Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.
Should we blame Gordon Brown?
Of course.
He sold the gold!
Worse than selling the gold, he announced in advance he was going to do it and tanked the price as a result.
Also his famous “investment” that was mostly in tax credits, with actual capital investment transferred to the current account by way of PFI. Mr Brown, current spending is never investment.
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got over by now, but clearly not.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.
Unless you are 100% on message, happy clappy, about this labour govt there are a handful of people who deem you to be a Tory. Even if you have never voted for them in your life. It's like the Neocon Dubya view of nations, you're either with us or against us. A ridiculous mind set only deserving of being laughed at.
Real life is not that black and white. People can vote for a Party and dislike some of what they do or recognise the stupidity of some of their policies.
Rachel Reeves stewardship so far has proven to be poor. It needs to be called out the damage being inflicted. Especially at the sharp end.
Just a look at the day in day out front pages shows how much this new govt. are struggling.
You'd think they were 4 years 6 months into a term, not 6 months.
But life comes at your fast when you have to do something, rather than just oppose.
Exactly and the "govt in waiting" they presented themselves as has rather fallen apart with unforced error after unforced error and upthread Eek/Horse are exactly right about Reeves. She boxed herself in needlessly before the election making commitments not to raise certain taxes or go for the Triple Lock or change council tax bands.
Should have simply said "no plans", got into office, done what is needed without hammering employers with a jobs tax, and took the short term hit as in 3 years time it will be a different picture.
The parties of the left never have any plans for government. They exist to denegrate the parties of the right. The Lib Dems are even worse than Labour in this. In 2010 Cameron tried to negociate a plan for government. The Lib Dems had no opinion on anything and nothing to bring to the table at all. Then they spent five years attacking the government they were meant to be a part of. But, nemesis arrived in 2015.
"I will not ban smacking on England until we've had time to assess that legislation in Wales and Scotland"
Thank God serious politics is back.
Launching new Child safety legislation today
Prompt action Considered thoughtful assessment
After a plethora of short term incumbents in Education in past 14 years driven by dogma not careful consideration Phillipson has made an excellent start.
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
You must be reading a different forum....
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...
Downing Street has refused to rule out returning Britain to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for the first time since Brexit as the price of Sir Keir Starmer’s reset with the bloc.
At a meeting this week ministers from the European Union are expected to demand that the government agrees to follow new and existing European law on food and agricultural standards as part of an improved trade deal.
Britain would also be obliged to follow rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in specific areas as part of a new trade and co-operation agreement.
Both issues were a red line for the former Conservative government when the original trade and co-operation agreement was signed. It resulted in the imposition of new checks and restrictions on UK exports to the EU that are believed to have cost the economy £3 billion a year.
Cue the populist right / mad Tories foaming on about how this would be the End Of Britain. True patriots will pay the stupidity tax.
If companies want to export to the EU then they'll have to comply with EU standards, you can see it with the quiet abandonment of the UK standard mark prior to the GE. EU standards are a global recognised standard that are cited in technical specifications, you can have your own mark but it'll have to be equivalent to a global standard and thus becomes redundant, Any deviation just creates inefficiency.
The problem is that the EU regulations are often very poorly thought out and badly written. Most stuff we make is not for export, but internal consumption. No-one has ever disputed that to export to the EU we would have to meet their standards (their gaff, their rules!), the issue is that because their standards are often stupid and ultimately wealth destroying (e.g. I've spent many thousands of pounds and wasted countless hours completely pointlessly to comply with bits of the Pressure Equipment Directive which are plain wrong) we shouldn't be applying them for products made in the UK for UK consumption. That savings from regulating UK stuff intelligently* should be vastly more than the quoted £3 billion costs to exporters. If Starmer takes us back into compliance with all EU regulations, he's even more stupid that I thought he was.
*This does require that we regulate intelligently - unfortunately the last government mainly just transposed EU directives into UK law anyway, rather than considering them on their merits.
This illustrates the insoluble problem. Both being in and out of the EU is, for the UK, highly unsatisfactory.
Very few were given the choices they wanted in 2016. What most wanted was this. Best: an EU which had been shaped differently by the UK being given referendums earlier. Second best: A reformed EU.
The first was unsayable by mainstream politicos, as they had all been complicit in this epic fail. The second, we concluded, was not going to happen.
An awful lot of us wanted to be inside the single market but either outside the EU or suitably detached from its long term ambitions
Don’t disagree, but that’s all gone now. The issue for those advocating we align with the EU and ECJ is that the gains are marginal, but the risks quite high. We can already see it is taking silly positions on things like AI, and other major divergences are foreseeable. All that makes any long term alignment unsustainable, and we know we will never join the EU now. That’s a given because of the Euro, Schengen, etc.
The Norway option was always the best available, and still is.
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got over by now, but clearly not.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.
Unless you are 100% on message, happy clappy, about this labour govt there are a handful of people who deem you to be a Tory. Even if you have never voted for them in your life. It's like the Neocon Dubya view of nations, you're either with us or against us. A ridiculous mind set only deserving of being laughed at.
Real life is not that black and white. People can vote for a Party and dislike some of what they do or recognise the stupidity of some of their policies.
Rachel Reeves stewardship so far has proven to be poor. It needs to be called out the damage being inflicted. Especially at the sharp end.
Nobody here had a good word to say about the last government, in the two years or so prior to the election. Nor did they deserve a good word.
People simply complain about bad governments (which this one is, like the last one).
Absolutely and however poor this Labour govt has been so far, and it really has not been a great start, the Previous administration certainly did not deserve another term in office. At the end it felt like the last days of the Brown administration.
But where this govt fails or does a poor job it should be called out.
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
You must be reading a different forum....
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...
Of course you are right and the sooner we can rid the site of all these disrespectful off message centrist dad (and mum) posters the better the site becomes. I'd start with @Mexicanpete, @Shecorns88 Horse and Anabob. There are a handful of others that have no business being here either. Make PB Great Again!
I'm amazed you can get that reading from what I wrote.
I'm a snowflake.
I'm right though aren't I? The PB GROTS campaign. "Get rid of traitorous scumbags".
Your comment is so over-the-top I'd be surprised if you had not just obtained the entirety of the world's helium supply...
Things don't seem to be going well for Russia at the moment. Kirillov would have been involved in both Salisbury poisonings and Syria according to expert on BBC News atm.
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
You must be reading a different forum....
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...
Of course you are right and the sooner we can rid the site of all these disrespectful off message centrist dad (and mum) posters the better the site becomes. I'd start with @Mexicanpete, @Shecorns88 Horse and Anabob. There are a handful of others that have no business being here either. Make PB Great Again!
I'm amazed you can get that reading from what I wrote.
I'm a snowflake.
I'm right though aren't I? The PB GROTS campaign. "Get rid of traitorous scumbags".
Your comment is so over-the-top I'd be surprised if you had not just obtained the entirety of the world's helium supply...
Imagine what an improved site we would have if every post was a "Reeves is shit" post. That has to be the aim for 2025.
Well, it was hardly "Rishi is great" on here before the GE, was it?
Perhaps, just perhaps, people veer not towards being anti-Labour, but anti-anything. It sometimes feel as though PB is predominantly filled with negativity towards lots of things - and not just politics. People rant, rather than rave.
It's just that Labour are in power, and are having to make decisions. That makes them a ripe target.
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.
The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.
So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.
A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.
Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.
