do this stuff incrementally. I would say we are at a point where we need a wholesale restructuring of the school day (eg fewer hours of 30-35 kids in a classroom listening to one teacher, more time on personalised independent learning mediated by AI interspersed with small group or one-to-one tutoring).
Making structural changes like this will be hard to do well, carry big risks and will have the unions howling. But they are clearly needed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c791z8vg0vxo
Infrastructure like masts too please, Keir. Essential.
“Only senior citizens are against,” said Gaël Sliman, president of Odoxa, adding: “The social categories most in favour are the working classes (72 per cent) and young people (70 per cent).”
The poll also suggests the French see ousted prime minister Michel Barnier as “collateral damage”, with only 4 per cent of those polled holding him personally responsible for the crisis - compared with 40 per cent who blame the French president."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/05/france-government-collapse-emmanuel-macron-barnier-le-pen/
I regard myself as a very good employee - I really do work a lot nearly all of the time that my employer askes me to do so. Often much more. But even I as this self-anointed paragon, I probably only actually work about 70% of that time.
At this point I do wonder if it will swing back as violently as it swung to Labour in the first place.
The government would claim that “productivity is up”, and order trebles all round, while actually delivering less output for the same money.
Private-sector businesses measure outputs achieved against money spent, not some statistically-gamed anomaly achieved by paying people the same to do less work.