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.
lol, what nonsense. They bought tons to the table, and achieved a lot, from equal marriage through pensions freedom, higher tax allowances (now reversed thanks to the Tories), pupil premium, green investment bank, shared parental leave, as well as scrapping Labour’s child detention and ID card policies and stopping a shedload of stuff from the Tories, some of which reemerged after 2015. Many people who work for or deal with governments still say it was one of the best, if not the best, in recent times.
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.
lol, what nonsense. They bought tons to the table, and achieved a lot, from equal marriage through pensions freedom, higher tax allowances (now reversed thanks to the Tories), pupil premium, green investment bank, shared parental leave, as well as scrapping Labour’s child detention and ID card policies and stopping a shedload of stuff from the Tories, some of which reemerged after 2015. Many people who work for or deal with governments still say it was one of the best, if not the best, in recent times.
The View from Cumbria5 is through blue tinted spectacles I suspect.
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.
I agree, and yet, oppositions will oppose. The government didn't have a good story to tell on why WFA was being curtailed, and how it was part of a plan for taking the country into the sunlit uplands.
So they let the opposition set the narrative.
And now the economy is going rapidly into reverse. Objectively it isn't great.
God it's dark today. Despite thinner cloud than yesterday, it's essentially the gloaming from dawn to dusk.
One of those days when you don’t feel like taking the dog out. But it’s not as bad out there as it seemed through the window; it’s mild, and dry, if a bit windy as this evening’s storm starts to roll in…
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…
The disruption that’s coming next year to the Military Industrial Complex and the Healthcare Industrial Complex in the US is going to be fun to watch.
If the bigwigs at the cost-plus defence contractors didn’t already hate Elon Musk’s arse…
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.
If all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds why did we bother to reduce debt to under 50% of GDP for so long? And why is it great to have to borrow extra each year about the same we pay in interest (about £100bn). Why is that a benefit?
Households who are happy to have debt = annual household income would be less happy if they had to borrow the entire of their mortgage payments in order to pay it. How is this great for UK plc?
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'd say Johnson's was bigger. Certainly more spectacular. With Brown his CoEship has taken a hit but his PMship has gone the other way. There's real and lasting respect now for how he handled the GFC. At least amongst people who have a clue what they're talking about.
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.
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
Given the costs of housing, and the lack of supply, I seriously doubt that is literally true.
It's more likely they're worried about lower cost accommodation 'dragging down the value'.
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”.
Yes that's the downside of making that distinction in the books.
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?
He became PM. Where he almost instantly got shafted by all the problems he had left fir himself as CoE.
His record is not awful. He was, at heart, from the spend-more-than-we-can-actually-afford tendency. But also he understood that all the money he wanted to spend had to come from somewhere, and the importance of allowing wealth to be created. I would rather have Brown than Reeves. I rate Darling slightly higher.
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?
There were plenty who thought the great clunking fist a dud while he was still chancellor. (I know I was never a fan.)
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.
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
Given the costs of housing, and the lack of supply, I seriously doubt that is literally true.
It's more likely they're worried about lower cost accommodation 'dragging down the value'.
Combining the ground and first floors as a maisonette would solve that problem. They'd cost more than the flats above and attract a nicer class of person.
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…
The disruption that’s coming next year to the Military Industrial Complex and the Healthcare Industrial Complex in the US is going to be fun to watch.
If the bigwigs at the cost-plus defence contractors didn’t already hate Elon Musk’s arse…
We will see.
Elon's big ideas so far are abolishing Veterans' healthcare (good luck with that), and binning the F35 - just as it has (finally) become the most cost effective fighter in production.
'Disruption' imposed from the top down is far less likely to be successful than that brought about by hungry new competitors like Anduril in defence.
Norway has a balance sheet debt of $220 bn but a sovereign wealth fund, which pays all their state pensions as well as funds infrastructure projects, of $1.7 trn, so in total is sitting very nicely.
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...
The official 'City of Nottingham' is a geographical nonsense. Its borders should be expanded to encapsulate the likes of Bridgford, Gedling even Long Eaton, Ilkeston etc which are technically in Derbyshire but part of Greater Nottingham. Should have been done decades ago.
Similar situation in Manchester and Newcastle – where parts of what is effectively the city centre are in another council area.
Norway has a balance sheet debt of $220 bn but a sovereign wealth fund, which pays all their state pensions as well as funds infrastructure projects, of $1.7 trn, so in total is sitting very nicely.
Because it used it's income from North Sea oil wisely.
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.
It's an unjustifiable bung. Reeves only did what any sensible Cote should have done years earlier. Kudos to her.
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.
Yes, it is the nationwide tatty corner shop chain. But in many places, as you say, that is an invaluable service.
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."
Perhaps he should have a word with his Chancellor, who seems intent on undercutting his best efforts...
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.
If all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds why did we bother to reduce debt to under 50% of GDP for so long? And why is it great to have to borrow extra each year about the same we pay in interest (about £100bn). Why is that a benefit?
Households who are happy to have debt = annual household income would be less happy if they had to borrow the entire of their mortgage payments in order to pay it. How is this great for UK plc?
Because government debt is nothing like household (or even business) debt. It is neither great nor bad, as it is *literally* all just made up money. The good or bad is the impact on things like inflation, and cost of consumer/business borrowing, rather than the "debt" itself.
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….
You'd find some good ideas –– along with myriad insane responses, pitches to crass nostalgia and a chronic ignorance of how the world functions today. But, fill your boots.
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
It's poor politics precisely because Reeves was doing it for the right reasons, not to court popularity from a hypocritical public and media. If that's poor politics, I'm all for it –especially almost five years from a general election.
If only Sunak had crashed the country like Starmer he wouldn't have had to rely on the ridiculous Rwanda scheme, and would have been re elected on a landslide.
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….
You'd find some good ideas –– along with myriad insane responses, pitches to crass nostalgia and a chronic ignorance of how the world functions today. But, fill your boots.