But to justify the increased investment spending governments need to cut the consumption spending.
And that's where they need to show some political courage.
I disagree conceptually, they are separate things. The level of consumption spending and tax rates are a matter of choice and preference. Whether those stayed the same or changed I would still be in favour of borrowing to invest in housing and associated infrastructure.
Now is a particularly auspicious time for government to invest, because:
- The UK's creditworthiness relative to other major economies is quite solid, and the cost of debt is starting to fall / Sterling is getting a tad strong - The UK's economy lacks spare infrastructure capacity and has done for ages, so there is very little risk of this triggering an investment bust and surplus capacity - Other Western countries, with the exception of the US which is able to keep splurging because of its reserve currency, are not looking hugely investable at the moment. Japan is slowly picking itself up but France and Germany are in the doldrums, Italy remains difficult, Korea is politically volatile, China has surplus capacity, Saudi funds itself and Russia is off limits. - Business investment remains low so there's an argument for government to step in to take up some of the slack
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
You must be reading a different forum....
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
I would say Starmer has more supporters on here percentage wise than he does amongst the general UK population
Pro Rata that's possibly true. On here Starmer is supported by @Shecorns88 from a cohort of a thousand. In the greater population Starmer is supported by @Shecorns88 from a cohort of 67 million.
Mainly the synthetic opioids, but a significant decrease in deaths from other drugs, too.
This coincides with liberal cities giving up on "harm reduction" strategies and shifting resources back to prevention. Though too early to say it's the cause though.
Does it not also correlate with an increase in the availability of methadone for treating addicts ?
Not methadone, narcan/Naloxone being given to all emergency services including Police but the drop also implies that there are fewer people starting a journey on fentanyl than there are exiting either through death or rehab.
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.
The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.
So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.
A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.
Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.
But to justify the increased investment spending governments need to cut the consumption spending.
And that's where they need to show some political courage.
I disagree conceptually, they are separate things. The level of consumption spending and tax rates are a matter of choice and preference. Whether those stayed the same or changed I would still be in favour of borrowing to invest in housing and associated infrastructure.
Now is a particularly auspicious time for government to invest, because:
- The UK's creditworthiness relative to other major economies is quite solid, and the cost of debt is starting to fall / Sterling is getting a tad strong - The UK's economy lacks spare infrastructure capacity and has done for ages, so there is very little risk of this triggering an investment bust and surplus capacity - Other Western countries, with the exception of the US which is able to keep splurging because of its reserve currency, are not looking hugely investable at the moment. Japan is slowly picking itself up but France and Germany are in the doldrums, Italy remains difficult, Korea is politically volatile, China has surplus capacity, Saudi funds itself and Russia is off limits. - Business investment remains low so there's an argument for government to step in to take up some of the slack
Thatcher created a housing crisis for generations by selling off Council Houses at disgusting low prices to buy votes.
Anyone remember Dame Shirley Porter.
Then exacerbated the damage Ten fold by not allowing Councils to rebuild with even meagre proceeds.
State intervention NOW for the precise and logical reasons you state would be very welcome
Country first Politics second.
Not just new builds.
Please please lets reinvigorate our failing and broken High Streets and suburbs by moving empty suitable Commercial Properties in to decent affordable social housing.
Optimise the services and utilities available.
Buy up empty failing and closed old Holiday Parks and do the same thing
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got over by now, but clearly not.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.
The government has not had the most promising of starts, but a little perspective is sometimes in order - we'll run out of suitable descriptors for 4-5 years in when things actually start going to hell otherwise.
I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.
I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
If any senior politician reads the comment section on any blog I hope they lose their jobs for poor judgement. I doubt any do.
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
You must be reading a different forum....
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
I would say Starmer has more supporters on here percentage wise than he does amongst the general UK population
Pro Rata that's possibly true. On here Starmer is supported by @Shecorns88 from a cohort of a thousand. In the greater population Starmer is supported by @Shecorns88 from a cohort of 67 million.
You can come back in 2028 or 2029 and acknowledge your lack of vision
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.
It shouldn't have merited a news conference. Convicted person continues to seek means of overturning conviction is not significant news until any new attempts are tested in court. But the sensational nature of the events means every new thing (and plenty of things that are not new) gets attention.
The point I was making was that it doesn’t matter what Labour do, some people will ALWAYS oppose them.
They have made many mistakes but some people are only criticise.
The Tories didn’t do a lot of good things but I am prepared to say where they did. Namely, BDUK and the SRN. Both projects carried on by Labour without change.
I don’t have an issue with @Taz opposing what Labour do. He’s not a Tory who always opposes. I don’t have an issue with most of the Tories here opposing.
But there are a select few who only oppose. They’ve clearly not got over the fact they lost yet. It just makes the site a bit dull, that’s all.
I am struggling to understand how anyone can conclude this government are worse than the last one. Who cut HS2 out of spite.
I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
If any senior politician reads the comment section on any blog I hope they lose their jobs for poor judgement. I doubt any do.
Perish the thought that they took the advice on here.
We'd end up with draconian rules forcing businesses to accept shillings and groats, 40mph limits in residential streets across our nation's neighbourhoods, an abolition of all planning rules and censorship of the tube scene in Darkest Hour.
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
You must be reading a different forum....
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...
Of course you are right and the sooner we can rid the site of all these disrespectful off message centrist dad (and mum) posters the better the site becomes. I'd start with @Mexicanpete, @Shecorns88 Horse and Anabob. There are a handful of others that have no business being here either. Make PB Great Again!
I'm amazed you can get that reading from what I wrote.
I'm a snowflake.
I'm right though aren't I? The PB GROTS campaign. "Get rid of traitorous scumbags".
Your comment is so over-the-top I'd be surprised if you had not just obtained the entirety of the world's helium supply...
Imagine what an improved site we would have if every post was a "Reeves is shit" post. That has to be the aim for 2025.
Well, it was hardly "Rishi is great" on here before the GE, was it?
Perhaps, just perhaps, people veer not towards being anti-Labour, but anti-anything. It sometimes feel as though PB is predominantly filled with negativity towards lots of things - and not just politics. People rant, rather than rave.
It's just that Labour are in power, and are having to make decisions. That makes them a ripe target.
It's a bit more focused than your last point.
The last Government under Sunak was derided for stuff like canning HS2 and the laughable Rwanda scheme but there were still as many advocates as there were detractors. And that is OK. At peak Johnson meltdown, lots were laughing at him, but he still had a decent number of fanbois. And that's fine. There is a visceral hatred displayed on here for Starmer and Reeves and I don't mind, I don't know or care for them, but I did believe I was allowed to comment if I disagreed with a narrative, likewise my critiques of Trump, but check out all my "flags" from the week before last. It suggests dissent will be punished.
If I don't like reading all the "Reeves is shit" posts I agree I am more than welcome to f*** off.
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.
It shouldn't have merited a news conference. Convicted person continues to seek means of overturning conviction is not significant news until any new attempts are tested in court. But the sensational nature of the events means every new thing (and plenty of things that are not new) get attention.
It sounds very much like they’re trying to build up a media ‘narrative’ ahead of an appeal, rather than actually bring forward any new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the original trial.
The point I was making was that it doesn’t matter what Labour do, some people will ALWAYS oppose them.
They have made many mistakes but some people are only criticise.
The Tories didn’t do a lot of good things but I am prepared to say where they did. Namely, BDUK and the SRN. Both projects carried on by Labour without change.
