Saydnaya Prison sounds like Tuol Sleng, under Comrade Duch.
Different pedigree.
As Assad's prisons open, another mind-boggling fact to recall. After '45, Syria took in many senior nazis and weaponry. Among them: Alois Brunner--Eichmann's lieutenant. Alois Brunner designed Assad's systems. He died only in 2010.
The Syrian regime(s), right from post independence, were considered the most paranoid and nasty in the area. Even by the standards of the other dictatorships.
Remember that just yesterday, a poster was saying that we should have supported Assad in the civil war.
To be fair, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Which are apparently more merciful.
That is the defence of Churchill's call for chemical weapons to be used against Iraqi citizens back in the day: that tear gas is kinder than bullets and bombs. If you want to boycott £5 notes, I can help with that.
Tear gas is more merciful than bullets and bombs. Which is why police forces around he world use it.
Chlorine, Sulphur Mustard and Sarin aren’t.
Tear gas is no fun. Any other PBers been tear-gassed?
The first time was when I was a Squeaker at BRNC, though we went to some Army establishment with a strong Bergen-Belsen aesthetic to do it. Put your respirator on, room fills with CS gas, take the respirator off, recite name/rank/number and leave the room. Leave your gold fillings at the door. Also did the same with a smoke filled compartment on a ship which was worse in some ways.
Did it again on AACC years later but I'd been to sea for 10+ years at that point and so didn't give a fuck about the smell (or taste) of anything.
On my USN Exchange we regularly used to blast each other with 'Law Enforcement Grade' pepper spray, which we could buy at the base PX, for a laugh. Maximum amusement could be derived by giving somebody a face full while they were driving a car or having a crap.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
I thought it was very good, a clear shift back to Conservatives offering a choice not an echo of Labour and the LDs.
In any case with Labour already polling under 30% and the LDs still on only 11-12% there aren't many more Labour or LD swing voters who might consider voting Tory the Tories can squeeze.
While Reform are polling 20%+ with voters of a kind who would like most of the Badenoch speech and it will also have gone down well even with Farage who Kemi might need to do a deal with to form a right of centre government if Labour lose their majority at the next GE
That doesn't make any sense. Regardless of what Labour and the Lib Dems are polling now you've still got to squeeze all of the ex Conservatives who voted for them in July. Tory poll numbers are equally abysmal so it's not like there's any evidence that they're coming back to you.
The Tories are now winning four July Labour voters for every one July Tory lost to Labour
Doesn't that mean the Tories will finish the next election on about 80%?
No (but I suspect you knew that already).
Rough flows are 400k Lab-to-Con and 100k Con-to-Lab. That's largely cancelled out by the 100k cradle-to-Lab and 100k Con-to-grave.
The important flows are the 1.4 million Lab-to-don't know/won't say compared to the 500k Con-to-DKWS.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I suspect right-wing libertarianism is all but dead now that Trump and Farage are the only games in town. Indeed an erstwhile adherent on PB was recently declaring how keen he now was on ID cards. A straw in the wind I shouldn't wonder.
Business Confidence has fallen to its lowest level in almost 2 years after the budget as businesses face rising costs and falling customer confidence and declining orders.
It's quite plausible that the government's narrative on the economy has already done enough damage — knock about 1% off of growth over the medium term — that it's effect will ultimately be larger than the "£22 billion blackhole". If they keep this up they will talk the UK into a recession.
I've been saying for years that Reeves was a duffer, but honestly I still expected better than what we have seen so far.
Saydnaya Prison sounds like Tuol Sleng, under Comrade Duch.
Different pedigree.
As Assad's prisons open, another mind-boggling fact to recall. After '45, Syria took in many senior nazis and weaponry. Among them: Alois Brunner--Eichmann's lieutenant. Alois Brunner designed Assad's systems. He died only in 2010.
The Syrian regime(s), right from post independence, were considered the most paranoid and nasty in the area. Even by the standards of the other dictatorships.
Remember that just yesterday, a poster was saying that we should have supported Assad in the civil war.
To be fair, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Which are apparently more merciful.
That is the defence of Churchill's call for chemical weapons to be used against Iraqi citizens back in the day: that tear gas is kinder than bullets and bombs. If you want to boycott £5 notes, I can help with that.
Tear gas is more merciful than bullets and bombs. Which is why police forces around he world use it.
Chlorine, Sulphur Mustard and Sarin aren’t.
Tear gas is no fun. Any other PBers been tear-gassed?
But I'm glad the Italian cops weren't using mustard gas.
Yes.
The fucking French pricks tear gassed me in May 2022.
I was ostensibly trying to overthrow capitalism at a G7 summit, so I think I was more fair game than in your case.
Business Confidence has fallen to its lowest level in almost 2 years after the budget as businesses face rising costs and falling customer confidence and declining orders.
It's quite plausible that the government's narrative on the economy has already done enough damage — knock about 1% off of growth over the medium term — that it's effect will ultimately be larger than the "£22 billion blackhole". If they keep this up they will talk the UK into a recession.
I've been saying for years that Reeves was a duffer, but honestly I still expected better than what we have seen so far.
Meanwhile The CEO of Iceland tells many of them to stop bellyaching
Reeves is the most highly qualified Chancellor in a generation.
She's got a tin ear politically.
That in the medium and long term may be a massive advantage.
She's taken decisive action not just for 6 to 12 months of popularity and crack filling but as a start to fixing the foundations.
Let's not take any lessons from Hunt, Sunak, Kwarteng.
Saydnaya Prison sounds like Tuol Sleng, under Comrade Duch.
Different pedigree.
As Assad's prisons open, another mind-boggling fact to recall. After '45, Syria took in many senior nazis and weaponry. Among them: Alois Brunner--Eichmann's lieutenant. Alois Brunner designed Assad's systems. He died only in 2010.
The Syrian regime(s), right from post independence, were considered the most paranoid and nasty in the area. Even by the standards of the other dictatorships.
Remember that just yesterday, a poster was saying that we should have supported Assad in the civil war.
To be fair, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Which are apparently more merciful.
That is the defence of Churchill's call for chemical weapons to be used against Iraqi citizens back in the day: that tear gas is kinder than bullets and bombs. If you want to boycott £5 notes, I can help with that.
Tear gas is more merciful than bullets and bombs. Which is why police forces around he world use it.
Chlorine, Sulphur Mustard and Sarin aren’t.
Tear gas is no fun. Any other PBers been tear-gassed?
But I'm glad the Italian cops weren't using mustard gas.
Someone once let off a canister of something in a night club I was in. More probably pepper spray related (though still illegal)
I actually got a wiff of Chlorine. A moron had caused an accident at a communal workshop, and I went there to try a sort things out. Took the beginnings of a sniff - then backed out of the door. Old style chemistry, from when I was a kid - I knew the smell and this was much, much stronger. The stupid bastard fucked himself up a bit, hurt some other idiots and rusted the fucking slide on a moderately nice lathe….
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
Business Confidence has fallen to its lowest level in almost 2 years after the budget as businesses face rising costs and falling customer confidence and declining orders.
It's quite plausible that the government's narrative on the economy has already done enough damage — knock about 1% off of growth over the medium term — that it's effect will ultimately be larger than the "£22 billion blackhole". If they keep this up they will talk the UK into a recession.
I've been saying for years that Reeves was a duffer, but honestly I still expected better than what we have seen so far.
Well I always thought she was plausible and would do a good job.
Buyers remorse for sure.
On current form your judgement is correct, mine was not. This govt really did overdo the economic doom and gloom scenario on taking office and I don't think people especially bought it being as bleak as they outlined.