The signal to noise ratio would higher than most think tanks, political parties or government.
Norway has a balance sheet debt of $220 bn but a sovereign wealth fund, which pays all their state pensions as well as funds infrastructure projects, of $1.7 trn, so in total is sitting very nicely.
Because it used it's income from North Sea oil wisely.
It also had more income from the North Sea oil and gas than we did, and about a tenth of the population.
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.
Yes, it is the nationwide tatty corner shop chain. But in many places, as you say, that is an invaluable service.
Not a chain but a franchise, surely, to be pedantic. But otherwise I agree.
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...
The official 'City of Nottingham' is a geographical nonsense. Its borders should be expanded to encapsulate the likes of Bridgford, Gedling even Long Eaton, Ilkeston etc which are technically in Derbyshire but part of Greater Nottingham. Should have been done decades ago.
Similar situation in Manchester and Newcastle – where parts of what is effectively the city centre are in another council area.
JFDI.
Bollocks to that. Gateshead is, and always will be, in County Durham.
Not part of Newcastle, or in any way associated with that minor county on the other side of the river.
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….
You'd find some good ideas –– along with myriad insane responses, pitches to crass nostalgia and a chronic ignorance of how the world functions today. But, fill your boots.
The signal to noise ratio would higher than most think tanks, political parties or government.
Output to cost, too. At least free on here at the moment.
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?
He became PM. Where he almost instantly got shafted by all the problems he had left fir himself as CoE.
His record is not awful. He was, at heart, from the spend-more-than-we-can-actually-afford tendency. But also he understood that all the money he wanted to spend had to come from somewhere, and the importance of allowing wealth to be created. I would rather have Brown than Reeves. I rate Darling slightly higher.
Shortly after he became PM he looked all-powerful. His invitation to Mrs T to visit him at 10 Downing St was just one thing out of several that really rattled the Tories. Plus the slogan, aimed at Cameron: "Not Flash, just Gordon".
But then he allowed speculation to mount over an early election and Osborne ran his cut IHT campaign, and the rest is history.
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.
If all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds why did we bother to reduce debt to under 50% of GDP for so long? And why is it great to have to borrow extra each year about the same we pay in interest (about £100bn). Why is that a benefit?
Households who are happy to have debt = annual household income would be less happy if they had to borrow the entire of their mortgage payments in order to pay it. How is this great for UK plc?
Because government debt is nothing like household (or even business) debt. It is neither great nor bad, as it is *literally* all just made up money. The good or bad is the impact on things like inflation, and cost of consumer/business borrowing, rather than the "debt" itself.
The relative debt is more important than the absolute, not just as compared to our GDP but also as compared to other similar countries.
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.
Yes, it is the nationwide tatty corner shop chain. But in many places, as you say, that is an invaluable service.
They’re going strong in Italy, with not only many local stores, but also full size supermarkets and a few hypermarkets.
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
It's poor politics precisely because Reeves was doing it for the right reasons, not to court popularity from a hypocritical public and media. If that's poor politics, I'm all for it –especially almost five years from a general election.
My interpretation of the WFA cut was that, most of all, Reeves was afraid of the markets. And that it was imperative to demonstrate that the new government was prepared to take unpopular measures, and hence reassure the money-boys. Maybe she overdid it a bit...
Norway has a balance sheet debt of $220 bn but a sovereign wealth fund, which pays all their state pensions as well as funds infrastructure projects, of $1.7 trn, so in total is sitting very nicely.
Because it used it's income from North Sea oil wisely.
More correctly, didn’t use it. They saved it, rather than spending it, like your Gran always recommended for your Xmas £10.
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...
The official 'City of Nottingham' is a geographical nonsense. Its borders should be expanded to encapsulate the likes of Bridgford, Gedling even Long Eaton, Ilkeston etc which are technically in Derbyshire but part of Greater Nottingham. Should have been done decades ago.
Similar situation in Manchester and Newcastle – where parts of what is effectively the city centre are in another council area.
JFDI.
Bollocks to that. Gateshead is, and always will be, in County Durham.
Not part of Newcastle, or in any way associated with that minor county on the other side of the river.
Wrong. It's not been in County Durham for 50 years. Only contrary old-timers think that. Gateshead quayside is part and parcel of Newcastle city centre. Merge them, along with North and South Tyneside, which are equally nonsensical constructs. Should have happened decades ago.
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?
He became PM. Where he almost instantly got shafted by all the problems he had left fir himself as CoE.
His record is not awful. He was, at heart, from the spend-more-than-we-can-actually-afford tendency. But also he understood that all the money he wanted to spend had to come from somewhere, and the importance of allowing wealth to be created. I would rather have Brown than Reeves. I rate Darling slightly higher.
Shortly after he became PM he looked all-powerful. His invitation to Mrs T to visit him at 10 Downing St was just one thing out of several that really rattled the Tories. Plus the slogan, aimed at Cameron: "Not Flash, just Gordon".
But then he allowed speculation to mount over an early election and Osborne ran his cut IHT campaign, and the rest is history.
I think his main weakness is the same as Starmer's. He had no plan for what to do as PM. Everything was focused on simply becoming PM.
I remember assuming that he had a detailed plan he'd been brooding over for a decade while waiting for Blair to move out. And then... Nothing.
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
It's poor politics precisely because Reeves was doing it for the right reasons, not to court popularity from a hypocritical public and media. If that's poor politics, I'm all for it –especially almost five years from a general election.
My interpretation of the WFA cut was that, most of all, Reeves was afraid of the markets. And that it was imperative to demonstrate that the new government was prepared to take unpopular measures, and hence reassure the money-boys. Maybe she overdid it a bit...
Yes – and no. She was absolutely right to do it – and stick to her guns amid ludicrous media hyperbole.
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….
You'd find some good ideas –– along with myriad insane responses, pitches to crass nostalgia and a chronic ignorance of how the world functions today. But, fill your boots.