I don’t have an issue with @Taz opposing what Labour do. He’s not a Tory who always opposes. I don’t have an issue with most of the Tories here opposing.
But there are a select few who only oppose. They’ve clearly not got over the fact they lost yet. It just makes the site a bit dull, that’s all.
I am struggling to understand how anyone can conclude this government are worse than the last one. Who cut HS2 out of spite.
"But there are a select few who only oppose."
You sorta make the point I made below: some people criticise everyone and everything. They criticised the last government, and now they are criticising this one. For some (not all), it's not a case of being anti-Labour: it's a case of just wanting to grumble.
I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
I've never posted on here under any name or alias.
I tried many times to register but the platform didn't send set up messages for a while to Gmail accounts
Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.
But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?
See my point about waiting - all she needed was a decent justification.
The next election is 2028/9 she had 3 years during which the tax increases would have been forgotten during which time things may have improved to ensure people forgot about them.
Get all you bad news dealt with early is something this government is failing to do and it’s going to bite them
I’m not sure I really agree. They have got all of the bad news out the way early. It’s obvious they hope in a year there’s a load of good news around the NMW, immigration etc and people will forgive them. Look at the focus groups as a hint.
I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
If any senior politician reads the comment section on any blog I hope they lose their jobs for poor judgement. I doubt any do.
It's a better time waster than Westminster Whatsapp groups .
We'd end up with draconian rules forcing businesses to accept shillings and groats, 40mph limits in residential streets across our nation's neighbourhoods, an abolition of all planning rules and censorship of the tube scene in Darkest Hour.
For an insight into judgment, look at all the people now who supported Johnson at the time as a brilliant PM that would govern for a decade. I can’t remember how many times I was laughed at for saying SKS would be PM and Johnson wouldn’t last.
These same people now tell us SKS is a dud.
Do I think SKS has had a poor start. Yes. Is it entirely his fault? I’m afraid I don’t think so.
I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.
It shouldn't have merited a news conference. Convicted person continues to seek means of overturning conviction is not significant news until any new attempts are tested in court. But the sensational nature of the events means every new thing (and plenty of things that are not new) get attention.
It sounds very much like they’re trying to build up a media ‘narrative’ ahead of an appeal, rather than actually bring forward any new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the original trial.
It was an extremely long and complicated trial. That doesn't absolutely guarantee the end result was correct, but it should probably make people more wary of being persuaded by very brief one line explanations of why it all cannot be true that get floated about the internet as gotchas.
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.
The mysterious doctor who killed one of babies himself but kept quiet about it appears to be new. And what about the exculpatory statistical evidence? Are they still going with that or has it been quietly dropped?
Dipping in and out of reporting it feels like the general 'defence' is that it was a complete basketcase of incompetence from top to bottom, but I presume any report will be a tad more nuanced than that.
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
You must be reading a different forum....
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
I would say Starmer has more supporters on here percentage wise than he does amongst the general UK population
Does the fact one of his supporters has about six identities shift the average at all?
I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
I've never posted on here under any name or alias.
I tried many times to register but the platform didn't send set up messages for a while to Gmail accounts
TSE did refer to this issue at the time.
I tried again a while back and the mail arrived.
You tell him Leon*...
* I don't believe that. I suspect the reference is to Heatherner and Mystic Rose. They were both posters I really liked. Mystic was particularly helpful during the 2020 Presidential election. If you are all Leon's alter ego I much prefer his alter egos.
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got over by now, but clearly not.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.
Unless you are 100% on message, happy clappy, about this labour govt there are a handful of people who deem you to be a Tory. Even if you have never voted for them in your life. It's like the Neocon Dubya view of nations, you're either with us or against us. A ridiculous mind set only deserving of being laughed at.
Real life is not that black and white. People can vote for a Party and dislike some of what they do or recognise the stupidity of some of their policies.
Rachel Reeves stewardship so far has proven to be poor. It needs to be called out the damage being inflicted. Especially at the sharp end.
Nobody here had a good word to say about the last government, in the two years or so prior to the election. Nor did they deserve a good word.
People simply complain about bad governments (which this one is, like the last one).
The difference now is that the hope has gone. I was on the more critical end of the spectrum of Starmer before the election, but I can tell now that I subconsciously had an implicit belief that there was a lot more there that they weren't showing. And there isn't. No hidden depths.
The Tories have learnt nothing useful from their defeat. The Lib Dems seem absent. Farage is as good at agitprop as ever, but RefUK are the answer to the question: "How do you make the government of Liz Truss look competent and able?"
Good to see local government (potentially) being sorted out. It’s an abject mess in most places. Two-tier councils are pointless, and cities like Nottingham and Manchester have ludicrously tight boundaries that make no geographical sense and should have been expanded decades ago.
JFDI.
That scraping noise is the West Bridgford Maquis sharpening the inherited Victorinox Oyster Shuckers they have left over from 1972...
Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.
But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?
See my point about waiting - all she needed was a decent justification.
The next election is 2028/9 she had 3 years during which the tax increases would have been forgotten during which time things may have improved to ensure people forgot about them.
Get all you bad news dealt with early is something this government is failing to do and it’s going to bite them
I’m not sure I really agree. They have got all of the bad news out the way early. It’s obvious they hope in a year there’s a load of good news around the NMW, immigration etc and people will forgive them. Look at the focus groups as a hint.
Much of the potential honeymoon was lost to Frockgate – which was Currygate on steroids.
What Labour was guilty of was naivety. The episode has gone down in the public consciousness as politicians' wives spending taxpayers' cash on glamorous outfits.
Of course, taxpayers didn't pay a penny as the wardrobe was funded by a Labour donor, but that got lost in the maelstrom due to a combination of press hyperbole and Labour's amateurish media management at the time.
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
You must be reading a different forum....
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
I would say Starmer has more supporters on here percentage wise than he does amongst the general UK population
Does the fact one of his supporters has about six identities shift the average at all?
That would scupper HY's theories as they cancel each other out. Totting up, wouldn't that put Starmer on minus 5 out of the 6 identities?
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.
Should we blame Gordon Brown?
Of course.
He sold the gold!
Sorry! I didn't add you to my persona non grata list.
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
You never have to pay it back. You roll it over and grow it. Nothing inconsistent with that. You need to keep the growth in debt roughly in line with the growth in your GDP. It would be calamitous for the economy to pay it all back!
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.
It shouldn't have merited a news conference. Convicted person continues to seek means of overturning conviction is not significant news until any new attempts are tested in court. But the sensational nature of the events means every new thing (and plenty of things that are not new) get attention.
It sounds very much like they’re trying to build up a media ‘narrative’ ahead of an appeal, rather than actually bring forward any new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the original trial.
I think they will be trying to get the CCRC to look at it first. But even if they have nothing much really, for now they have to look as if they are progressing, so that the client and the campaigners have something to look at.
I think this will run and run. My suspicion is that there are experts (lawyers and medics) who conscientiously think that there may have been flaws in the trial process, but many fewer who think a real injustice has been done. Further that the CCRC/Court of Appeal won't move unless it is clear that the prosecution/judicial aspects of the trial were deeply flawed. I don't think the defence tactics will become an issue. If I am wrong, then it will become an interesting fight.
Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.
But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?
See my point about waiting - all she needed was a decent justification.
The next election is 2028/9 she had 3 years during which the tax increases would have been forgotten during which time things may have improved to ensure people forgot about them.