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
More importantly is there any scenario where Labour would be happy to be supported by Labour.
Given there is a sizeable minority in Labour who think Reform and Farage are far right, jackbooted, fascists who would be annexing the Sudetenland if they had the chance I just cannot see it.
Saydnaya Prison sounds like Tuol Sleng, under Comrade Duch.
Different pedigree.
As Assad's prisons open, another mind-boggling fact to recall. After '45, Syria took in many senior nazis and weaponry. Among them: Alois Brunner--Eichmann's lieutenant. Alois Brunner designed Assad's systems. He died only in 2010.
The Syrian regime(s), right from post independence, were considered the most paranoid and nasty in the area. Even by the standards of the other dictatorships.
Remember that just yesterday, a poster was saying that we should have supported Assad in the civil war.
To be fair, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Which are apparently more merciful.
I don't know what this 'just yesterday' shite is about. My view that we should have supported Assad hasn't changed - secret prisons and a garage full of Ferraris have not convinced me otherwise, nor did the revelations of Saddam or Gadaffi's excesses in those cases. They were dictators, and in the case of the first two (in my opinion) worse than Assad. But they performed a role in keeping down worse forces, that have now been unleashed, as has been proven in the catastrophic events that followed.
I agree with you that the chances of this being a success is remote, but one has to have hope and the idea that one should give just give up and keep in office a murderous dictator is appalling, even if the alternative likely ends up being possibly worse. Give people a chance to escape the Assad regime.
I note you and @leon said nobody would return to Syria. It appears they are flooding in. Personally if it were me I would wait and see before returning. Also I note this morning the BBC reporter was a Syrian woman who left years ago and has been reporting from outside Syria. This was her first report from inside Syria and without any headscarf whatsoever.
It might all fall apart, but give them a chance. Don't condemn them before they have even had a chance. They deserve it.
As for @leon's incorrect post about Syrians fighting each other in Manchester yesterday; that was appalling and borderline incitement to violence to right wing thugs. He would get away with it here, but if posted say on X (where I presume he sourced it) he could be getting close to getting his collar felt if it did result in a right wing backlash.
Yes - if I am wrong about that I'll happily own it - as I do when I get things wrong fairly often. It would still remain a question whether when the dust has settled we get more or less Syrians, but I suppose at least the ones fleeing now will be of a less dangerous variety.
Saydnaya Prison sounds like Tuol Sleng, under Comrade Duch.
Different pedigree.
As Assad's prisons open, another mind-boggling fact to recall. After '45, Syria took in many senior nazis and weaponry. Among them: Alois Brunner--Eichmann's lieutenant. Alois Brunner designed Assad's systems. He died only in 2010.
The Syrian regime(s), right from post independence, were considered the most paranoid and nasty in the area. Even by the standards of the other dictatorships.
Remember that just yesterday, a poster was saying that we should have supported Assad in the civil war.
To be fair, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Which are apparently more merciful.
That is the defence of Churchill's call for chemical weapons to be used against Iraqi citizens back in the day: that tear gas is kinder than bullets and bombs. If you want to boycott £5 notes, I can help with that.
Tear gas is more merciful than bullets and bombs. Which is why police forces around he world use it.
The rebels appear to have negotiated an agreement to let them leave without fighting. Which is another small data point offering hope for an orderly transition.
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
If Labour were the Opposition then that might be conceivable, but not to prop up an incumbent government, no.
I meant after the election. People assume Reform UK will support the Tories into government.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
Can Reform support Labour? Yes, if Big Nige wants to, he might easily point to Labour's deportations and reduced immigration as justification for supporting Labour.
Would Reform want to support Labour? Well, both parties' voters probably like increased spending.
So it is certainly possible that Reform will support Labour. Whether it is likely is another matter.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I suspect right-wing libertarianism is all but dead now that Trump and Farage are the only games in town. Indeed an erstwhile adherent on PB was recently declaring how keen he now was on ID cards. A straw in the wind I shouldn't wonder.
Note that the previous attempt at ID cards and the current suggestion from the Home Office are both incompatible with European law on personal data. Which was largely written from the Social Democrat perspective - the convenience of the state comes second to the rights of the individual.
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
More importantly is there any scenario where Labour would be happy to be supported by Labour.
Given there is a sizeable minority in Labour who think Reform and Farage are far right, jackbooted, fascists who would be annexing the Sudetenland if they had the chance I just cannot see it.
I think Farage and Reform are too canny to seek a formal coalition as a junior partner. They would instead tolerate a minority government, until they decided it was advantageous to pull the plug.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
If Labour were the Opposition then that might be conceivable, but not to prop up an incumbent government, no.
I meant after the election. People assume Reform UK will support the Tories into government.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
Can Reform support Labour? Yes, if Big Nige wants to, he might easily point to Labour's deportations and reduced immigration as justification for supporting Labour.
Would Reform want to support Labour? Well, both parties' voters probably like increased spending.
So it is certainly possible that Reform will support Labour. Whether it is likely is another matter.
The single most important thing about Reform is that they are against the status quo. So if the next election results in a hung Parliament I would think there's very little chance of Reform supporting the status quo option - of Labour continuing in government.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
To an extent. Constitutionalism has strong limits in the practical sphere. However, giving the state untrammelled power and expecting it not to be abused... it has failed every time it has been tried.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
As I understand it the Ukrainians are using the F-16s in an air defence role, to shoot down Russian cruise missiles. They won't be using any to hit Russian targets in Syria.
It's been suggested that Ukrainian drones, and possibly a few personnel, were in Syria to help fight against Russians during the recent offensive. Ukrainian intelligence seemed to know a lot about what was going on in the first week of the offensive.
I'd expect they've been thanked for their help and told to go home now though.
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
If Labour were the Opposition then that might be conceivable, but not to prop up an incumbent government, no.
I meant after the election. People assume Reform UK will support the Tories into government.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
Can Reform support Labour? Yes, if Big Nige wants to, he might easily point to Labour's deportations and reduced immigration as justification for supporting Labour.
Would Reform want to support Labour? Well, both parties' voters probably like increased spending.
So it is certainly possible that Reform will support Labour. Whether it is likely is another matter.
The single most important thing about Reform is that they are against the status quo. So if the next election results in a hung Parliament I would think there's very little chance of Reform supporting the status quo option - of Labour continuing in government.
Yes - I think that is correct.
I further think that they would rule out any coalitions with the existing parties. A weak, minority government of *someone else* is exactly what they would want.
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
If Labour were the Opposition then that might be conceivable, but not to prop up an incumbent government, no.
I meant after the election. People assume Reform UK will support the Tories into government.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
Interesting. Could be a fruitful path for Nigel but he'd have to be careful about the framing. I'd go with something like: the Tories are a bunch of useless poshos who messed up Brexit and let immigration run riot so no way are we dealing with them; Sir Keir, on the other hand, seems to be 'getting it' on some level but he still has a long way to go. So we'll give him our guarded support in the interest of national stability but we'll pull out any time if he wavers. As part of Nigel's long-term plan, that might provide Reform with the much-needed 'serious political party' tag.
Kemi's speech to the Washington think tank felt like it was written by an intern: just a list of hackneyed right-wing bugbears that had been overheard over the years and only vaguely understood. And this from the supposed warrior princess of the anti-Woke crusade. Nothing new or imaginative. No vim or intellectual heft. Disappointing.
Actually it was quite good. She gets the menace of the cultural left and how it tries in Gramscian fashion to take over the institutions but without the OTT style of Trump or De Santis. What can she do about the practical issues of the economy, public services etc? That remains the question. But what does Farage really offer? And Starmer thinks he can fix it without raising taxes on 'working people'.
