Phillipson reckons the Tory amendment passing would kill her child/school bill "stone dead" - is that actually the case. Does the Conservative amendment actually contain an effective kill clause in it, or is it just that Labour would be unwilling to proceed with the bill as amended by that particular amendment ?
Since it is not going to pass, I would suggest she is jumping on a convenient passing bandwagon, which she often does.
There is a certain irony in this, of course...
I know it's not going to pass, but does the Tory amendment actually kill the bill off ? Or is it just that the Gov't would be unwilling to proceed with the bill as amended to force a new public enquiry ?
As worded, it would not set up an enquiry, only stop the bill from passing. So she is actually right about that.
It's an irrelevance, as it won't be adopted, but she's not lying.
(If it did stand a chance of being adopted, I think it unlikely it would have been put forward. So it's posturing from both sides.)
Phillipson reckons the Tory amendment passing would kill her child/school bill "stone dead" - is that actually the case. Does the Conservative amendment actually contain an effective kill clause in it, or is it just that Labour would be unwilling to proceed with the bill as amended by that particular amendment ?
It's academic. No Conservative amendments are going to pass in this Parliament unless the government already want to accept them.
Phillipson reckons the Tory amendment passing would kill her child/school bill "stone dead" - is that actually the case. Does the Conservative amendment actually contain an effective kill clause in it, or is it just that Labour would be unwilling to proceed with the bill as amended by that particular amendment ?
Since it is not going to pass, I would suggest she is jumping on a convenient passing bandwagon, which she often does.
There is a certain irony in this, of course...
I know it's not going to pass, but does the Tory amendment actually kill the bill off ? Or is it just that the Gov't would be unwilling to proceed with the bill as amended to force a new public enquiry ?
As worded, it would not set up an enquiry, only stop the bill from passing. So she is actually right about that.
It's an irrelevance, as it won't be adopted, but she's not actually lying.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Apart from the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the US invading Canada (1775 and 1812) I can’t think of any precedents for the US invasion of Panama or Canada.
But yes, Greenland no precedent.
In 1989, Panama had declared war on the US. That kinda gave them cover for military action.
I'm not sure what species of washing this morning's Trump cheerleading counts as: precedent-washing perhaps. Or just the latest iteration of sanewashing. Whatever it is, there is very obviously an attempt by MAGA and its international fans to shift the Overton window so far that it's starting to hang off the side of the house.
Or perhaps it’s not Trump cheerleading but gentle banter and not being overly serious and that labelling anyone or any comments that say anything you disagree with as being part of international MAGA is a bit twattish - I expected more from you really.
Oh in that case I'm just engaging in gentle banter too. That seems to be the forum get out of jail card. If arguing that invading Greenland would be showing the spirit of enterprise = gentle banter, then anything anyone says is clearly also gentle banter.
Surely, everything Trump says is jut for the laddy bantz?
We aren't make to take it...seriously?
I'd be more inclined to take it seriously if he said he and Musk have claimed Mars as the 51st state. And Musk is going to personally plant the flag...
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Apart from the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the US invading Canada (1775 and 1812) I can’t think of any precedents for the US invasion of Panama or Canada.
But yes, Greenland no precedent.
In 1989, Panama had declared war on the US. That kinda gave them cover for military action.
I'm not sure what species of washing this morning's Trump cheerleading counts as: precedent-washing perhaps. Or just the latest iteration of sanewashing. Whatever it is, there is very obviously an attempt by MAGA and its international fans to shift the Overton window so far that it's starting to hang off the side of the house.
Or perhaps it’s not Trump cheerleading but gentle banter and not being overly serious and that labelling anyone or any comments that say anything you disagree with as being part of international MAGA is a bit twattish - I expected more from you really.
Oh in that case I'm just engaging in gentle banter too. That seems to be the forum get out of jail card. If arguing that invading Greenland would be showing the spirit of enterprise = gentle banter, then anything anyone says is clearly also gentle banter.