Get all you bad news dealt with early is something this government is failing to do and it’s going to bite them
I’m not sure I really agree. They have got all of the bad news out the way early. It’s obvious they hope in a year there’s a load of good news around the NMW, immigration etc and people will forgive them. Look at the focus groups as a hint.
Much of the potential honeymoon was lost to Frockgate – which was Currygate on steroids.
What Labour was guilty of was naivety. The episode has gone down in the public consciousness as politicians' wives spending taxpayers' cash on glamorous outfits.
Of course, taxpayers didn't pay a penny as the wardrobe was funded by a Labour donor, but that got lost in the maelstrom due to a combination of press hyperbole and Labour's amateurish media management at the time.
Still think that whole affair was overblown.
A Labour donor was apparently buying influence by…supporting Labour policies?
The Tories as usual opposed it but only when they were out of government.
And that’s the thing, they had 14 years to make change. They did sod all. That is by far the most powerful weapon Labour has against them. And they will deploy it just as Osborne did.
Just a reminder that if we had a surplus instead of a debt then we wouldn't be spending a fortune in debt interest payments but receiving income that way as a creditor.
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
You never have to pay it back. You roll it over and grow it. Nothing inconsistent with that. You need to keep the growth in debt roughly in line with the growth in your GDP. It would be calamitous for the economy to pay it all back!
How's that project about growth in debt and GDP getting on so far?
For an insight into judgment, look at all the people now who supported Johnson at the time as a brilliant PM that would govern for a decade. I can’t remember how many times I was laughed at for saying SKS would be PM and Johnson wouldn’t last.
These same people now tell us SKS is a dud.
Do I think SKS has had a poor start. Yes. Is it entirely his fault? I’m afraid I don’t think so.
Actually I think WFA was much more impactful in destroying Labours honeymoon than frockgate.
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.
The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.
So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.
A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.
Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.
But to justify the increased investment spending governments need to cut the consumption spending.
And that's where they need to show some political courage.
I disagree conceptually, they are separate things. The level of consumption spending and tax rates are a matter of choice and preference. Whether those stayed the same or changed I would still be in favour of borrowing to invest in housing and associated infrastructure.
Now is a particularly auspicious time for government to invest, because:
- The UK's creditworthiness relative to other major economies is quite solid, and the cost of debt is starting to fall / Sterling is getting a tad strong - The UK's economy lacks spare infrastructure capacity and has done for ages, so there is very little risk of this triggering an investment bust and surplus capacity - Other Western countries, with the exception of the US which is able to keep splurging because of its reserve currency, are not looking hugely investable at the moment. Japan is slowly picking itself up but France and Germany are in the doldrums, Italy remains difficult, Korea is politically volatile, China has surplus capacity, Saudi funds itself and Russia is off limits. - Business investment remains low so there's an argument for government to step in to take up some of the slack
Thatcher created a housing crisis for generations by selling off Council Houses at disgusting low prices to buy votes.
Anyone remember Dame Shirley Porter.
Then exacerbated the damage Ten fold by not allowing Councils to rebuild with even meagre proceeds.
State intervention NOW for the precise and logical reasons you state would be very welcome
Country first Politics second.
Not just new builds.
Please please lets reinvigorate our failing and broken High Streets and suburbs by moving empty suitable Commercial Properties in to decent affordable social housing.
Optimise the services and utilities available.
Buy up empty failing and closed old Holiday Parks and do the same thing
Get Britain building
Country first Politics second
Also the Green Belt. There is a fair chunk of the Green Belt ripe for development that should be a no brainer. Not rolling green countryside, which is what people automatically assume the Green Belt is.
Stuff like old car parks, old factories and the like. Been plenty of pics on twitter. Build on them and build up too.
This is one area where I like what Labour are doing. Focussing on build build build. There are still problems holding up building such as Nutrient Neutrality demands.
Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.
But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?
See my point about waiting - all she needed was a decent justification.
The next election is 2028/9 she had 3 years during which the tax increases would have been forgotten during which time things may have improved to ensure people forgot about them.
Get all you bad news dealt with early is something this government is failing to do and it’s going to bite them
It does appear that they’ve managed to burn through a disproportionate of political capital, compared to the amount of money raised for the Treasury.
It would have been way easier to say that the last government left a totally unsustainable budget, so income tax was unavoidably going up to 22% and 42% for the duration of this Parliament, and that they were planning to undo the rises ahead of the next election.
Yes they’d have taken the immediate hit, but instead they’ve managed to piss off a load of specific groups (pensioners, farmers etc) who can organise themselves, while making every other group think they might be next.
Had Labour backtracked on their income tax promise, every other post on PB would be complaining about how Labour lied. For months, probably years.
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.
We loaded up for consumption instead.
The UK has had a cumulative balance of payments deficit of over a trillion quid during the last twenty years.
You could have a lot of investment for that.
The line between consumption and investment isn't clear tbf. There's an argument for just looking at borrowing as borrowing. You can't frig it then.
And my point on rates does draw on hindsight. In practice I don't think the government is in the business of forecasting where rates are going when they borrow. That would be more of a "trading" concept. I think they more just meet the liquidity needs and try to create a balanced maturity profile. I've never worked for the Treasury or the BOE though so perhaps there's more to it.
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
You never have to pay it back. You roll it over and grow it. Nothing inconsistent with that. You need to keep the growth in debt roughly in line with the growth in your GDP. It would be calamitous for the economy to pay it all back!
How's that project about growth in debt and GDP getting on so far?
Debt is levelling out at about 100% of GDP which is fine. A typical UK household would be happy to have net debt including mortgages equal to annual income. So would a company. I know the government figures are large numbers but the prinicple is the same. Actually, the government can also print money unlike a household or company.
I think it's good news. We've been in a low wage spiral and therefore not spending anywhere near enough on technology. It's easier to automate in manufacturing than services, so if manufacturing pay is rising then that implies some companies are or will be making the right investment decisions.
It also implies that the impact of the forthcoming NI changes isn't yet being factored into pay settlements, though there is probably a lag there.
For an insight into judgment, look at all the people now who supported Johnson at the time as a brilliant PM that would govern for a decade. I can’t remember how many times I was laughed at for saying SKS would be PM and Johnson wouldn’t last.
These same people now tell us SKS is a dud.
Do I think SKS has had a poor start. Yes. Is it entirely his fault? I’m afraid I don’t think so.
Actually I think WFA was much more impactful in destroying Labours honeymoon than frockgate.
Again, that was bonkers. The WFA was a daft bung - a Gordon Brown freebie - that is without justification and should have been abolished long ago. Reeves is right to stick to her guns.
Downing Street has refused to rule out returning Britain to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for the first time since Brexit as the price of Sir Keir Starmer’s reset with the bloc.
At a meeting this week ministers from the European Union are expected to demand that the government agrees to follow new and existing European law on food and agricultural standards as part of an improved trade deal.
Britain would also be obliged to follow rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in specific areas as part of a new trade and co-operation agreement.
Both issues were a red line for the former Conservative government when the original trade and co-operation agreement was signed. It resulted in the imposition of new checks and restrictions on UK exports to the EU that are believed to have cost the economy £3 billion a year.
Cue the populist right / mad Tories foaming on about how this would be the End Of Britain. True patriots will pay the stupidity tax.