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
I can't see enough areas of agreement for Labour and Reform to support one another in Gov't. Two-child, oh wait Reform is to the left of Starmer on that one
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
The rights are inherent but good luck exercising them if the state doesn't want you to. Just ask a working class man trying to vote in the nineteenth century, or a gay man hoping to have sex pre-1967. Doctrinaire Marxism has never been an influential strand of thinking on the left of British politics. Right from the start the focus was on achieving personal liberty as well as winning the class struggle - and in terms of results arguably the left's victories have been far greater with respect to the former. This speech by David Miliband is a useful primer on how early Labour figures like Hardie were driven by concepts of liberty. The difference in quality with respect to Badenoch's speech is quite startling. https://www.labourlist.org/2010/07/david-milibands-keir-hardie-lecture-full-speech
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
More importantly is there any scenario where Labour would be happy to be supported by Labour.
Given there is a sizeable minority in Labour who think Reform and Farage are far right, jackbooted, fascists who would be annexing the Sudetenland if they had the chance I just cannot see it.
I think Farage and Reform are too canny to seek a formal coalition as a junior partner. They would instead tolerate a minority government, until they decided it was advantageous to pull the plug.
Saydnaya Prison sounds like Tuol Sleng, under Comrade Duch.
Different pedigree.
As Assad's prisons open, another mind-boggling fact to recall. After '45, Syria took in many senior nazis and weaponry. Among them: Alois Brunner--Eichmann's lieutenant. Alois Brunner designed Assad's systems. He died only in 2010.
The Syrian regime(s), right from post independence, were considered the most paranoid and nasty in the area. Even by the standards of the other dictatorships.
Remember that just yesterday, a poster was saying that we should have supported Assad in the civil war.
To be fair, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Which are apparently more merciful.
That is the defence of Churchill's call for chemical weapons to be used against Iraqi citizens back in the day: that tear gas is kinder than bullets and bombs. If you want to boycott £5 notes, I can help with that.
Tear gas is more merciful than bullets and bombs. Which is why police forces around he world use it.
Chlorine, Sulphur Mustard and Sarin aren’t.
Tear gas is no fun. Any other PBers been tear-gassed?
But I'm glad the Italian cops weren't using mustard gas.
Someone once let off a canister of something in a night club I was in. More probably pepper spray related (though still illegal)
I actually got a wiff of Chlorine. A moron had caused an accident at a communal workshop, and I went there to try a sort things out. Took the beginnings of a sniff - then backed out of the door. Old style chemistry, from when I was a kid - I knew the smell and this was much, much stronger. The stupid bastard fucked himself up a bit, hurt some other idiots and rusted the fucking slide on a moderately nice lathe….
I recall one of our chemistry lessons where Chris Fenwick was careless around the fume cupboard and released a plume of hydrogen sulphide. What a pong. We had to evacuate. This was the same boy who used to set fire to his farts. He did not go on to a Russell university.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
People are motivated by belief. If people believe that they possess inherent rights then they are more likely to fight for them and insist that a government codifies those rights into law.
It also shapes the way those laws are written. Whether it's in terms of things that the state is not allowed to do, or in terms of what a citizen is allowed to do. That makes quite a difference, particularly when there's a gap in the law and a court is asked to interpret.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
As I understand it the Ukrainians are using the F-16s in an air defence role, to shoot down Russian cruise missiles. They won't be using any to hit Russian targets in Syria.
It's been suggested that Ukrainian drones, and possibly a few personnel, were in Syria to help fight against Russians during the recent offensive. Ukrainian intelligence seemed to know a lot about what was going on in the first week of the offensive.
I'd expect they've been thanked for their help and told to go home now though.
Making sure Russia loses to the max in Syria should be a western priority. The trouble is we just aren't ruthless enough.
Cancel or modify the winter fuel allowance, shove up fuel duty instead.
Because pretty much no other possible tax rise feeds inflation as much as fuel duty.
I still say keep it simple and just whack up income tax by whatever we need. It's nicely deflationary too as it reduces the money supply in the economy.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
Saydnaya Prison sounds like Tuol Sleng, under Comrade Duch.
Different pedigree.
As Assad's prisons open, another mind-boggling fact to recall. After '45, Syria took in many senior nazis and weaponry. Among them: Alois Brunner--Eichmann's lieutenant. Alois Brunner designed Assad's systems. He died only in 2010.
The Syrian regime(s), right from post independence, were considered the most paranoid and nasty in the area. Even by the standards of the other dictatorships.
Remember that just yesterday, a poster was saying that we should have supported Assad in the civil war.
To be fair, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Which are apparently more merciful.
That is the defence of Churchill's call for chemical weapons to be used against Iraqi citizens back in the day: that tear gas is kinder than bullets and bombs. If you want to boycott £5 notes, I can help with that.
Tear gas is more merciful than bullets and bombs. Which is why police forces around he world use it.
Chlorine, Sulphur Mustard and Sarin aren’t.
Tear gas is no fun. Any other PBers been tear-gassed?
But I'm glad the Italian cops weren't using mustard gas.
Someone once let off a canister of something in a night club I was in. More probably pepper spray related (though still illegal)
I actually got a wiff of Chlorine. A moron had caused an accident at a communal workshop, and I went there to try a sort things out. Took the beginnings of a sniff - then backed out of the door. Old style chemistry, from when I was a kid - I knew the smell and this was much, much stronger. The stupid bastard fucked himself up a bit, hurt some other idiots and rusted the fucking slide on a moderately nice lathe….
I recall one of our chemistry lessons where Chris Fenwick was careless around the fume cupboard and released a plume of hydrogen sulphide. What a pong. We had to evacuate. This was the same boy who used to set fire to his farts. He did not go on to a Russell university.
Ha. In my old school the chemistry lab ceiling looked like the Somme after The Big Party.
I got a laugh, when I was viewing a school for my youngest daughter. The teacher in the Chemistry lab wondered why I was staring at the ceiling. "It's so unmarked" - she was an old time teacher and knew exactly what I meant.
My daughter spent about a term learning how to use a Bunsen burner safely.....
Kemi's speech to the Washington think tank felt like it was written by an intern: just a list of hackneyed right-wing bugbears that had been overheard over the years and only vaguely understood. And this from the supposed warrior princess of the anti-Woke crusade. Nothing new or imaginative. No vim or intellectual heft. Disappointing.
Actually it was quite good. She gets the menace of the cultural left and how it tries in Gramscian fashion to take over the institutions but without the OTT style of Trump or De Santis. What can she do about the practical issues of the economy, public services etc? That remains the question. But what does Farage really offer? And Starmer thinks he can fix it without raising taxes on 'working people'.
So far then, correct me if I’m wrong but everyone that way inclined thought it was good and everyone not, didn’t. So she hasn’t yet moved the dial much.
I’m not going to write off Badenoch yet, just as I didn’t Sir Keir. I’d like to hear some more policies from her over time before I decide.
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
More importantly is there any scenario where Labour would be happy to be supported by Labour.
Given there is a sizeable minority in Labour who think Reform and Farage are far right, jackbooted, fascists who would be annexing the Sudetenland if they had the chance I just cannot see it.
I think Farage and Reform are too canny to seek a formal coalition as a junior partner. They would instead tolerate a minority government, until they decided it was advantageous to pull the plug.
Supply and confidence - or less formal than that?
Less formal than that. They'd want to minimise the risk of any of the stench of government rubbing off on them until they were in a position to lead it.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
They've already captured a shitload. I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
They've already captured a shitload. I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
On the contrary, if the Russians haven't taken it out by now, they are going to get very little out. Just what they can airlift, probably.