I was objecting to being lumped in the MAGA or Trump defending world for banter re lack of precedent over Canada/Panama - I generally find it annoying however that anyone who says anything tends to get “othered” here recently and lumped into derogatory groups - it’s what made the site so unbearable over the weekend and doesn’t achieve anything good - you are usually nuanced and so surprised by your comment.
On topic, I have some sympathy with the general sentiments of the article but I also have deep scepticism with anything that involves council planning and/or regeneration, both of which are usually designed to stop things happening or indulge in officers' or councillors pet plans.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing....
In my (admittedly limited) experience, I've dealt with both pragmatic, helpful planning officers, and intransigent jobsworths of the kind you describe.
A new statutory code of conduct for planning officers might be a quicker and easier way of addressing that, rather than trying to rip up the system, which would mean a long and potentially losing debate with the NIMBY tendency?
My sister had an odd experience with planning. Had an extension designed including a half hipped roof. Planning officer said they couldn't have that style of roof as it was not in keeping with the area. This was utter bullshit as there are similar rooves within a few hundred yards of the house. Utterly weird, can only assume this guy didn't like them. But. He actually made suggestions about how to redesign the extension (effectively became a different project, extending from the kitchen rather than the lounge) that ended up working far better than the original plan would have.
Weird.
Planning Officers cannot be grouped and generalised.
They have seen far more plans than most people, other than perhaps 25 year career architects. It's good that you had one who gave helpful input.
They will often give views if asked in the right way. Also BCOs.
It's far easier and smoother for them if something is compliant. Mistakes corrected or improvements made at thinking stage are far better than sorting out hassles once it is half-built.
Most people start building projects from the inside out, whilst the place to start is plot / sun / views / orientation. Work in from there to outside-inside space, then windows and doors. Then start from the inside and meet at the walls.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
OTOH, he’s massively degraded Russia’s military.
Has he though? It seems that Russia's conventional forces at the start of this war were actually fairly rubbish, but now Russia seems to be slowly winning against Western-supplied Ukraine. It looks increasingly likely that a shit Trump-imposed 'peace' will allow Putin to claim that Russia defeated the West.
Yes, he has. Russian stocks of all sorts of equipment have been run down drastically during the war and are pretty near exhausted now, with minimal capacity for domestic replacement (hence Iranian and North Korean supplies - the crucial question now being China).
Russia is only 'winning' in the sense of advancing because it is expending huge numbers of men and materiel to gain small and strategically irrelevant amounts of land - around 0.5% of Ukraine last year in return for about 400,000 casualties. That is not 'winning'. Winning would be progressing along a path towards victory but those losses are unsustainable because you run out of capacity before you reach your objectives. Not to mention the domestic effects, with an economy that is overheating while also suffering shortages. Russia is actually losing and will do so when its army runs out of things to fight with, or when domestic pressure reaches a point where the government can no longer conduct the war.
That would be encouraging if it were not for the fact that Trump seems to be indicating that he is going to sacrifice all these years of enormous sacrifice by the Ukrainians to make a Putin-friendly deal. IE - refusing to allow Ukraine membership of NATO while sanctioning Russian expropriation of Ukrainian territory. Nauseating.
Trump cannot make such a deal if Ukraine is willing to fight on. Europe needs to step up to fill the gap. Unfortunately, it seems even more in fear of Trump than of Putin.
Ukraine will fight on regardless, Merz if he wins in Germany next month seems more willing to expand military aid to Ukraine than Scholz has been
David Brindle @DavidJ_Brindle · 1h ‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at @CommonsHealth
Because Labour don't want to prioritise it. Things that Labour have prioritised are:
Giving Palantir the contract for NHS data Selling the Royal Mail to the Czechs Taking Winter Fuel Allowance from pensioners Giving Ed Miliband 22bn to extract gas from air and heat caves with it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a left-wing government for a change? I mean yes they fuck up the economy, but at least you get some nice things, like less dead old people.