If companies want to export to the EU then they'll have to comply with EU standards, you can see it with the quiet abandonment of the UK standard mark prior to the GE. EU standards are a global recognised standard that are cited in technical specifications, you can have your own mark but it'll have to be equivalent to a global standard and thus becomes redundant, Any deviation just creates inefficiency.
The problem is that the EU regulations are often very poorly thought out and badly written. Most stuff we make is not for export, but internal consumption. No-one has ever disputed that to export to the EU we would have to meet their standards (their gaff, their rules!), the issue is that because their standards are often stupid and ultimately wealth destroying (e.g. I've spent many thousands of pounds and wasted countless hours completely pointlessly to comply with bits of the Pressure Equipment Directive which are plain wrong) we shouldn't be applying them for products made in the UK for UK consumption. That savings from regulating UK stuff intelligently* should be vastly more than the quoted £3 billion costs to exporters. If Starmer takes us back into compliance with all EU regulations, he's even more stupid that I thought he was.
*This does require that we regulate intelligently - unfortunately the last government mainly just transposed EU directives into UK law anyway, rather than considering them on their merits.
This illustrates the insoluble problem. Both being in and out of the EU is, for the UK, highly unsatisfactory.
Very few were given the choices they wanted in 2016. What most wanted was this. Best: an EU which had been shaped differently by the UK being given referendums earlier. Second best: A reformed EU.
The first was unsayable by mainstream politicos, as they had all been complicit in this epic fail. The second, we concluded, was not going to happen.
An awful lot of us wanted to be inside the single market but either outside the EU or suitably detached from its long term ambitions
Don’t disagree, but that’s all gone now. The issue for those advocating we align with the EU and ECJ is that the gains are marginal, but the risks quite high. We can already see it is taking silly positions on things like AI, and other major divergences are foreseeable. All that makes any long term alignment unsustainable, and we know we will never join the EU now. That’s a given because of the Euro, Schengen, etc.
The Norway option was always the best available, and still is.
Totally disagree, that is worse than both of being fully in or fully out. Norway have to do as they're told, more or less. If we have to obey the rules, we should be inside the club setting them. Otherwise, stay out properly and set our own. That we haven't is the fault of the Brexiteers for not actually having any ideas.
This is convincing as Norway is a complete basket case.
One difference from us is that they didn't squander their North Sea Oil proceeds.
Another is that the political class (mostly) want to be in the EU anyway but the referendum failed, and the current status quo seems to be an acceptable compromise (and they are in Schengen). As a smaller country they are more used to having to fall in line with others anyway.
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.
Should we blame Gordon Brown?
Of course.
He sold the gold!
Worse than selling the gold, he announced in advance he was going to do it and tanked the price as a result.
Also his famous “investment” that was mostly in tax credits, with actual capital investment transferred to the current account by way of PFI. Mr Brown, current spending is never investment.
An overrated CoE imo but he still makes most current pols look like midgets.
I think it's good news. We've been in a low wage spiral and therefore not spending anywhere near enough on technology. It's easier to automate in manufacturing than services, so if manufacturing pay is rising then that implies some companies are or will be making the right investment decisions.
It also implies that the impact of the forthcoming NI changes isn't yet being factored into pay settlements, though there is probably a lag there.
We have a couple of automation projects currently on hold due to current business conditions, we need to apply to corporate head office for funding, however once funding is available we will be full speed ahead with them.
I expect there to be a lag as many of these pay awards coming through now will have been negotiated and agreed prior to the budget. It is next years awards that will be interesting.
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
You never have to pay it back. You roll it over and grow it. Nothing inconsistent with that. You need to keep the growth in debt roughly in line with the growth in your GDP. It would be calamitous for the economy to pay it all back!
How's that project about growth in debt and GDP getting on so far?
Debt is levelling out at about 100% of GDP which is fine. A typical UK household would be happy to have net debt including mortgages equal to annual income. So would a company. I know the government figures are large numbers but the prinicple is the same. Actually, the government can also print money unlike a household or company.
It's now also the norm in almost all large developed economies, except the parsimonious Germany and the less public-funded South Korea. Well North of 100% in the US, France, Italy and Canada, and over 200% in Japan. So we have the second lowest debt:gdp ratio in the G7.
Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.
But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?
See my point about waiting - all she needed was a decent justification.
The next election is 2028/9 she had 3 years during which the tax increases would have been forgotten during which time things may have improved to ensure people forgot about them.
Get all you bad news dealt with early is something this government is failing to do and it’s going to bite them
It does appear that they’ve managed to burn through a disproportionate of political capital, compared to the amount of money raised for the Treasury.
It would have been way easier to say that the last government left a totally unsustainable budget, so income tax was unavoidably going up to 22% and 42% for the duration of this Parliament, and that they were planning to undo the rises ahead of the next election.
Yes they’d have taken the immediate hit, but instead they’ve managed to piss off a load of specific groups (pensioners, farmers etc) who can organise themselves, while making every other group think they might be next.
Had Labour backtracked on their income tax promise, every other post on PB would be complaining about how Labour lied. For months, probably years.
They couldn't break that pledge. The argument with more legs is whether they should have made it. I understand why they did whilst wishing they hadn't.
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.
We loaded up for consumption instead.
The UK has had a cumulative balance of payments deficit of over a trillion quid during the last twenty years.
You could have a lot of investment for that.
The line between consumption and investment isn't clear tbf. There's an argument for just looking at borrowing as borrowing. You can't frig it then.
And my point on rates does draw on hindsight. In practice I don't think the government is in the business of forecasting where rates are going when they borrow. That would be more of a "trading" concept. I think they more just meet the liquidity needs and try to create a balanced maturity profile. I've never worked for the Treasury or the BOE though so perhaps there's more to it.
On the consumption vs investment - whenever this comes up, politicians redefine investment to mean “all the spending I want”.
I think it's good news. We've been in a low wage spiral and therefore not spending anywhere near enough on technology. It's easier to automate in manufacturing than services, so if manufacturing pay is rising then that implies some companies are or will be making the right investment decisions.
It also implies that the impact of the forthcoming NI changes isn't yet being factored into pay settlements, though there is probably a lag there.
We have a couple of automation projects currently on hold due to current business conditions, we need to apply to corporate head office for funding, however once funding is available we will be full speed ahead with them.
I expect there to be a lag as many of these pay awards coming through now will have been negotiated and agreed prior to the budget. It is next years awards that will be interesting.
I think - I hope - that almost regardless of political decisions there is a backlog of automation that businesses across most sectors are going to have to catch up on in the next few years. The technology is out there. The trouble is so many have blown their tech budgets on S4Hana implementations.
Where I am we're certainly massively upping the amount of investment spending that goes into technology rather than just hiring more senior people.
I think it's good news. We've been in a low wage spiral and therefore not spending anywhere near enough on technology. It's easier to automate in manufacturing than services, so if manufacturing pay is rising then that implies some companies are or will be making the right investment decisions.
It also implies that the impact of the forthcoming NI changes isn't yet being factored into pay settlements, though there is probably a lag there.
If factory wages are going up due to automation/productivity increases then that should come through in economic growth. We are not seeing that at the moment, perhaps we will..
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.
The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.
So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.
A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.
Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.
But to justify the increased investment spending governments need to cut the consumption spending.
And that's where they need to show some political courage.
I disagree conceptually, they are separate things. The level of consumption spending and tax rates are a matter of choice and preference. Whether those stayed the same or changed I would still be in favour of borrowing to invest in housing and associated infrastructure.