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
More importantly is there any scenario where Labour would be happy to be supported by Labour.
Given there is a sizeable minority in Labour who think Reform and Farage are far right, jackbooted, fascists who would be annexing the Sudetenland if they had the chance I just cannot see it.
I think Farage and Reform are too canny to seek a formal coalition as a junior partner. They would instead tolerate a minority government, until they decided it was advantageous to pull the plug.
Supply and confidence - or less formal than that?
Less formal than that. They'd want to minimise the risk of any of the stench of government rubbing off on them until they were in a position to lead it.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I come back to your claim that the Truss/ Kwarteng budget was "the best, most Conservative budget" ever. Oh wait, it never got implemented so it never failed.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
They've already captured a shitload. I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
Early indications are that it's a less chaotic fall of a regime than the US defeat of Saddam in 2003.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
They've already captured a shitload. I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
Early indications are that it's a less chaotic fall of a regime than the US defeat of Saddam in 2003.
Looks like a chunk of Team Assad cut deals with various factions of the rebels, doesn't it?
Cancel or modify the winter fuel allowance, shove up fuel duty instead.
Because pretty much no other possible tax rise feeds inflation as much as fuel duty.
It’s crazy that it’s not been raised for years. It’s totally unjustifiable.
Fuel duty is an extremely progressive tax, as the productive and hard-working pay less of it as a share of their income, while the lazy and feckless pay more.
Also, for climatic regions it falls more heavily on unproductive regions like Scotland, the North of England and Northern Ireland.
So, yes, raising it and cutting corporate or payroll taxes is an excellent idea and would benefit the economy.
But it's politically unsellable to the Labour client base of benefit dependents, Northerners and other layabouts so it won't happen.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
People are motivated by belief. If people believe that they possess inherent rights then they are more likely to fight for them and insist that a government codifies those rights into law.
It also shapes the way those laws are written. Whether it's in terms of things that the state is not allowed to do, or in terms of what a citizen is allowed to do. That makes quite a difference, particularly when there's a gap in the law and a court is asked to interpret.
It's a belief I share. Universal human rights. I also recognise the importance of government in enshrining and enforcing them. Malmesbury's characterisation of it as the one vs the other doesn't really scan for me. It's more of a theory vs practice situation.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
They better blooming well not climb down on winter fuel.
In April, pensions rise by 4.1 percent, when inflation is just over two percent and most benefits are rising by 1.7 percent. Even if you discount the much higher than inflation rise in April 2024, that's basically your WFA there.
Bottom line- pensions now are less stingy than they were in 1997 (i.e when current pensioners were paying taxes to fund their parents' pensions) and WFA has served its purpose.
Cancel or modify the winter fuel allowance, shove up fuel duty instead.
Because pretty much no other possible tax rise feeds inflation as much as fuel duty.
It’s crazy that it’s not been raised for years. It’s totally unjustifiable.
Fuel duty is an extremely progressive tax, as the productive and hard-working pay less of it as a share of their income, while the lazy and feckless pay more.
Also, for climatic regions it falls more heavily on unproductive regions like Scotland, the North of England and Northern Ireland.
So, yes, raising it and cutting corporate or payroll taxes is an excellent idea and would benefit the economy.
But it's politically unsellable to the Labour client base of benefit dependents, Northerners and other layabouts so it won't happen.
I'm not sure what this post is, but it's definitely something. Quite something.
Saydnaya Prison sounds like Tuol Sleng, under Comrade Duch.
Different pedigree.
As Assad's prisons open, another mind-boggling fact to recall. After '45, Syria took in many senior nazis and weaponry. Among them: Alois Brunner--Eichmann's lieutenant. Alois Brunner designed Assad's systems. He died only in 2010.
The Syrian regime(s), right from post independence, were considered the most paranoid and nasty in the area. Even by the standards of the other dictatorships.
Remember that just yesterday, a poster was saying that we should have supported Assad in the civil war.
To be fair, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Which are apparently more merciful.
I don't know what this 'just yesterday' shite is about. My view that we should have supported Assad hasn't changed - secret prisons and a garage full of Ferraris have not convinced me otherwise, nor did the revelations of Saddam or Gadaffi's excesses in those cases. They were dictators, and in the case of the first two (in my opinion) worse than Assad. But they performed a role in keeping down worse forces, that have now been unleashed, as has been proven in the catastrophic events that followed.
I agree with you that the chances of this being a success is remote, but one has to have hope and the idea that one should give just give up and keep in office a murderous dictator is appalling, even if the alternative likely ends up being possibly worse. Give people a chance to escape the Assad regime.
I note you and @leon said nobody would return to Syria. It appears they are flooding in. Personally if it were me I would wait and see before returning. Also I note this morning the BBC reporter was a Syrian woman who left years ago and has been reporting from outside Syria. This was her first report from inside Syria and without any headscarf whatsoever.
It might all fall apart, but give them a chance. Don't condemn them before they have even had a chance. They deserve it.
As for @leon's incorrect post about Syrians fighting each other in Manchester yesterday; that was appalling and borderline incitement to violence to right wing thugs. He would get away with it here, but if posted say on X (where I presume he sourced it) he could be getting close to getting his collar felt if it did result in a right wing backlash.
Yes - if I am wrong about that I'll happily own it - as I do when I get things wrong fairly often. It would still remain a question whether when the dust has settled we get more or less Syrians, but I suppose at least the ones fleeing now will be of a less dangerous variety.
I always assumed those that fled Syria before were not the Islamic extremists, although I am happy to be proved wrong as I don't know.
There seems to be three likely outcomes.
The first being that it all goes fairly well. Probably the least likely. The evidence so far is it is going down that route, but we have seen that before, for it all to fall apart later. If it is successful then a large proportion of Syrians will return to Syria. I am surprised they are already doing so in such large numbers with the uncertainty, but that is a good sign. Hopefully (and reasonably so) they are more in the know than me.
The second possibility is the tolerant front is just that, a front, and we get an extreme Islamic state as in Afghanistan. People will not return or will leave in that case.
The third possibility is the country breaks down into inter-factional civil war and again people will not return or will leave.
Cancel or modify the winter fuel allowance, shove up fuel duty instead.
Because pretty much no other possible tax rise feeds inflation as much as fuel duty.
It’s crazy that it’s not been raised for years. It’s totally unjustifiable.
Fuel duty is an extremely progressive tax, as the productive and hard-working pay less of it as a share of their income, while the lazy and feckless pay more.
Also, for climatic regions it falls more heavily on unproductive regions like Scotland, the North of England and Northern Ireland.
So, yes, raising it and cutting corporate or payroll taxes is an excellent idea and would benefit the economy.
But it's politically unsellable to the Labour client base of benefit dependents, Northerners and other layabouts so it won't happen.
I am trying to unpack that post and I am struggling. Isn't a tax that takes more income from the poor a regressive tax? For example VAT. You suggest that fuel duty is progressive. On your terms I am not sure it is.
Cancel or modify the winter fuel allowance, shove up fuel duty instead.
Because pretty much no other possible tax rise feeds inflation as much as fuel duty.
It’s crazy that it’s not been raised for years. It’s totally unjustifiable.
Fuel duty is an extremely progressive tax, as the productive and hard-working pay less of it as a share of their income, while the lazy and feckless pay more.
Also, for climatic regions it falls more heavily on unproductive regions like Scotland, the North of England and Northern Ireland.
So, yes, raising it and cutting corporate or payroll taxes is an excellent idea and would benefit the economy.
But it's politically unsellable to the Labour client base of benefit dependents, Northerners and other layabouts so it won't happen.