The signal to noise ratio would higher than most think tanks, political parties or government.
Output to cost, too. At least free on here at the moment.
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
It's poor politics precisely because Reeves was doing it for the right reasons, not to court popularity from a hypocritical public and media. If that's poor politics, I'm all for it –especially almost five years from a general election.
My interpretation of the WFA cut was that, most of all, Reeves was afraid of the markets. And that it was imperative to demonstrate that the new government was prepared to take unpopular measures, and hence reassure the money-boys. Maybe she overdid it a bit...
I think that's part of it. And if they'd implemented it well then they could have tied the previous government to the Truss loss of market confidence.
But they did it really poorly, and ran away from the contrast with the pay awards to end the strikes - instead of creating an argument that because they had been tough with WFA, they could afford to end the strikes and get people back to work.
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.
What a load of deluded biased nonsense. Do you think all these people go out and put all this effort into just messing with the Right. Do you really think that the LDs brought nothing to the coalition. That they campaign on nothing. Are you utterly bonkers. I might not like the views of other parties in particular extremist ones, but I accept they all have ideas and views even if I don't like them.
It is just incredible that anyone can think that their opponents don't have views and ideas. Just bizarre.
On Topic. I wonder if Net Satisfaction ratings, and making a historical comparison, is prejudiced by the fact the two main parties now poll record low individual combined scores for the official roles the election result put them in? It’s multi party right now - whoever is in power (and this theory applies to LOTO Kemi and Conservative too for low satisfaction ratings) have got there with one of the smallest votes in history - in history, where the comparisons are being made, UK was closer to a tribal 2 party electorate - so we should expect early net satisfaction to look extremely poor, and historical comparisons maybe misleading.
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….
That sounds like a great idea, might even increase the revenue share for posters per like from the current 50p too.
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...
The official 'City of Nottingham' is a geographical nonsense. Its borders should be expanded to encapsulate the likes of Bridgford, Gedling even Long Eaton, Ilkeston etc which are technically in Derbyshire but part of Greater Nottingham. Should have been done decades ago.
Similar situation in Manchester and Newcastle – where parts of what is effectively the city centre are in another council area.
JFDI.
Bollocks to that. Gateshead is, and always will be, in County Durham.
Not part of Newcastle, or in any way associated with that minor county on the other side of the river.
Wrong. It's not been in County Durham for 50 years. Only contrary old-timers think that. Gateshead quayside is part and parcel of Newcastle city centre. Merge them, along with North and South Tyneside, which are equally nonsensical constructs. Should have happened decades ago.
If you called it Tyneside or Tynebank or something you would probably get away with it, not if you called it Greater Newcastle or South Northumberland
Worth saying a lot of Labour’s policy agenda is quite popular - Sewage Bill, GB Energy, Employment/renters rights, but apart from minimum wage increase they haven’t had same cut through as less popular policies: farmers IHT, winter fuel allowance, NICs, maybe that changes as policies become delivery.
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...
The official 'City of Nottingham' is a geographical nonsense. Its borders should be expanded to encapsulate the likes of Bridgford, Gedling even Long Eaton, Ilkeston etc which are technically in Derbyshire but part of Greater Nottingham. Should have been done decades ago.
Similar situation in Manchester and Newcastle – where parts of what is effectively the city centre are in another council area.
JFDI.
Bollocks to that. Gateshead is, and always will be, in County Durham.
Not part of Newcastle, or in any way associated with that minor county on the other side of the river.
Wrong. It's not been in County Durham for 50 years. Only contrary old-timers think that. Gateshead quayside is part and parcel of Newcastle city centre. Merge them, along with North and South Tyneside, which are equally nonsensical constructs. Should have happened decades ago.
If you called it Tyneside or Tynebank or something you would probably get away with it, not if you called it Greater Newcastle or South Northumberland
It can be called Newcastle & Tyneside, if only to satisfy a miserable handful of parochial contrary old-timers. I have family from Gateshead. Everywhere they go, they (quite reasonably) say they are from Newcastle.
Presumably people like Sandy still insist Brixton is in Surrey and Tottenham is in Hertfordshire?
This is going to make management of the slim majority in the House just that bit more interesting.
NEWS - INDIANA GOP REP. VICTORIA SPARTZ is expected to refuse committee assignments in the next Congress. She will also not caucus with Republicans — not attend meetings. But she will remain a Republican.
Worth saying a lot of Labour’s policy agenda is quite popular - Sewage Bill, GB Energy, Employment/renters rights, but apart from minimum wage increase they haven’t had same cut through as less popular policies: farmers IHT, winter fuel allowance, NICs, maybe that changes as policies become delivery.
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.
What a load of deluded biased nonsense. Do you think all these people go out and put all this effort into just messing with the Right. Do you really think that the LDs brought nothing to the coalition. That they campaign on nothing. Are you utterly bonkers. I might not like the views of other parties in particular extremist ones, but I accept they all have ideas and views even if I don't like them.
It is just incredible that anyone can think that their opponents don't have views and ideas. Just bizarre.
Yes, this poster makes my point daily about this forum being polluted with batshit crazy ideas.
Norway has a balance sheet debt of $220 bn but a sovereign wealth fund, which pays all their state pensions as well as funds infrastructure projects, of $1.7 trn, so in total is sitting very nicely.
Because it used it's income from North Sea oil wisely.
More correctly, didn’t use it. They saved it, rather than spending it, like your Gran always recommended for your Xmas £10.
If only there’d been a pm at the time who had the benefits of a Methody shopkeeper parent and the instincts of parsimonious housewife balancing the household bills.
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?
He became PM. Where he almost instantly got shafted by all the problems he had left fir himself as CoE.
His record is not awful. He was, at heart, from the spend-more-than-we-can-actually-afford tendency. But also he understood that all the money he wanted to spend had to come from somewhere, and the importance of allowing wealth to be created. I would rather have Brown than Reeves. I rate Darling slightly higher.