Increasing taxes on employers and farmers to fund huge bungs for GPs and train drivers and scrapping remaining hereditary peers is pretty leftwing
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Apart from the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the US invading Canada (1775 and 1812) I can’t think of any precedents for the US invasion of Panama or Canada.
But yes, Greenland no precedent.
In 1989, Panama had declared war on the US. That kinda gave them cover for military action.
I'm not sure what species of washing this morning's Trump cheerleading counts as: precedent-washing perhaps. Or just the latest iteration of sanewashing. Whatever it is, there is very obviously an attempt by MAGA and its international fans to shift the Overton window so far that it's starting to hang off the side of the house.
Or perhaps it’s not Trump cheerleading but gentle banter and not being overly serious and that labelling anyone or any comments that say anything you disagree with as being part of international MAGA is a bit twattish - I expected more from you really.
Oh in that case I'm just engaging in gentle banter too. That seems to be the forum get out of jail card. If arguing that invading Greenland would be showing the spirit of enterprise = gentle banter, then anything anyone says is clearly also gentle banter.
I was objecting to being lumped in the MAGA or Trump defending world for banter re lack of precedent over Canada/Panama - I generally find it annoying however that anyone who says anything tends to get “othered” here recently and lumped into derogatory groups - it’s what made the site so unbearable over the weekend and doesn’t achieve anything good - you are usually nuanced and so surprised by your comment.
I wasn’t referring to you, and apologies if that seemed to be the case. We have actual posters very obviously arguing that what Trump is proposing is reasonable.
The people of Greenland should be able to decide their own fate imo whether that's as currently part of the Kingdom of Denmark, independent or as a territory or state of the USA.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
You hope
He is so unpredictable how can you tell what he is going to do? If he makes a Treaty, will he stick to it? You can't enter in to Treaties with countries unless you are fairly confident they will abide by them. This is why talk of a negotiated settlement over Ukraine is so much BS. Who would trust Putin's Russia to keep to its side of the bargain?
Trump may surprise on the upside, but on form you would have to question his trustworthiness.
Trump being "transactional" is another of the meaningless euphemisms so often bandied about in commentary seeking to make sense of his utterings.
I certainly wouldn't "transact" with him. Nobody with any sense would. I might sign a piece of paper with a gun to my head but that's a different thing.
Yes, "transactional" means tit for tat. If the other party fulfils their end of the deal, you fulfil yours. If they don't, you retaliate. It may entail very tough bargaining, with no great liking for each other, but the expectation is that each party is a good actor.
Trump's approach is that every deal has a winner and a loser. And, if you can ratfuck the other party, so much the better, it's "just good business." And, people who display good faith and honour, are just "suckers and losers."
Yes exactly. Thinks his approach to Manhattan real estate and reality tv scales up to the presidency of the US. It's naive.
David Brindle @DavidJ_Brindle · 1h ‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at @CommonsHealth
Because Labour don't want to prioritise it. Things that Labour have prioritised are:
Giving Palantir the contract for NHS data Selling the Royal Mail to the Czechs Taking Winter Fuel Allowance from pensioners Giving Ed Miliband 22bn to extract gas from air and heat caves with it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a left-wing government for a change? I mean yes they fuck up the economy, but at least you get some nice things, like less dead old people.
Increasing taxes on employers and farmers to fund huge bungs for GPs and train drivers and scrapping remaining hereditary peers is pretty leftwing
Landowners, not farmers, please.
Most of those hit are farmers
But not the same thing. And a lot of farmers aren't hit. You're giving the impression of manipulating words to slant the argument.
In any case - the taxes haven't begun. And any competent planning will sort much of the issue.
The discussion about grooming story is off limits. If people are unable to adhere to this and then I will have to consider my future on PB.
I can't see that it's been discussed on this thread ?
It has, such as the amendment discussion.
OK I'll not discuss that any more as it's your and rcs site but blimy.
The reality is even before the OSA some of the comments on this subject have the potential to get OGH into trouble, and I mentioned yesterday we had to remove over a dozen posts in a short space of time and that’s unprecedented for PB,
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
Spending cuts are more likely, imo, should it come to the crunch.