Sorry I meant for public transport reasons not climatic reasons. Duh!
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
People are motivated by belief. If people believe that they possess inherent rights then they are more likely to fight for them and insist that a government codifies those rights into law.
It also shapes the way those laws are written. Whether it's in terms of things that the state is not allowed to do, or in terms of what a citizen is allowed to do. That makes quite a difference, particularly when there's a gap in the law and a court is asked to interpret.
It's a belief I share. Universal human rights. I also recognise the importance of government in enshrining and enforcing them. Malmesbury's characterisation of it as the one vs the other doesn't really scan for me. It's more of a theory vs practice situation.
But then again, you couldn't see what was wrong with the ID card proposal.
That it clashed so severely, with later European law, should be of interest to you. The convenience of the state was quite explicitly made secondary to the rights of the individual.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
They've already captured a shitload. I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
Early indications are that it's a less chaotic fall of a regime than the US defeat of Saddam in 2003.
Looks like a chunk of Team Assad cut deals with various factions of the rebels, doesn't it?
It's certainly alleged the Syrian PM did a deal.
"The leader of the main armed opposition group in Syria says former Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali will supervise state institutions until they are handed over, as fighters declared an end to Bashar al-Assad’s 24-year rule."
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
To an extent. Constitutionalism has strong limits in the practical sphere. However, giving the state untrammelled power and expecting it not to be abused... it has failed every time it has been tried.
That's a different point. Also it's a general point. Untrammelled power in the hands of anybody or anything is prone to abuse. Look at Musk.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
They've already captured a shitload. I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
Early indications are that it's a less chaotic fall of a regime than the US defeat of Saddam in 2003.
Looks like a chunk of Team Assad cut deals with various factions of the rebels, doesn't it?
It's certainly alleged the Syrian PM did a deal.
"The leader of the main armed opposition group in Syria says former Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali will supervise state institutions until they are handed over, as fighters declared an end to Bashar al-Assad’s 24-year rule."
Cancel or modify the winter fuel allowance, shove up fuel duty instead.
Because pretty much no other possible tax rise feeds inflation as much as fuel duty.
It’s crazy that it’s not been raised for years. It’s totally unjustifiable.
Fuel duty is an extremely progressive tax, as the productive and hard-working pay less of it as a share of their income, while the lazy and feckless pay more.
Also, for climatic regions it falls more heavily on unproductive regions like Scotland, the North of England and Northern Ireland.
So, yes, raising it and cutting corporate or payroll taxes is an excellent idea and would benefit the economy.
But it's politically unsellable to the Labour client base of benefit dependents, Northerners and other layabouts so it won't happen.
I'm not sure what this post is, but it's definitely something. Quite something.
The price of transport of goods has long been a fundamental indicator of economic growth.
Hence all the years of "OPEC has a hiccup. Recession Time!"
I have long advocated the theory that, by moving to non-fossil fuel transport system - cars, lorries, trains - we could eliminate this. And that would pay for the move to non-fossil fuel worth it, over the next couple of missed recessions. The Save The Planet bit is a freebie on top.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
Cancel or modify the winter fuel allowance, shove up fuel duty instead.
Because pretty much no other possible tax rise feeds inflation as much as fuel duty.
I still say keep it simple and just whack up income tax by whatever we need. It's nicely deflationary too as it reduces the money supply in the economy.
Yes, but it requires political capital, and governments love to tie their own hands by saying they won’t raise it.
There’s no good time to have a really good go at simplifying the tax code or doing a zero-based budget, but year 1 of a landslide majority might have been a better time than any in recent years.
Cancel or modify the winter fuel allowance, shove up fuel duty instead.
Because pretty much no other possible tax rise feeds inflation as much as fuel duty.
It’s crazy that it’s not been raised for years. It’s totally unjustifiable.
Fuel duty is an extremely progressive tax, as the productive and hard-working pay less of it as a share of their income, while the lazy and feckless pay more.
Also, for climatic regions it falls more heavily on unproductive regions like Scotland, the North of England and Northern Ireland.
So, yes, raising it and cutting corporate or payroll taxes is an excellent idea and would benefit the economy.
But it's politically unsellable to the Labour client base of benefit dependents, Northerners and other layabouts so it won't happen.
I'm not sure what this post is, but it's definitely something. Quite something.
The price of transport of goods has long been a fundamental indicator of economic growth.
Hence all the years of "OPEC has a hiccup. Recession Time!"
I have long advocated the theory that, by moving to non-fossil fuel transport system - cars, lorries, trains - we could eliminate this. And that would pay for the move to non-fossil fuel worth it, over the next couple of missed recessions. The Save The Planet bit is a freebie on top.
Yeah but @Fishing is in favour because those whose great great... grandparents survived the harrying of the north would be justly financially punished for living in the more sparsely populated north.
Saydnaya Prison sounds like Tuol Sleng, under Comrade Duch.
Different pedigree.
As Assad's prisons open, another mind-boggling fact to recall. After '45, Syria took in many senior nazis and weaponry. Among them: Alois Brunner--Eichmann's lieutenant. Alois Brunner designed Assad's systems. He died only in 2010.
The Syrian regime(s), right from post independence, were considered the most paranoid and nasty in the area. Even by the standards of the other dictatorships.
Remember that just yesterday, a poster was saying that we should have supported Assad in the civil war.
To be fair, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Which are apparently more merciful.
I don't know what this 'just yesterday' shite is about. My view that we should have supported Assad hasn't changed - secret prisons and a garage full of Ferraris have not convinced me otherwise, nor did the revelations of Saddam or Gadaffi's excesses in those cases. They were dictators, and in the case of the first two (in my opinion) worse than Assad. But they performed a role in keeping down worse forces, that have now been unleashed, as has been proven in the catastrophic events that followed.
I agree with you that the chances of this being a success is remote, but one has to have hope and the idea that one should give just give up and keep in office a murderous dictator is appalling, even if the alternative likely ends up being possibly worse. Give people a chance to escape the Assad regime.
I note you and @leon said nobody would return to Syria. It appears they are flooding in. Personally if it were me I would wait and see before returning. Also I note this morning the BBC reporter was a Syrian woman who left years ago and has been reporting from outside Syria. This was her first report from inside Syria and without any headscarf whatsoever.
It might all fall apart, but give them a chance. Don't condemn them before they have even had a chance. They deserve it.
As for @leon's incorrect post about Syrians fighting each other in Manchester yesterday; that was appalling and borderline incitement to violence to right wing thugs. He would get away with it here, but if posted say on X (where I presume he sourced it) he could be getting close to getting his collar felt if it did result in a right wing backlash.
Yes - if I am wrong about that I'll happily own it - as I do when I get things wrong fairly often. It would still remain a question whether when the dust has settled we get more or less Syrians, but I suppose at least the ones fleeing now will be of a less dangerous variety.
I always assumed those that fled Syria before were not the Islamic extremists, although I am happy to be proved wrong as I don't know.
There seems to be three likely outcomes.
The first being that it all goes fairly well. Probably the least likely. The evidence so far is it is going down that route, but we have seen that before, for it all to fall apart later. If it is successful then a large proportion of Syrians will return to Syria. I am surprised they are already doing so in such large numbers with the uncertainty, but that is a good sign. Hopefully (and reasonably so) they are more in the know than me.
The second possibility is the tolerant front is just that, a front, and we get an extreme Islamic state as in Afghanistan. People will not return or will leave in that case.
The third possibility is the country breaks down into inter-factional civil war and again people will not return or will leave.
Much, I suspect, depends on the attitude of, and the deal done with, the Kurds. AIUI, they control about a third of the land area, and do it quite competently.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
To an extent. Constitutionalism has strong limits in the practical sphere. However, giving the state untrammelled power and expecting it not to be abused... it has failed every time it has been tried.