Brown was convinced devolution would kill off the Scottish independence movement. Rarely has anyone been more wrong.
Worth saying a lot of Labour’s policy agenda is quite popular - Sewage Bill, GB Energy, Employment/renters rights, but apart from minimum wage increase they haven’t had same cut through as less popular policies: farmers IHT, winter fuel allowance, NICs, maybe that changes as policies become delivery.
A lot of talk about how Labour boxed themselves in with the tax pledges, but looking at the results it seems that they probably needed to. Yes, the majority is big but it's based on winning just 33% of the vote. Not making those big tax pledges would have resulted far fewer Tory to Labour switchers and driven Tory no shows to the polling booth. We could have seen a 30-27 result in the end which wouldn't have even been a majority let alone the huge one they got.
Labour's majority is built on sand and I think without those big tax pledges they would be in minority government or in a coalition with the Lib Dems.
Worth saying a lot of Labour’s policy agenda is quite popular - Sewage Bill, GB Energy, Employment/renters rights, but apart from minimum wage increase they haven’t had same cut through as less popular policies: farmers IHT, winter fuel allowance, NICs, maybe that changes as policies become delivery.
That is really interesting but the one thing that really amazes me is the Reeves CV incident and the levels of awareness around it.
I honestly thought it a nothing story that would appeal to the Political anoraks only.
It wouldn't be an issue if she hadn't absolutely fucked it with the budget.
What did she fuck with the budget exactly? I remember your predicting that she couldn't win because if she changed the borrowing rules to give herself headroom, the gilt markets would spiral out of control.
The proposed changes are seeking to resolve a standoff between AI firms and creatives. Sir Paul McCartney has warned the technology “could just take over” without new laws.
A government consultation is proposing an exception to UK copyright law – which prevents use of someone’s work without permission – that will allow companies such as Google and the ChatGPT developer OpenAI to train their models on copyrighted content. However, it will also allow writers, artists and composers to “reserve their rights”, which involves declaring that they do not want their work to be used in an AI training process – or to demand a licence fee to do so...
Why wouldn't they all now do so as a matter of course ?
This is going to make management of the slim majority in the House just that bit more interesting.
NEWS - INDIANA GOP REP. VICTORIA SPARTZ is expected to refuse committee assignments in the next Congress. She will also not caucus with Republicans — not attend meetings. But she will remain a Republican.
The proposed changes are seeking to resolve a standoff between AI firms and creatives. Sir Paul McCartney has warned the technology “could just take over” without new laws.
A government consultation is proposing an exception to UK copyright law – which prevents use of someone’s work without permission – that will allow companies such as Google and the ChatGPT developer OpenAI to train their models on copyrighted content. However, it will also allow writers, artists and composers to “reserve their rights”, which involves declaring that they do not want their work to be used in an AI training process – or to demand a licence fee to do so...
Why wouldn't they all now do so as a matter of course ?
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.
lol, what nonsense. They bought tons to the table, and achieved a lot, from equal marriage through pensions freedom, higher tax allowances (now reversed thanks to the Tories), pupil premium, green investment bank, shared parental leave, as well as scrapping Labour’s child detention and ID card policies and stopping a shedload of stuff from the Tories, some of which reemerged after 2015. Many people who work for or deal with governments still say it was one of the best, if not the best, in recent times.
I think the LibDems should make more of their tax allowance increases under the Coalition. Not only were they fair, they were also so popular that the Tories trumpeted them too. They should definitely push that policy again if and when the economy is in a position to allow it.
Also they are slacking I mentioned my first Crème Egg over a week ago
M&S had gluten-free hot cross buns yesterday. (Although gluten-free Easter is on a different date because of the Council of Nicaea.)
I suppose in the western church we really ought to eat our hot cross buns unleavened but not gluten free. BTW 20 April is Easter in both west and east in 2025.
WASPI women told not being compensated by Pension Secretary.
Anas must resign. Though I suppose if you squint at this tweet in a certain light, Anas meant that the WASPI women getting fuck all is the justice they deserve.
Also they are slacking I mentioned my first Crème Egg over a week ago
M&S had gluten-free hot cross buns yesterday. (Although gluten-free Easter is on a different date because of the Council of Nicaea.)
I suppose in the western church we really ought to eat our hot cross buns unleavened but not gluten free. BTW 20 April is Easter in both west and east in 2025.
They should hold it on that weekend every year, instead of the ludicrous nonsense of moving it every year based on some ancient algorithm of the moon or tide or some random priest's circadian rhythms. It is completely mad that it moves, wasting time for businesses and other organisations rescheduling every bloody year.
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...
The official 'City of Nottingham' is a geographical nonsense. Its borders should be expanded to encapsulate the likes of Bridgford, Gedling even Long Eaton, Ilkeston etc which are technically in Derbyshire but part of Greater Nottingham. Should have been done decades ago.
Similar situation in Manchester and Newcastle – where parts of what is effectively the city centre are in another council area.
JFDI.
Bollocks to that. Gateshead is, and always will be, in County Durham.
Not part of Newcastle, or in any way associated with that minor county on the other side of the river.
Wrong. It's not been in County Durham for 50 years. Only contrary old-timers think that. Gateshead quayside is part and parcel of Newcastle city centre. Merge them, along with North and South Tyneside, which are equally nonsensical constructs. Should have happened decades ago.
If you called it Tyneside or Tynebank or something you would probably get away with it, not if you called it Greater Newcastle or South Northumberland
It can be called Newcastle & Tyneside, if only to satisfy a miserable handful of parochial contrary old-timers. I have family from Gateshead. Everywhere they go, they (quite reasonably) say they are from Newcastle.
Presumably people like Sandy still insist Brixton is in Surrey and Tottenham is in Hertfordshire?
In Nottingham case voters in wards in Broxtowe/Bridgford who are in financially functioning district councils whose 2nd tier is the County will be transferred to a bankrupt city under these plans.
Madness.
Their services will be woeful compared to where they now live. Libraries shut, bin collections moved to once a month and all the rest.