Now is a particularly auspicious time for government to invest, because:
- The UK's creditworthiness relative to other major economies is quite solid, and the cost of debt is starting to fall / Sterling is getting a tad strong - The UK's economy lacks spare infrastructure capacity and has done for ages, so there is very little risk of this triggering an investment bust and surplus capacity - Other Western countries, with the exception of the US which is able to keep splurging because of its reserve currency, are not looking hugely investable at the moment. Japan is slowly picking itself up but France and Germany are in the doldrums, Italy remains difficult, Korea is politically volatile, China has surplus capacity, Saudi funds itself and Russia is off limits. - Business investment remains low so there's an argument for government to step in to take up some of the slack
Thatcher created a housing crisis for generations by selling off Council Houses at disgusting low prices to buy votes.
Anyone remember Dame Shirley Porter.
Then exacerbated the damage Ten fold by not allowing Councils to rebuild with even meagre proceeds.
State intervention NOW for the precise and logical reasons you state would be very welcome
Country first Politics second.
Not just new builds.
Please please lets reinvigorate our failing and broken High Streets and suburbs by moving empty suitable Commercial Properties in to decent affordable social housing.
Optimise the services and utilities available.
Buy up empty failing and closed old Holiday Parks and do the same thing
Get Britain building
Country first Politics second
Also the Green Belt. There is a fair chunk of the Green Belt ripe for development that should be a no brainer. Not rolling green countryside, which is what people automatically assume the Green Belt is.
Stuff like old car parks, old factories and the like. Been plenty of pics on twitter. Build on them and build up too.
This is one area where I like what Labour are doing. Focussing on build build build. There are still problems holding up building such as Nutrient Neutrality demands.
Just get on with building.
Though there is the issue of the religious belief in commercial units on the ground floor of anything built near a high street.
In Chiswick (high income, lots of footfall), we have units being built into new developments, while previous units have stood empty for years.
An Estonian tech start up manufacturing low-cost air defence missiles is expected to open a new UK headquarters, delivering on the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change.
Defence company Frankenburg Technologies is planning to open a new office in London initially employing upwards of 50 people, in a boost for the UK defence sector.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: "Frankenburg Technologies’ vote of confidence in the UK is another signal that our plan is working, which is why I am focused on how we can continue to make the UK a magnet for foreign investment, greater growth and innovation."
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.
The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.
So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.
A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.
Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.
But to justify the increased investment spending governments need to cut the consumption spending.
And that's where they need to show some political courage.
I disagree conceptually, they are separate things. The level of consumption spending and tax rates are a matter of choice and preference. Whether those stayed the same or changed I would still be in favour of borrowing to invest in housing and associated infrastructure.
Now is a particularly auspicious time for government to invest, because:
- The UK's creditworthiness relative to other major economies is quite solid, and the cost of debt is starting to fall / Sterling is getting a tad strong - The UK's economy lacks spare infrastructure capacity and has done for ages, so there is very little risk of this triggering an investment bust and surplus capacity - Other Western countries, with the exception of the US which is able to keep splurging because of its reserve currency, are not looking hugely investable at the moment. Japan is slowly picking itself up but France and Germany are in the doldrums, Italy remains difficult, Korea is politically volatile, China has surplus capacity, Saudi funds itself and Russia is off limits. - Business investment remains low so there's an argument for government to step in to take up some of the slack
Thatcher created a housing crisis for generations by selling off Council Houses at disgusting low prices to buy votes.
Anyone remember Dame Shirley Porter.
Then exacerbated the damage Ten fold by not allowing Councils to rebuild with even meagre proceeds.
State intervention NOW for the precise and logical reasons you state would be very welcome
Country first Politics second.
Not just new builds.
Please please lets reinvigorate our failing and broken High Streets and suburbs by moving empty suitable Commercial Properties in to decent affordable social housing.
Optimise the services and utilities available.
Buy up empty failing and closed old Holiday Parks and do the same thing
Get Britain building
Country first Politics second
Also the Green Belt. There is a fair chunk of the Green Belt ripe for development that should be a no brainer. Not rolling green countryside, which is what people automatically assume the Green Belt is.
Stuff like old car parks, old factories and the like. Been plenty of pics on twitter. Build on them and build up too.
This is one area where I like what Labour are doing. Focussing on build build build. There are still problems holding up building such as Nutrient Neutrality demands.
Just get on with building.
Though there is the issue of the religious belief in commercial units on the ground floor of anything built near a high street.
In Chiswick (high income, lots of footfall), we have units being built into new developments, while previous units have stood empty for years.
Because Ground floor flats facing directly on to the pavement can’t be sold or rented for love nor money and drag down the value of the entire block of flats.
It’s cheaper to have an empty shop than try to put a flat there
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.
Should we blame Gordon Brown?
Of course.
He sold the gold!
Worse than selling the gold, he announced in advance he was going to do it and tanked the price as a result.
Also his famous “investment” that was mostly in tax credits, with actual capital investment transferred to the current account by way of PFI. Mr Brown, current spending is never investment.
An overrated CoE imo but he still makes most current pols look like midgets.
Genuine question: did Gordon suffer the greatest reputational tanking in British political history? Hard to believe now, but at the time pundits and politicians from both the Left and Right spoke of him as a genius-messiah figure (Tony Blair being a mere warm-up act) whose ascendency to PM would end politics as we know it. Now no one speaks highly of him at all. What went wrong?
I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
If any senior politician reads the comment section on any blog I hope they lose their jobs for poor judgement. I doubt any do.
It's a better time waster than Westminster Whatsapp groups .
We'd end up with draconian rules forcing businesses to accept shillings and groats, 40mph limits in residential streets across our nation's neighbourhoods, an abolition of all planning rules and censorship of the tube scene in Darkest Hour.
Dubloons. I demand dubloons.
That sounds like an excellent plan - cash, speed limits and noxious media.
On serious note - if politicians floated their ideas here, they would have the obvious problems pointed out in 10 minutes.
I’ve said it before - OGH could make a fortune creating a private version of PB as a think tank/ideas tester.
Drop your idea in the piraña tank and see what happens….
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.
It shouldn't have merited a news conference. Convicted person continues to seek means of overturning conviction is not significant news until any new attempts are tested in court. But the sensational nature of the events means every new thing (and plenty of things that are not new) get attention.
It sounds very much like they’re trying to build up a media ‘narrative’ ahead of an appeal, rather than actually bring forward any new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the original trial.
I think they will be trying to get the CCRC to look at it first. But even if they have nothing much really, for now they have to look as if they are progressing, so that the client and the campaigners have something to look at.
I think this will run and run. My suspicion is that there are experts (lawyers and medics) who conscientiously think that there may have been flaws in the trial process, but many fewer who think a real injustice has been done. Further that the CCRC/Court of Appeal won't move unless it is clear that the prosecution/judicial aspects of the trial were deeply flawed. I don't think the defence tactics will become an issue. If I am wrong, then it will become an interesting fight.
I'd assess it more likely she got away with some murders than she was convicted for ones she didn't do. And both those things could be true.
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.
The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.
So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.
A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.
Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.
But to justify the increased investment spending governments need to cut the consumption spending.
And that's where they need to show some political courage.
I disagree conceptually, they are separate things. The level of consumption spending and tax rates are a matter of choice and preference. Whether those stayed the same or changed I would still be in favour of borrowing to invest in housing and associated infrastructure.