That's a different point. Also it's a general point. Untrammelled power in the hands of anybody or anything is prone to abuse. Look at Musk.
No, it isn't a different point.
If you build systems that give such untrammelled power then it will be used. If you build system precisely so that they don't, then it can't.
For example, the ID card system was supposed to link all government data to a single ID. And provide all of that data to anyone with access to the system. So, someone could key @kinabalu into the system, and get your tax record, your medical records, spent convictions, every time you had had contact with the police, your DNA (if recorded)..... Everything. What do you think the Reform government might do with that? Yes, indeed.
Comically, there were complaints within the top of the civil service. So they added a special segregated database for Important People. Where access would be blocked.
Cancel or modify the winter fuel allowance, shove up fuel duty instead.
Because pretty much no other possible tax rise feeds inflation as much as fuel duty.
It’s crazy that it’s not been raised for years. It’s totally unjustifiable.
Fuel duty is an extremely progressive tax, as the productive and hard-working pay less of it as a share of their income, while the lazy and feckless pay more.
Also, for climatic regions it falls more heavily on unproductive regions like Scotland, the North of England and Northern Ireland.
So, yes, raising it and cutting corporate or payroll taxes is an excellent idea and would benefit the economy.
But it's politically unsellable to the Labour client base of benefit dependents, Northerners and other layabouts so it won't happen.
I'm not sure what this post is, but it's definitely something. Quite something.
The price of transport of goods has long been a fundamental indicator of economic growth.
Hence all the years of "OPEC has a hiccup. Recession Time!"
I have long advocated the theory that, by moving to non-fossil fuel transport system - cars, lorries, trains - we could eliminate this. And that would pay for the move to non-fossil fuel worth it, over the next couple of missed recessions. The Save The Planet bit is a freebie on top.
Yeah but @Fishing is in favour because those whose great great... grandparents survived the harrying of the north would be justly financially punished for living in the more sparsely populated north.
All the oil price hike induced recessions hit the whole country, as I recall.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
Brexit has of course pushed up civil service numbers. We have to administer complex rules covering far more of our cross border trade. We have far more immigrants on visas that need to be issued and tracked. And we have repatriated many regulatory competences that we previously delegated to the EU. This is why leaving the EU was ever going to deliver the kind of budgetary savings we read about on the side of the legendary bus.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
It's up to Erdogan, he's the one paying for HTS. You get nothing for nothing from that fucker and he can get a LOT from VVP to guarantee the security of Latakia and Hmememiummuemmem.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Cancel or modify the winter fuel allowance, shove up fuel duty instead.
Because pretty much no other possible tax rise feeds inflation as much as fuel duty.
It’s crazy that it’s not been raised for years. It’s totally unjustifiable.
Fuel duty is an extremely progressive tax, as the productive and hard-working pay less of it as a share of their income, while the lazy and feckless pay more.
Also, for climatic regions it falls more heavily on unproductive regions like Scotland, the North of England and Northern Ireland.
So, yes, raising it and cutting corporate or payroll taxes is an excellent idea and would benefit the economy.
But it's politically unsellable to the Labour client base of benefit dependents, Northerners and other layabouts so it won't happen.
I'm not sure what this post is, but it's definitely something. Quite something.
The price of transport of goods has long been a fundamental indicator of economic growth.
Hence all the years of "OPEC has a hiccup. Recession Time!"
I have long advocated the theory that, by moving to non-fossil fuel transport system - cars, lorries, trains - we could eliminate this. And that would pay for the move to non-fossil fuel worth it, over the next couple of missed recessions. The Save The Planet bit is a freebie on top.
Yeah but @Fishing is in favour because those whose great great... grandparents survived the harrying of the north would be justly financially punished for living in the more sparsely populated north.
All the oil price hike induced recessions hit the whole country, as I recall.
Mere collateral damage for punishment of those living north of Watford gap services.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
They've already captured a shitload. I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
Early indications are that it's a less chaotic fall of a regime than the US defeat of Saddam in 2003.
Looks like a chunk of Team Assad cut deals with various factions of the rebels, doesn't it?
It's certainly alleged the Syrian PM did a deal.
"The leader of the main armed opposition group in Syria says former Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali will supervise state institutions until they are handed over, as fighters declared an end to Bashar al-Assad’s 24-year rule."
Syria's on-the-ground transition is underway -- as #HTS leader Jolani, Salvation Gov't PM Mohammed al-Bashir & outgoing #Assad-appointed PM Mohammed al-Jalali are meeting in #Damascus.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
They've already captured a shitload. I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
Early indications are that it's a less chaotic fall of a regime than the US defeat of Saddam in 2003.
Looks like a chunk of Team Assad cut deals with various factions of the rebels, doesn't it?
It's certainly alleged the Syrian PM did a deal.
"The leader of the main armed opposition group in Syria says former Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali will supervise state institutions until they are handed over, as fighters declared an end to Bashar al-Assad’s 24-year rule."
If the end is nigh, best off doing deals and/or leaving to literally keep your head on your shoulders I think lol.
Also, genuinely, he may think it might be best for the country as well. And it probably is.
AIUI one of the massive mistakes the coalition did in Iraq in 2003 was the De-Ba'athification process. Yes, the mid levels of the old regime need to go in the medium term. But in the short term, keep them in place to help run things until they can slowly be replaced.
Yes, it grates - and ones who have committed crimes should face justice. But getting rid of the entire old regime in one go may cause absolute chaos.
It'll be interesting to see what happens with the old Syrian Arab Army bods. Will the junior ranks be allowed to stay in position after swearing loyalty to the new regime(s)?
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
To an extent. Constitutionalism has strong limits in the practical sphere. However, giving the state untrammelled power and expecting it not to be abused... it has failed every time it has been tried.
That's a different point. Also it's a general point. Untrammelled power in the hands of anybody or anything is prone to abuse. Look at Musk.
No, it isn't a different point.
If you build systems that give such untrammelled power then it will be used. If you build system precisely so that they don't, then it can't.
For example, the ID card system was supposed to link all government data to a single ID. And provide all of that data to anyone with access to the system. So, someone could key @kinabalu into the system, and get your tax record, your medical records, spent convictions, every time you had had contact with the police, your DNA (if recorded)..... Everything. What do you think the Reform government might do with that? Yes, indeed.
Comically, there were complaints within the top of the civil service. So they added a special segregated database for Important People. Where access would be blocked.
And how does this demonstrate that socialists believe human rights don't exist unless the government grants them?
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
To an extent. Constitutionalism has strong limits in the practical sphere. However, giving the state untrammelled power and expecting it not to be abused... it has failed every time it has been tried.
That's a different point. Also it's a general point. Untrammelled power in the hands of anybody or anything is prone to abuse. Look at Musk.
No, it isn't a different point.
If you build systems that give such untrammelled power then it will be used. If you build system precisely so that they don't, then it can't.
For example, the ID card system was supposed to link all government data to a single ID. And provide all of that data to anyone with access to the system. So, someone could key @kinabalu into the system, and get your tax record, your medical records, spent convictions, every time you had had contact with the police, your DNA (if recorded)..... Everything. What do you think the Reform government might do with that? Yes, indeed.
Comically, there were complaints within the top of the civil service. So they added a special segregated database for Important People. Where access would be blocked.
The latter is the model that is used within HMRC. Most people's records are in the normal database, accessible by everyone with any sort of access. And then there's a special database for the Gary Linekars and Boris Johnsons. The temptation to have a peek would be too great for most people.