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.
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
Given the costs of housing, and the lack of supply, I seriously doubt that is literally true.
It's more likely they're worried about lower cost accommodation 'dragging down the value'.
My point was that a cheaply sold ground floor flat drags down the value of every other flat in the block.
So you do anything you can to avoid having to create them
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.
FWIW, UK rules on animal welfare and farming standards are far higher than in the EU. We’ve seen very political decisions by Germany, for instance. All credit to Denmark, though, which has been particularly good on AMR (and naughty Spain!) and France on colistin.
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...
The official 'City of Nottingham' is a geographical nonsense. Its borders should be expanded to encapsulate the likes of Bridgford, Gedling even Long Eaton, Ilkeston etc which are technically in Derbyshire but part of Greater Nottingham. Should have been done decades ago.
Similar situation in Manchester and Newcastle – where parts of what is effectively the city centre are in another council area.
JFDI.
Bollocks to that. Gateshead is, and always will be, in County Durham.
Not part of Newcastle, or in any way associated with that minor county on the other side of the river.
Wrong. It's not been in County Durham for 50 years. Only contrary old-timers think that. Gateshead quayside is part and parcel of Newcastle city centre. Merge them, along with North and South Tyneside, which are equally nonsensical constructs. Should have happened decades ago.
If you called it Tyneside or Tynebank or something you would probably get away with it, not if you called it Greater Newcastle or South Northumberland
It can be called Newcastle & Tyneside, if only to satisfy a miserable handful of parochial contrary old-timers. I have family from Gateshead. Everywhere they go, they (quite reasonably) say they are from Newcastle.
Presumably people like Sandy still insist Brixton is in Surrey and Tottenham is in Hertfordshire?
In Nottingham case voters in wards in Broxtowe/Bridgford who are in financially functioning district councils whose 2nd tier is the County will be transferred to a bankrupt city under these plans.
Madness.
Their services will be woeful compared to where they now live. Libraries shut, bin collections moved to once a month and all the rest.
Nope. Those residents are part and parcel of a functioning city – they should pay their way towards it, not reside in a make-believe tax haven outside its bonkers official boundaries.
A lot of talk about how Labour boxed themselves in with the tax pledges, but looking at the results it seems that they probably needed to. Yes, the majority is big but it's based on winning just 33% of the vote. Not making those big tax pledges would have resulted far fewer Tory to Labour switchers and driven Tory no shows to the polling booth. We could have seen a 30-27 result in the end which wouldn't have even been a majority let alone the huge one they got.
Labour's majority is built on sand and I think without those big tax pledges they would be in minority government or in a coalition with the Lib Dems.
Labour would be better off in a coalition - instead they are going to have 100 MPs who discover they have no promotion to look forward to, are only going to be MPs for 5 years and will start sooner rather than later to create problems
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...
The official 'City of Nottingham' is a geographical nonsense. Its borders should be expanded to encapsulate the likes of Bridgford, Gedling even Long Eaton, Ilkeston etc which are technically in Derbyshire but part of Greater Nottingham. Should have been done decades ago.
Similar situation in Manchester and Newcastle – where parts of what is effectively the city centre are in another council area.
JFDI.
Bollocks to that. Gateshead is, and always will be, in County Durham.
Not part of Newcastle, or in any way associated with that minor county on the other side of the river.
Wrong. It's not been in County Durham for 50 years. Only contrary old-timers think that. Gateshead quayside is part and parcel of Newcastle city centre. Merge them, along with North and South Tyneside, which are equally nonsensical constructs. Should have happened decades ago.
If you called it Tyneside or Tynebank or something you would probably get away with it, not if you called it Greater Newcastle or South Northumberland
It can be called Newcastle & Tyneside, if only to satisfy a miserable handful of parochial contrary old-timers. I have family from Gateshead. Everywhere they go, they (quite reasonably) say they are from Newcastle.
Presumably people like Sandy still insist Brixton is in Surrey and Tottenham is in Hertfordshire?
In Nottingham case voters in wards in Broxtowe/Bridgford who are in financially functioning district councils whose 2nd tier is the County will be transferred to a bankrupt city under these plans.
Madness.
Their services will be woeful compared to where they now live. Libraries shut, bin collections moved to once a month and all the rest.
Nope. Those residents are part and parcel of a functioning city – they should pay their way towards it, not reside in a make-believe tax haven outside its bonkers official boundaries.
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.
If all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds why did we bother to reduce debt to under 50% of GDP for so long? And why is it great to have to borrow extra each year about the same we pay in interest (about £100bn). Why is that a benefit?
Households who are happy to have debt = annual household income would be less happy if they had to borrow the entire of their mortgage payments in order to pay it. How is this great for UK plc?
It’s also mathematically wrong
It should be total national debt to GDP or public sector borrowing to government spending
I don’t have exact figures to had, but if government spending is about 40% of income then the ratio is 2.5x
Manageable but more than a public company would ideally have and leaves little room for manoeuvre
Re Sara Sharif murder sentencing remarks: should there be greater oversight over home schooled children? Seems it was used here to conceal her injuries.
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
Genuine question for the Land Value taxation-ers. Would a shop with a flat above it share the LVT equally?
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...
The official 'City of Nottingham' is a geographical nonsense. Its borders should be expanded to encapsulate the likes of Bridgford, Gedling even Long Eaton, Ilkeston etc which are technically in Derbyshire but part of Greater Nottingham. Should have been done decades ago.
Similar situation in Manchester and Newcastle – where parts of what is effectively the city centre are in another council area.
JFDI.
Bollocks to that. Gateshead is, and always will be, in County Durham.
Not part of Newcastle, or in any way associated with that minor county on the other side of the river.
Wrong. It's not been in County Durham for 50 years. Only contrary old-timers think that. Gateshead quayside is part and parcel of Newcastle city centre. Merge them, along with North and South Tyneside, which are equally nonsensical constructs. Should have happened decades ago.