Now is a particularly auspicious time for government to invest, because:
- The UK's creditworthiness relative to other major economies is quite solid, and the cost of debt is starting to fall / Sterling is getting a tad strong - The UK's economy lacks spare infrastructure capacity and has done for ages, so there is very little risk of this triggering an investment bust and surplus capacity - Other Western countries, with the exception of the US which is able to keep splurging because of its reserve currency, are not looking hugely investable at the moment. Japan is slowly picking itself up but France and Germany are in the doldrums, Italy remains difficult, Korea is politically volatile, China has surplus capacity, Saudi funds itself and Russia is off limits. - Business investment remains low so there's an argument for government to step in to take up some of the slack
Thatcher created a housing crisis for generations by selling off Council Houses at disgusting low prices to buy votes.
Anyone remember Dame Shirley Porter.
Then exacerbated the damage Ten fold by not allowing Councils to rebuild with even meagre proceeds.
State intervention NOW for the precise and logical reasons you state would be very welcome
Country first Politics second.
Not just new builds.
Please please lets reinvigorate our failing and broken High Streets and suburbs by moving empty suitable Commercial Properties in to decent affordable social housing.
Optimise the services and utilities available.
Buy up empty failing and closed old Holiday Parks and do the same thing
Get Britain building
Country first Politics second
Also the Green Belt. There is a fair chunk of the Green Belt ripe for development that should be a no brainer. Not rolling green countryside, which is what people automatically assume the Green Belt is.
Stuff like old car parks, old factories and the like. Been plenty of pics on twitter. Build on them and build up too.
This is one area where I like what Labour are doing. Focussing on build build build. There are still problems holding up building such as Nutrient Neutrality demands.
Just get on with building.
Though there is the issue of the religious belief in commercial units on the ground floor of anything built near a high street.
In Chiswick (high income, lots of footfall), we have units being built into new developments, while previous units have stood empty for years.
Because Ground floor flats facing directly on to the pavement can’t be sold or rented for love nor money and drag down the value of the entire block of flats.
It’s cheaper to have an empty shop than try to put a flat there
They are made condition of planning consent. There are designs to deal with the various issues.
So we have boarded up spaces - in some cases, as built, for a decade.
For an insight into judgment, look at all the people now who supported Johnson at the time as a brilliant PM that would govern for a decade. I can’t remember how many times I was laughed at for saying SKS would be PM and Johnson wouldn’t last.
These same people now tell us SKS is a dud.
Do I think SKS has had a poor start. Yes. Is it entirely his fault? I’m afraid I don’t think so.
Actually I think WFA was much more impactful in destroying Labours honeymoon than frockgate.
Again, that was bonkers. The WFA was a daft bung - a Gordon Brown freebie - that is without justification and should have been abolished long ago. Reeves is right to stick to her guns.
The merits of WFA can be debated but in the election Labour was clear they weren't coming for it, then their first major policy announcement was it's abolition.
It made Starmer and Reeves look cynical, deceitful and duplicitous and confirmed all the worst fears many people had about Starmer during his time as LOTO.
Combined at the same time with Frockgate, there's your reason for Labour's non-honeymoon.
An Estonian tech start up manufacturing low-cost air defence missiles is expected to open a new UK headquarters, delivering on the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change.
Defence company Frankenburg Technologies is planning to open a new office in London initially employing upwards of 50 people, in a boost for the UK defence sector.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: "Frankenburg Technologies’ vote of confidence in the UK is another signal that our plan is working, which is why I am focused on how we can continue to make the UK a magnet for foreign investment, greater growth and innovation."
As with space technology, the days when every Proper defence project starts with a budget in the billions is dying. Actually delivering things we can afford is the new craziness…
You should hear the anger in certain quarters in the US. The latest is that the US Navy may contract with one of the new vendors for the boosters for the Trident replacement. It was bad enough, for the usual suspects, that they didn’t get a fat project to totally design from scratch.
Don’t worry though, I’m sure the U.K. will carry on for a bit…
Also they are slacking I mentioned my first Crème Egg over a week ago
Spar has doughty defenders on PB. It's one of those extraordinary institutions taken for granted in most places at most times. But there are places, like Scottish islands, where Spar survives and thrives and provides a service like no other. For me, it can sell Easter eggs all year as long as it has a shop open every day and quite well stocked at Bunessan, Salen and Iona.
For an insight into judgment, look at all the people now who supported Johnson at the time as a brilliant PM that would govern for a decade. I can’t remember how many times I was laughed at for saying SKS would be PM and Johnson wouldn’t last.
These same people now tell us SKS is a dud.
Do I think SKS has had a poor start. Yes. Is it entirely his fault? I’m afraid I don’t think so.
Actually I think WFA was much more impactful in destroying Labours honeymoon than frockgate.
Again, that was bonkers. The WFA was a daft bung - a Gordon Brown freebie - that is without justification and should have been abolished long ago. Reeves is right to stick to her guns.
It looks awful and a faux moral case will be made every time an older person dies in a cold house. It is poor politics.
It is easy to criticise Labour. They have been timid in wealth taxation and slow to capture those who have fallen through the safety net.
The media and PB narrative however is how unfair that millionaire pensioners are losing the WFA and triple millionaire farmers are being taxed at half the rate of the rest of us when they die
Comments
Also his famous “investment” that was mostly in tax credits, with actual capital investment transferred to the current account by way of PFI. Mr Brown, current spending is never investment.
How is Guy Hands company "Rachmanesque" ?
"I will not ban smacking on England until we've had time to assess that legislation in Wales and Scotland"
Thank God serious politics is back.
Launching new Child safety legislation today
Prompt action
Considered thoughtful assessment
After a plethora of short term incumbents in Education in past 14 years driven by dogma not careful consideration Phillipson has made an excellent start.
But where this govt fails or does a poor job it should be called out.
Perhaps, just perhaps, people veer not towards being anti-Labour, but anti-anything. It sometimes feel as though PB is predominantly filled with negativity towards lots of things - and not just politics. People rant, rather than rave.
It's just that Labour are in power, and are having to make decisions. That makes them a ripe target.
Either that was a typo, or it's a new thing I've not yet encountered.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/17/bomb-kills-senior-russian-general-igor-kirillov-moscow/
Anyone remember Dame Shirley Porter.
Then exacerbated the damage Ten fold by not allowing Councils to rebuild with even meagre proceeds.
State intervention NOW for the precise and logical reasons you state would be very welcome
Country first
Politics second.
Not just new builds.
Please please lets reinvigorate our failing and broken High Streets and suburbs by moving empty suitable Commercial Properties in to decent affordable social housing.
Optimise the services and utilities available.
Buy up empty failing and closed old Holiday Parks and do the same thing
Get Britain building
Country first
Politics second
BBB is in the habit of responding to tweets - at least to me, and I'm hardly high-profile. I'll post any reply.
I think the @blackbeltbarrister.bsky.social is losing it a little on his Youtube channel. I know a number of ex-viewers.
IMO he's going down the @mattgoodwin.bsky.social pandering-to-the-marginal-Right rabbithole, and losing his objectivity.
Some recent titles are listed in the pic below.
https://bsky.app/profile/mattwardman.bsky.social/post/3ldip3zq6k225
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.
They have made many mistakes but some people are only criticise.
The Tories didn’t do a lot of good things but I am prepared to say where they did. Namely, BDUK and the SRN. Both projects carried on by Labour without change.