I think in Norway they sort of get around this problem - at least for tax records - by making everyone's tax records publicly available.
“The (US) administration is in the process of doing a “real-time assessment” about HTS and its level of independence from Turkey and Turkey’s views on Syrian Kurds, and whether the group should be removed from the foreign terrorist organization list.” https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1865968015897976887
Yes, it would be awkward dealing with the new government is they're still designated as terrorists.
Whether or not they deserve such a reassessment will be clear pretty soon.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
They've already captured a shitload. I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
Early indications are that it's a less chaotic fall of a regime than the US defeat of Saddam in 2003.
Looks like a chunk of Team Assad cut deals with various factions of the rebels, doesn't it?
It's certainly alleged the Syrian PM did a deal.
"The leader of the main armed opposition group in Syria says former Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali will supervise state institutions until they are handed over, as fighters declared an end to Bashar al-Assad’s 24-year rule."
Syria's on-the-ground transition is underway -- as #HTS leader Jolani, Salvation Gov't PM Mohammed al-Bashir & outgoing #Assad-appointed PM Mohammed al-Jalali are meeting in #Damascus.
"On December 4 2024, al-Bashir travelled to Aleppo to supervise the reopening of government offices, praising employees of the previous government who returned to work."
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
To an extent. Constitutionalism has strong limits in the practical sphere. However, giving the state untrammelled power and expecting it not to be abused... it has failed every time it has been tried.
That's a different point. Also it's a general point. Untrammelled power in the hands of anybody or anything is prone to abuse. Look at Musk.
No, it isn't a different point.
If you build systems that give such untrammelled power then it will be used. If you build system precisely so that they don't, then it can't.
For example, the ID card system was supposed to link all government data to a single ID. And provide all of that data to anyone with access to the system. So, someone could key @kinabalu into the system, and get your tax record, your medical records, spent convictions, every time you had had contact with the police, your DNA (if recorded)..... Everything. What do you think the Reform government might do with that? Yes, indeed.
Comically, there were complaints within the top of the civil service. So they added a special segregated database for Important People. Where access would be blocked.
And how does this demonstrate that socialists believe human rights don't exist unless the government grants them?
It's about the convenience of the Benevolent State vs the rights of the individual.
Which has been one of the gaps between UK socialism and liberals since the two parted ways in the 19th cent.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
To an extent. Constitutionalism has strong limits in the practical sphere. However, giving the state untrammelled power and expecting it not to be abused... it has failed every time it has been tried.
That's a different point. Also it's a general point. Untrammelled power in the hands of anybody or anything is prone to abuse. Look at Musk.
No, it isn't a different point.
If you build systems that give such untrammelled power then it will be used. If you build system precisely so that they don't, then it can't.
For example, the ID card system was supposed to link all government data to a single ID. And provide all of that data to anyone with access to the system. So, someone could key @kinabalu into the system, and get your tax record, your medical records, spent convictions, every time you had had contact with the police, your DNA (if recorded)..... Everything. What do you think the Reform government might do with that? Yes, indeed.
Comically, there were complaints within the top of the civil service. So they added a special segregated database for Important People. Where access would be blocked.
The latter is the model that is used within HMRC. Most people's records are in the normal database, accessible by everyone with any sort of access. And then there's a special database for the Gary Linekars and Boris Johnsons. The temptation to have a peek would be too great for most people.
I think in Norway they sort of get around this problem - at least for tax records - by making everyone's tax records publicly available.
In systems that are GDPR (and other things) compliant, only those with a specific reason to see data should have access. Access must be logged. And only the data relevant to the enquiry should be provided.
Note the Hezbollah presence in Lebanon was very much courtesy of Syria.
Lebanese television station paying tribute to all those assassinated in Lebanon over the years by the Assad regime, starting with Druze leader Kamal Jumblatt in 1976, and including, but not limited to former PM Rafiq Hariri and leading intellectual Samir Kassir, killed in 2005. https://x.com/KimGhattas/status/1865929851699433715
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
They've already captured a shitload. I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
Let’s hope there’s not a load of stuff that’s leaving Syria only to end up in Ukraine.
Speaking of which, a good and new Perun video about Russian army equipment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzR8BacYS6U TL:DR, and the video is an hour long, they’ve got a year at best before they really start running out of important materials, if current rates of attrition and manufacture are maintained. A lot of the manufacture is actually refurbishment and updating of old kit from long-term storage, so there’s a finite amount of it left before they need to start making brand new stuff.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
People are motivated by belief. If people believe that they possess inherent rights then they are more likely to fight for them and insist that a government codifies those rights into law.
It also shapes the way those laws are written. Whether it's in terms of things that the state is not allowed to do, or in terms of what a citizen is allowed to do. That makes quite a difference, particularly when there's a gap in the law and a court is asked to interpret.
It's a belief I share. Universal human rights. I also recognise the importance of government in enshrining and enforcing them. Malmesbury's characterisation of it as the one vs the other doesn't really scan for me. It's more of a theory vs practice situation.
But then again, you couldn't see what was wrong with the ID card proposal.
That it clashed so severely, with later European law, should be of interest to you. The convenience of the state was quite explicitly made secondary to the rights of the individual.
The ID card calculus is a cost risk benefit one. The benefits are greater the more it's integrated but so are the costs and the risks. I'm not particularly gagging for one but I wouldn't rule it out on principle.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
To an extent. Constitutionalism has strong limits in the practical sphere. However, giving the state untrammelled power and expecting it not to be abused... it has failed every time it has been tried.
That's a different point. Also it's a general point. Untrammelled power in the hands of anybody or anything is prone to abuse. Look at Musk.
No, it isn't a different point.
If you build systems that give such untrammelled power then it will be used. If you build system precisely so that they don't, then it can't.
For example, the ID card system was supposed to link all government data to a single ID. And provide all of that data to anyone with access to the system. So, someone could key @kinabalu into the system, and get your tax record, your medical records, spent convictions, every time you had had contact with the police, your DNA (if recorded)..... Everything. What do you think the Reform government might do with that? Yes, indeed.
Comically, there were complaints within the top of the civil service. So they added a special segregated database for Important People. Where access would be blocked.
The latter is the model that is used within HMRC. Most people's records are in the normal database, accessible by everyone with any sort of access. And then there's a special database for the Gary Linekars and Boris Johnsons. The temptation to have a peek would be too great for most people.
I think in Norway they sort of get around this problem - at least for tax records - by making everyone's tax records publicly available.
In systems that are GDPR (and other things) compliant, only those with a specific reason to see data should have access. Access must be logged. And only the data relevant to the enquiry should be provided.
Access is logged, I believe. But HMRC would lose most of its staff if everyone nosy enough to glance at their neighbour's tax records was sacked.
There's something about the difficulty of looking up records in paper-based systems that has something to recommend it, in making this sort of low-level abuse more difficult.
There are things you could do to make it less likely. Throw a bit of grit into the system. Restrict access geographically. Require manual approval for a small percentage of access requests.
Comments
See Scotland.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/reform-uk-make-anas-sarwar-34212303
Did it again on AACC years later but I'd been to sea for 10+ years at that point and so didn't give a fuck about the smell (or taste) of anything.
On my USN Exchange we regularly used to blast each other with 'Law Enforcement Grade' pepper spray, which we could buy at the base PX, for a laugh. Maximum amusement could be derived by giving somebody a face full while they were driving a car or having a crap.
Rough flows are 400k Lab-to-Con and 100k Con-to-Lab. That's largely cancelled out by the 100k cradle-to-Lab and 100k Con-to-grave.
The important flows are the 1.4 million Lab-to-don't know/won't say compared to the 500k Con-to-DKWS.