If you called it Tyneside or Tynebank or something you would probably get away with it, not if you called it Greater Newcastle or South Northumberland
It can be called Newcastle & Tyneside, if only to satisfy a miserable handful of parochial contrary old-timers. I have family from Gateshead. Everywhere they go, they (quite reasonably) say they are from Newcastle.
Presumably people like Sandy still insist Brixton is in Surrey and Tottenham is in Hertfordshire?
In Nottingham case voters in wards in Broxtowe/Bridgford who are in financially functioning district councils whose 2nd tier is the County will be transferred to a bankrupt city under these plans.
Madness.
Their services will be woeful compared to where they now live. Libraries shut, bin collections moved to once a month and all the rest.
Nope. Those residents are part and parcel of a functioning city – they should pay their way towards it, not reside in a make-believe tax haven outside its bonkers official boundaries.
Good luck selling that message to the voters...
Sounds like they plan not to hold elections so we can't make our views known at ballot box.
This lot seem absolutely determined to make the way clear for Farage and Reform.
Worth saying a lot of Labour’s policy agenda is quite popular - Sewage Bill, GB Energy, Employment/renters rights, but apart from minimum wage increase they haven’t had same cut through as less popular policies: farmers IHT, winter fuel allowance, NICs, maybe that changes as policies become delivery.
That is really interesting but the one thing that really amazes me is the Reeves CV incident and the levels of awareness around it.
I honestly thought it a nothing story that would appeal to the Political anoraks only.
The private business lobby must be fuming at the data point for "Farmers' IHT". By far the most material change was the ending of BPR on business assets, yet it's APR that gets all the attention with Clarkson, Dyson and the tractors.
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...
The official 'City of Nottingham' is a geographical nonsense. Its borders should be expanded to encapsulate the likes of Bridgford, Gedling even Long Eaton, Ilkeston etc which are technically in Derbyshire but part of Greater Nottingham. Should have been done decades ago.
Similar situation in Manchester and Newcastle – where parts of what is effectively the city centre are in another council area.
JFDI.
Bollocks to that. Gateshead is, and always will be, in County Durham.
Not part of Newcastle, or in any way associated with that minor county on the other side of the river.
Wrong. It's not been in County Durham for 50 years. Only contrary old-timers think that. Gateshead quayside is part and parcel of Newcastle city centre. Merge them, along with North and South Tyneside, which are equally nonsensical constructs. Should have happened decades ago.
If you called it Tyneside or Tynebank or something you would probably get away with it, not if you called it Greater Newcastle or South Northumberland
It can be called Newcastle & Tyneside, if only to satisfy a miserable handful of parochial contrary old-timers. I have family from Gateshead. Everywhere they go, they (quite reasonably) say they are from Newcastle.
Presumably people like Sandy still insist Brixton is in Surrey and Tottenham is in Hertfordshire?
In Nottingham case voters in wards in Broxtowe/Bridgford who are in financially functioning district councils whose 2nd tier is the County will be transferred to a bankrupt city under these plans.
Madness.
Their services will be woeful compared to where they now live. Libraries shut, bin collections moved to once a month and all the rest.
Nope. Those residents are part and parcel of a functioning city – they should pay their way towards it, not reside in a make-believe tax haven outside its bonkers official boundaries.
Good luck selling that message to the voters...
The white paper includes provision for such changes to be simply imposed. Which is right. Because this rationalisation should have happened decades ago and has been bogged down by vested interests in cities up and down the country.
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...
The official 'City of Nottingham' is a geographical nonsense. Its borders should be expanded to encapsulate the likes of Bridgford, Gedling even Long Eaton, Ilkeston etc which are technically in Derbyshire but part of Greater Nottingham. Should have been done decades ago.
Similar situation in Manchester and Newcastle – where parts of what is effectively the city centre are in another council area.
JFDI.
Bollocks to that. Gateshead is, and always will be, in County Durham.
Not part of Newcastle, or in any way associated with that minor county on the other side of the river.
Wrong. It's not been in County Durham for 50 years. Only contrary old-timers think that. Gateshead quayside is part and parcel of Newcastle city centre. Merge them, along with North and South Tyneside, which are equally nonsensical constructs. Should have happened decades ago.
If you called it Tyneside or Tynebank or something you would probably get away with it, not if you called it Greater Newcastle or South Northumberland
It can be called Newcastle & Tyneside, if only to satisfy a miserable handful of parochial contrary old-timers. I have family from Gateshead. Everywhere they go, they (quite reasonably) say they are from Newcastle.
Presumably people like Sandy still insist Brixton is in Surrey and Tottenham is in Hertfordshire?
In Nottingham case voters in wards in Broxtowe/Bridgford who are in financially functioning district councils whose 2nd tier is the County will be transferred to a bankrupt city under these plans.
Madness.
Their services will be woeful compared to where they now live. Libraries shut, bin collections moved to once a month and all the rest.
Nope. Those residents are part and parcel of a functioning city – they should pay their way towards it, not reside in a make-believe tax haven outside its bonkers official boundaries.
Good luck selling that message to the voters...
Sounds like they plan not to hold elections so we can't make our views known at ballot box.
This lot seem absolutely determined to make the way clear for Farage and Reform.
What's the point in holding elections in council areas that will no longer exist?
This is going to make management of the slim majority in the House just that bit more interesting.
NEWS - INDIANA GOP REP. VICTORIA SPARTZ is expected to refuse committee assignments in the next Congress. She will also not caucus with Republicans — not attend meetings. But she will remain a Republican.
So she'll be an independent member who may or may not "caucus with" (ie vote with) Republicans. Isn't this grounds for having her expelled from the Republican Party?
Re Sara Sharif murder sentencing remarks: should there be greater oversight over home schooled children? Seems it was used here to conceal her injuries.
The local authority has a statutory duty to monitor home schooled children, just as they do any other child in any other school within their area. This is because it is, in law, their responsibility to ensure that all children within their remit are getting a suitable education.