I don’t have an issue with @Taz opposing what Labour do. He’s not a Tory who always opposes. I don’t have an issue with most of the Tories here opposing.
But there are a select few who only oppose. They’ve clearly not got over the fact they lost yet. It just makes the site a bit dull, that’s all.
I am struggling to understand how anyone can conclude this government are worse than the last one. Who cut HS2 out of spite.
We'd end up with draconian rules forcing businesses to accept shillings and groats, 40mph limits in residential streets across our nation's neighbourhoods, an abolition of all planning rules and censorship of the tube scene in Darkest Hour.
The last Government under Sunak was derided for stuff like canning HS2 and the laughable Rwanda scheme but there were still as many advocates as there were detractors. And that is OK. At peak Johnson meltdown, lots were laughing at him, but he still had a decent number of fanbois. And that's fine. There is a visceral hatred displayed on here for Starmer and Reeves and I don't mind, I don't know or care for them, but I did believe I was allowed to comment if I disagreed with a narrative, likewise my critiques of Trump, but check out all my "flags" from the week before last. It suggests dissent will be punished.
If I don't like reading all the "Reeves is shit" posts I agree I am more than welcome to f*** off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eSzFjErirQ
You sorta make the point I made below: some people criticise everyone and everything. They criticised the last government, and now they are criticising this one. For some (not all), it's not a case of being anti-Labour: it's a case of just wanting to grumble.
I tried many times to register but the platform didn't send set up messages for a while to Gmail accounts
TSE did refer to this issue at the time.
I tried again a while back and the mail arrived.
We'd end up with draconian rules forcing businesses to accept shillings and groats, 40mph limits in residential streets across our nation's neighbourhoods, an abolition of all planning rules and censorship of the tube scene in Darkest Hour.
Dubloons. I demand dubloons.
These same people now tell us SKS is a dud.
Do I think SKS has had a poor start. Yes. Is it entirely his fault? I’m afraid I don’t think so.
* I don't believe that. I suspect the reference is to Heatherner and Mystic Rose. They were both posters I really liked. Mystic was particularly helpful during the 2020 Presidential election. If you are all Leon's alter ego I much prefer his alter egos.
The Tories have learnt nothing useful from their defeat. The Lib Dems seem absent. Farage is as good at agitprop as ever, but RefUK are the answer to the question: "How do you make the government of Liz Truss look competent and able?"
So there's no hope of things improving.
Expert refutes he 'changed his mind' in Letby case
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo
That’s surely got to be a matter for the SRA and Bar Standards Board, even if they haven’t made any application yet?
What Labour was guilty of was naivety. The episode has gone down in the public consciousness as politicians' wives spending taxpayers' cash on glamorous outfits.
Of course, taxpayers didn't pay a penny as the wardrobe was funded by a Labour donor, but that got lost in the maelstrom due to a combination of press hyperbole and Labour's amateurish media management at the time.
'I've carried out more than 50 citizen's arrests'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8v11xq3pyo
I think this will run and run. My suspicion is that there are experts (lawyers and medics) who conscientiously think that there may have been flaws in the trial process, but many fewer who think a real injustice has been done. Further that the CCRC/Court of Appeal won't move unless it is clear that the prosecution/judicial aspects of the trial were deeply flawed. I don't think the defence tactics will become an issue. If I am wrong, then it will become an interesting fight.
A Labour donor was apparently buying influence by…supporting Labour policies?
The Tories as usual opposed it but only when they were out of government.
And that’s the thing, they had 14 years to make change. They did sod all. That is by far the most powerful weapon Labour has against them. And they will deploy it just as Osborne did.
Starmer is just doing Cameronism in reverse.
Luigi: We're your buddies, Colonel.
Dino: We want to look after you.
Colonel: Look after me?
Luigi: We can guarantee you that not a single armored division will get done over for fifteen bob a week.
Stuff like old car parks, old factories and the like. Been plenty of pics on twitter. Build on them and build up too.
This is one area where I like what Labour are doing. Focussing on build build build. There are still problems holding up building such as Nutrient Neutrality demands.
Just get on with building.
Given our sub-anaemic growth, not good news.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/dec/17/uk-pay-growth-interest-rate-cut-manufacturing-sector
...The rise in pay for factory workers to 6% meant the split between civil servants and private sector employees widened. Annual average regular earnings growth was 5.4% for the private sector and 4.3% for the public sector, the ONS said...
And my point on rates does draw on hindsight. In practice I don't think the government is in the business of forecasting where rates are going when they borrow. That would be more of a "trading" concept. I think they more just meet the liquidity needs and try to create a balanced maturity profile. I've never worked for the Treasury or the BOE though so perhaps there's more to it.
A typical UK household would be happy to have net debt including mortgages equal to annual income. So would a company. I know the government figures are large numbers but the prinicple is the same. Actually, the government can also print money unlike a household or company.
It also implies that the impact of the forthcoming NI changes isn't yet being factored into pay settlements, though there is probably a lag there.
Another is that the political class (mostly) want to be in the EU anyway but the referendum failed, and the current status quo seems to be an acceptable compromise (and they are in Schengen). As a smaller country they are more used to having to fall in line with others anyway.
https://x.com/libertylester/status/1868666786549490089
Price tags are in £ so it’s a UK shop.
I expect there to be a lag as many of these pay awards coming through now will have been negotiated and agreed prior to the budget. It is next years awards that will be interesting.
Where I am we're certainly massively upping the amount of investment spending that goes into technology rather than just hiring more senior people.
In Chiswick (high income, lots of footfall), we have units being built into new developments, while previous units have stood empty for years.
Also they are slacking I mentioned my first Crème Egg over a week ago
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-tech-start-up-opens-uk-headquarters-in-boost-for-industry
An Estonian tech start up manufacturing low-cost air defence missiles is expected to open a new UK headquarters, delivering on the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change.
Defence company Frankenburg Technologies is planning to open a new office in London initially employing upwards of 50 people, in a boost for the UK defence sector.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: "Frankenburg Technologies’ vote of confidence in the UK is another signal that our plan is working, which is why I am focused on how we can continue to make the UK a magnet for foreign investment, greater growth and innovation."
It’s cheaper to have an empty shop than try to put a flat there
On serious note - if politicians floated their ideas here, they would have the obvious problems pointed out in 10 minutes.
I’ve said it before - OGH could make a fortune creating a private version of PB as a think tank/ideas tester.
Drop your idea in the piraña tank and see what happens….
The brief peak was at 10:20 when my 4 KW system produced an entire 80 watts output.
Grim for the victims families all this.
So we have boarded up spaces - in some cases, as built, for a decade.
It made Starmer and Reeves look cynical, deceitful and duplicitous and confirmed all the worst fears many people had about Starmer during his time as LOTO.
Combined at the same time with Frockgate, there's your reason for Labour's non-honeymoon.
You should hear the anger in certain quarters in the US. The latest is that the US Navy may contract with one of the new vendors for the boosters for the Trident replacement. It was bad enough, for the usual suspects, that they didn’t get a fat project to totally design from scratch.
Don’t worry though, I’m sure the U.K. will carry on for a bit…
It is easy to criticise Labour. They have been timid in wealth taxation and slow to capture those who have fallen through the safety net.
The media and PB narrative however is how unfair that millionaire pensioners are losing the WFA and triple millionaire farmers are being taxed at half the rate of the rest of us when they die