Who has got their Shy Starmerite factors right?
Reeves is the most highly qualified Chancellor in a generation.
She's got a tin ear politically.
That in the medium and long term may be a massive advantage.
She's taken decisive action not just for 6 to 12 months of popularity and crack filling but as a start to fixing the foundations.
Let's not take any lessons from Hunt, Sunak, Kwarteng.
May be read what Ken Clarke has said.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
I actually got a wiff of Chlorine. A moron had caused an accident at a communal workshop, and I went there to try a sort things out. Took the beginnings of a sniff - then backed out of the door. Old style chemistry, from when I was a kid - I knew the smell and this was much, much stronger. The stupid bastard fucked himself up a bit, hurt some other idiots and rusted the fucking slide on a moderately nice lathe….
Buyers remorse for sure.
On current form your judgement is correct, mine was not. This govt really did overdo the economic doom and gloom scenario on taking office and I don't think people especially bought it being as bleak as they outlined.
Given there is a sizeable minority in Labour who think Reform and Farage are far right, jackbooted, fascists who would be annexing the Sudetenland if they had the chance I just cannot see it.
Which the Russians are evacuating now:
https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1866046755709833400
The rebels appear to have negotiated an agreement to let them leave without fighting. Which is another small data point offering hope for an orderly transition.
Would Reform want to support Labour? Well, both parties' voters probably like increased spending.
So it is certainly possible that Reform will support Labour. Whether it is likely is another matter.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
Cancel or modify the winter fuel allowance, shove up fuel duty instead.
It's been suggested that Ukrainian drones, and possibly a few personnel, were in Syria to help fight against Russians during the recent offensive. Ukrainian intelligence seemed to know a lot about what was going on in the first week of the offensive.
I'd expect they've been thanked for their help and told to go home now though.
He was critical of her tax raising timidity.
I further think that they would rule out any coalitions with the existing parties. A weak, minority government of *someone else* is exactly what they would want.
Doctrinaire Marxism has never been an influential strand of thinking on the left of British politics. Right from the start the focus was on achieving personal liberty as well as winning the class struggle - and in terms of results arguably the left's victories have been far greater with respect to the former.
This speech by David Miliband is a useful primer on how early Labour figures like Hardie were driven by concepts of liberty. The difference in quality with respect to Badenoch's speech is quite startling.
https://www.labourlist.org/2010/07/david-milibands-keir-hardie-lecture-full-speech
It also shapes the way those laws are written. Whether it's in terms of things that the state is not allowed to do, or in terms of what a citizen is allowed to do. That makes quite a difference, particularly when there's a gap in the law and a court is asked to interpret.
I got a laugh, when I was viewing a school for my youngest daughter. The teacher in the Chemistry lab wondered why I was staring at the ceiling. "It's so unmarked" - she was an old time teacher and knew exactly what I meant.
My daughter spent about a term learning how to use a Bunsen burner safely.....
I’m not going to write off Badenoch yet, just as I didn’t Sir Keir. I’d like to hear some more policies from her over time before I decide.
I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Also, for climatic regions it falls more heavily on unproductive regions like Scotland, the North of England and Northern Ireland.
So, yes, raising it and cutting corporate or payroll taxes is an excellent idea and would benefit the economy.
But it's politically unsellable to the Labour client base of benefit dependents, Northerners and other layabouts so it won't happen.
In April, pensions rise by 4.1 percent, when inflation is just over two percent and most benefits are rising by 1.7 percent. Even if you discount the much higher than inflation rise in April 2024, that's basically your WFA there.
Bottom line- pensions now are less stingy than they were in 1997 (i.e when current pensioners were paying taxes to fund their parents' pensions) and WFA has served its purpose.
There seems to be three likely outcomes.
The first being that it all goes fairly well. Probably the least likely. The evidence so far is it is going down that route, but we have seen that before, for it all to fall apart later. If it is successful then a large proportion of Syrians will return to Syria. I am surprised they are already doing so in such large numbers with the uncertainty, but that is a good sign. Hopefully (and reasonably so) they are more in the know than me.
The second possibility is the tolerant front is just that, a front, and we get an extreme Islamic state as in Afghanistan. People will not return or will leave in that case.
The third possibility is the country breaks down into inter-factional civil war and again people will not return or will leave.
That it clashed so severely, with later European law, should be of interest to you. The convenience of the state was quite explicitly made secondary to the rights of the individual.
"The leader of the main armed opposition group in Syria says former Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali will supervise state institutions until they are handed over, as fighters declared an end to Bashar al-Assad’s 24-year rule."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/8/ex-syrian-pm-to-supervise-state-bodies-until-transition-al-julani-says
Hence all the years of "OPEC has a hiccup. Recession Time!"
I have long advocated the theory that, by moving to non-fossil fuel transport system - cars, lorries, trains - we could eliminate this. And that would pay for the move to non-fossil fuel worth it, over the next couple of missed recessions. The Save The Planet bit is a freebie on top.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There’s no good time to have a really good go at simplifying the tax code or doing a zero-based budget, but year 1 of a landslide majority might have been a better time than any in recent years.
If you build systems that give such untrammelled power then it will be used. If you build system precisely so that they don't, then it can't.
For example, the ID card system was supposed to link all government data to a single ID. And provide all of that data to anyone with access to the system. So, someone could key @kinabalu into the system, and get your tax record, your medical records, spent convictions, every time you had had contact with the police, your DNA (if recorded)..... Everything. What do you think the Reform government might do with that? Yes, indeed.
Comically, there were complaints within the top of the civil service. So they added a special segregated database for Important People. Where access would be blocked.
Bashir is to be named #Syria's transitional Prime Minister.
https://x.com/Charles_Lister/status/1866094360028172289
AIUI one of the massive mistakes the coalition did in Iraq in 2003 was the De-Ba'athification process. Yes, the mid levels of the old regime need to go in the medium term. But in the short term, keep them in place to help run things until they can slowly be replaced.
Yes, it grates - and ones who have committed crimes should face justice. But getting rid of the entire old regime in one go may cause absolute chaos.
It'll be interesting to see what happens with the old Syrian Arab Army bods. Will the junior ranks be allowed to stay in position after swearing loyalty to the new regime(s)?
I think in Norway they sort of get around this problem - at least for tax records - by making everyone's tax records publicly available.
https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1865968015897976887
Yes, it would be awkward dealing with the new government is they're still designated as terrorists.
Whether or not they deserve such a reassessment will be clear pretty soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_al-Bashir
Sadly, it doesn't always go badly for ex-dictators. Imelda Marcos is 95 years old, and her son is now the president.
Which has been one of the gaps between UK socialism and liberals since the two parted ways in the 19th cent.
Lebanese television station paying tribute to all those assassinated in Lebanon over the years by the Assad regime, starting with Druze leader Kamal Jumblatt in 1976, and including, but not limited to former PM Rafiq Hariri and leading intellectual Samir Kassir, killed in 2005.
https://x.com/KimGhattas/status/1865929851699433715
Speaking of which, a good and new Perun video about Russian army equipment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzR8BacYS6U
TL:DR, and the video is an hour long, they’ve got a year at best before they really start running out of important materials, if current rates of attrition and manufacture are maintained. A lot of the manufacture is actually refurbishment and updating of old kit from long-term storage, so there’s a finite amount of it left before they need to start making brand new stuff.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card.
He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
There's something about the difficulty of looking up records in paper-based systems that has something to recommend it, in making this sort of low-level abuse more difficult.
There are things you could do to make it less likely. Throw a bit of grit into the system. Restrict access geographically. Require manual approval for a small percentage of access requests.