Schools are also obliged to report to the LA if any children are taken out of school, due to funding systems. and should notify the LA if the children in question are being homeschooled.
However, most of them have no actual mechanism to do so, which renders the whole thing more or less moot. This is particularly problematic when somebody is taken out of a school in one LA (eg a private or special school) and lives in another. They tend to fall through the cracks as a result.
Therefore, before the government starts wittering about new legislation on the subject they should start by considering whether improved administrative practices are the actual answer.
I appreciate there is a certain irony in me, of all people, calling for more paperwork.
A lot of talk about how Labour boxed themselves in with the tax pledges, but looking at the results it seems that they probably needed to. Yes, the majority is big but it's based on winning just 33% of the vote. Not making those big tax pledges would have resulted far fewer Tory to Labour switchers and driven Tory no shows to the polling booth. We could have seen a 30-27 result in the end which wouldn't have even been a majority let alone the huge one they got.
Labour's majority is built on sand and I think without those big tax pledges they would be in minority government or in a coalition with the Lib Dems.
Labour would be better off in a coalition - instead they are going to have 100 MPs who discover they have no promotion to look forward to, are only going to be MPs for 5 years and will start sooner rather than later to create problems
If there is ANY suggestion that the Lib Dems would support a Labour government they would suffer a 2015 wipeout except worse, even Farron would lose.
Also they are slacking I mentioned my first Crème Egg over a week ago
M&S had gluten-free hot cross buns yesterday. (Although gluten-free Easter is on a different date because of the Council of Nicaea.)
I suppose in the western church we really ought to eat our hot cross buns unleavened but not gluten free. BTW 20 April is Easter in both west and east in 2025.
They should hold it on that weekend every year, instead of the ludicrous nonsense of moving it every year based on some ancient algorithm of the moon or tide or some random priest's circadian rhythms. It is completely mad that it moves, wasting time for businesses and other organisations rescheduling every bloody year.
Fair point, but there is another side. In our own day we are more and more aware of the link between the natural world and ourselves, and the risk of losing it. Easter is an occasion where the movements of nature take priority over the convenience of people.
It is fixed by two naturally occurring events: the spring equinox and the full moon, joined to two past events, Good Friday being a Friday at the time of the Passover and the empty tomb being seen on a Sunday.
Change would gain something but also lose a little of our inheritance from antiquity.
WASPI women told not being compensated by Pension Secretary.
Anas must resign. Though I suppose if you squint at this tweet in a certain light, Anas meant that the WASPI women getting fuck all is the justice they deserve.
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...
The official 'City of Nottingham' is a geographical nonsense. Its borders should be expanded to encapsulate the likes of Bridgford, Gedling even Long Eaton, Ilkeston etc which are technically in Derbyshire but part of Greater Nottingham. Should have been done decades ago.
Similar situation in Manchester and Newcastle – where parts of what is effectively the city centre are in another council area.
JFDI.
Bollocks to that. Gateshead is, and always will be, in County Durham.
Not part of Newcastle, or in any way associated with that minor county on the other side of the river.
Wrong. It's not been in County Durham for 50 years. Only contrary old-timers think that. Gateshead quayside is part and parcel of Newcastle city centre. Merge them, along with North and South Tyneside, which are equally nonsensical constructs. Should have happened decades ago.
If you called it Tyneside or Tynebank or something you would probably get away with it, not if you called it Greater Newcastle or South Northumberland
It can be called Newcastle & Tyneside, if only to satisfy a miserable handful of parochial contrary old-timers. I have family from Gateshead. Everywhere they go, they (quite reasonably) say they are from Newcastle.
Presumably people like Sandy still insist Brixton is in Surrey and Tottenham is in Hertfordshire?
In Nottingham case voters in wards in Broxtowe/Bridgford who are in financially functioning district councils whose 2nd tier is the County will be transferred to a bankrupt city under these plans.
Madness.
Their services will be woeful compared to where they now live. Libraries shut, bin collections moved to once a month and all the rest.
Nope. Those residents are part and parcel of a functioning city – they should pay their way towards it, not reside in a make-believe tax haven outside its bonkers official boundaries.
Good luck selling that message to the voters...
Sounds like they plan not to hold elections so we can't make our views known at ballot box.
This lot seem absolutely determined to make the way clear for Farage and Reform.
When you've lost them, voters are very patient when waiting to tell parties they have lost their confidence. It was clear they wanted the Tories out. Sunak waiting a further six months would likeliest have just pissed off more of them. However long you play it, there is no happy outcome. Maybe too soon to say that of Starmer, but the signs aren't good.
A lot of talk about how Labour boxed themselves in with the tax pledges, but looking at the results it seems that they probably needed to. Yes, the majority is big but it's based on winning just 33% of the vote. Not making those big tax pledges would have resulted far fewer Tory to Labour switchers and driven Tory no shows to the polling booth. We could have seen a 30-27 result in the end which wouldn't have even been a majority let alone the huge one they got.
Labour's majority is built on sand and I think without those big tax pledges they would be in minority government or in a coalition with the Lib Dems.
Labour would be better off in a coalition - instead they are going to have 100 MPs who discover they have no promotion to look forward to, are only going to be MPs for 5 years and will start sooner rather than later to create problems
Starmer or the next Labour leader could follow Cameron's lead at the next GE and promise an in/out EU referendum.
Comments
That was the best but there's been quite a few chuckly ones.
So they let the opposition set the narrative.
And now the economy is going rapidly into reverse. Objectively it isn't great.
If the bigwigs at the cost-plus defence contractors didn’t already hate Elon Musk’s arse…
Households who are happy to have debt = annual household income would be less happy if they had to borrow the entire of their mortgage payments in order to pay it. How is this great for UK plc?
It's more likely they're worried about lower cost accommodation 'dragging down the value'.
His record is not awful. He was, at heart, from the spend-more-than-we-can-actually-afford tendency. But also he understood that all the money he wanted to spend had to come from somewhere, and the importance of allowing wealth to be created. I would rather have Brown than Reeves.
I rate Darling slightly higher.
(I know I was never a fan.)
The details of poor Sara Sharif's life and death are so harrowing.
Elon's big ideas so far are abolishing Veterans' healthcare (good luck with that), and binning the F35 - just as it has (finally) become the most cost effective fighter in production.
'Disruption' imposed from the top down is far less likely to be successful than that brought about by hungry new competitors like Anduril in defence.
Similar situation in Manchester and Newcastle – where parts of what is effectively the city centre are in another council area.
JFDI.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/asylum-seekers-escape-uk/
But this is the sort of partisan stop I was talking about.
Johnson had an open door immigration policy. So far Starmer has objectively done better than the Tories.
Not part of Newcastle, or in any way associated with that minor county on the other side of the river.
Hasty edit: except to OGH of course.
But then he allowed speculation to mount over an early election and Osborne ran his cut IHT campaign, and the rest is history.
I remember assuming that he had a detailed plan he'd been brooding over for a decade while waiting for Blair to move out. And then... Nothing.
But they did it really poorly, and ran away from the contrast with the pay awards to end the strikes - instead of creating an argument that because they had been tough with WFA, they could afford to end the strikes and get people back to work.
Really bad at the politics.
It is just incredible that anyone can think that their opponents don't have views and ideas. Just bizarre.
A near collision where he suggests both drivers do not realise how quickly their electric vehicles can accelerate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV_8SsEUggk
I wonder if Net Satisfaction ratings, and making a historical comparison, is prejudiced by the fact the two main parties now poll record low individual combined scores for the official roles the election result put them in? It’s multi party right now - whoever is in power (and this theory applies to LOTO Kemi and Conservative too for low satisfaction ratings) have got there with one of the smallest votes in history - in history, where the comparisons are being made, UK was closer to a tribal 2 party electorate - so we should expect early net satisfaction to look extremely poor, and historical comparisons maybe misleading.
A good decision from Labour here. But, happily for them, the judge and social workers involved in the decisions in putting her with her Father have anonymity for life.
Worth saying a lot of Labour’s policy agenda is quite popular - Sewage Bill, GB Energy, Employment/renters rights, but apart from minimum wage increase they haven’t had same cut through as less popular policies: farmers IHT, winter fuel allowance, NICs, maybe that changes as policies become delivery.
https://bsky.app/profile/luketryl.bsky.social/post/3ldh25kvzis2g
Presumably people like Sandy still insist Brixton is in Surrey and Tottenham is in Hertfordshire?
NEWS - INDIANA GOP REP. VICTORIA SPARTZ is expected to refuse committee assignments in the next Congress. She will also not caucus with Republicans — not attend meetings. But she will remain a Republican.
I am also confused what she means. But she has told republicans this and leadership is aware.
https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/1868786207167332506
I honestly thought it a nothing story that would appeal to the Political anoraks only.
Which it very much isn't, so far.
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson:
The new Syrian government will assume all of Syria's financial obligations to Iran.
https://x.com/clashreport/status/1868957309780771253
Labour's majority is built on sand and I think without those big tax pledges they would be in minority government or in a coalition with the Lib Dems.
You were wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/dec/17/uk-proposes-letting-tech-firms-use-copyrighted-work-to-train-ai
Tech companies will be allowed to freely use copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence models unless creative professionals and companies opt out of the process, under UK government proposals.
The proposed changes are seeking to resolve a standoff between AI firms and creatives. Sir Paul McCartney has warned the technology “could just take over” without new laws.
A government consultation is proposing an exception to UK copyright law – which prevents use of someone’s work without permission – that will allow companies such as Google and the ChatGPT developer OpenAI to train their models on copyrighted content. However, it will also allow writers, artists and composers to “reserve their rights”, which involves declaring that they do not want their work to be used in an AI training process – or to demand a licence fee to do so...
Why wouldn't they all now do so as a matter of course ?
British law is already a bit feeble on the protection of authors' rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_in_United_Kingdom_law
This is not good news for Holyhead or Irish sea trade
HGVs were conspicuous by their absence
Holyhead port drone video shows damage that's halted ferry services to Ireland
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/holyhead-port-drone-video-shows-30604077#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare
Though I suppose if you squint at this tweet in a certain light, Anas meant that the WASPI women getting fuck all is the justice they deserve.
Anas Sarwar
@AnasSarwar
Under my leadership, WASPI women will finally receive the justice they deserve. Read more here: http://anassarwar.scot/news/justice-for-waspi-women/
10:13 am · 14 Oct 2017
https://x.com/davidbirkettsnp/status/1869006606949925235
Madness.
Their services will be woeful compared to where they now live. Libraries shut, bin collections moved to once a month and all the rest.
So you do anything you can to avoid having to create them
It should be total national debt to GDP or public sector borrowing to government spending
I don’t have exact figures to had, but if government spending is about 40% of income then the ratio is 2.5x
Manageable but more than a public company would ideally have and leaves little room for manoeuvre
This lot seem absolutely determined to make the way clear for Farage and Reform.
Schools are also obliged to report to the LA if any children are taken out of school, due to funding systems. and should notify the LA if the children in question are being homeschooled.
However, most of them have no actual mechanism to do so, which renders the whole thing more or less moot. This is particularly problematic when somebody is taken out of a school in one LA (eg a private or special school) and lives in another. They tend to fall through the cracks as a result.
Therefore, before the government starts wittering about new legislation on the subject they should start by considering whether improved administrative practices are the actual answer.
I appreciate there is a certain irony in me, of all people, calling for more paperwork.
It is fixed by two naturally occurring events: the spring equinox and the full moon, joined to two past events, Good Friday being a Friday at the time of the Passover and the empty tomb being seen on a Sunday.
Change would gain something but also lose a little of our inheritance from antiquity.
They have received the justice they deserve.