The people of Greenland should be able to decide their own fate imo whether that's as currently part of the Kingdom of Denmark, independent or as a territory or state of the USA.
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
She is turning into Labour's very own slow-burn Liz Truss.
Sunak & Hunt snuffed out the Truss/Kwarteng bondfire quickly enough. This situation seems altogether worse. There's no obvious will or desire to correct the obvious errors here by Labour and the general situation (For borrowing) has worsened globally since Truss in the long term.
What are the obvious errors? You mean the employers NI mainly?
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Very odd, especially since he seemed to be proud of his record of not engaging the US in wars.
As I mentioned below, Musk's influence could be something to do.
It's Musk who has the personal connection with Canada, as mentioned, and he who seems to have the greater thirst for pure acquisition rather than preening, vanity
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
She is turning into Labour's very own slow-burn Liz Truss.
Sunak & Hunt snuffed out the Truss/Kwarteng bondfire quickly enough. This situation seems altogether worse. There's no obvious will or desire to correct the obvious errors here by Labour and the general situation (For borrowing) has worsened globally since Truss in the long term.
What are the obvious errors? You mean the employers NI mainly?
Yes, it should have been a general rise in income tax imo. Employers NI is inflationary because obvs (Particularly the way it's been done) firms will need to pass on those costs. They could have used the supposed black hole to tell everyone that they can't in fact stick to their manifesto.
The discussion about grooming story is off limits. If people are unable to adhere to this and then I will have to consider my future on PB.
I can't see that it's been discussed on this thread ?
It has, such as the amendment discussion.
OK I'll not discuss that any more as it's your and rcs site but blimy.
The reality is even before the OSA some of the comments on this subject have the potential to get OGH into trouble, and I mentioned yesterday we had to remove over a dozen posts in a short space of time and that’s unprecedented for PB,
I normally don't like banning people, but if you impose temporary bans on the deleted comments posters they will eventually "learn" by censoring themselves. It's not nice and I don't like it but you can't keep up the cadence of deleting individual posts, as you have to sleep sometimes
On topic. Here is my idea - Every 5 years, local authorities should be allowed to hold an auction for the de-listing of 2% of their Grade II listed buildings. This would re-generate urban areas and provide an income stream to the councils independent of central government.
The discussion about grooming story is off limits. If people are unable to adhere to this and then I will have to consider my future on PB.
I can't see that it's been discussed on this thread ?
It’s the number one political news story at the moment has its fingers in HoC business, votes, amendments, calls for sackings, Immigration policies, and how these now dramatically differ between the main parties. However, when has PB ever stuck to one topic or even politics? It should be easy for us to talk other things, till this latest fuckmule runs out of legs?
Here’s a suggested list of conversations. Crazy weather in the US. Hong Kong police arresting HK democracy advocates in UK. Leon in China: has he been stitched up at the top levels of Secret State and will never be seen again? Rachelnomics: all pain out early in Parliament making re-election easy, or voters already lost and change of government 2029 already certain? Football. Cricket: Musk buying the hundred Franchise actually makes it better? Airports. Moths.
Here’s moth of the day. I probably got it from this site in first place. It is lovely and amazing
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
Spending cuts are more likely, imo, should it come to the crunch.
Be interesting to see how public sector pay goes, Labours client vote, the sainted Nurses are already saying 2.8% is not enough.
Labour set a precedent by rolling over and caving in without getting anything for it last year. You cannot blame the Public sector for trying the same again.,
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Apart from the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the US invading Canada (1775 and 1812) I can’t think of any precedents for the US invasion of Panama or Canada.
But yes, Greenland no precedent.
In 1989, Panama had declared war on the US. That kinda gave them cover for military action.
I'm not sure what species of washing this morning's Trump cheerleading counts as: precedent-washing perhaps. Or just the latest iteration of sanewashing. Whatever it is, there is very obviously an attempt by MAGA and its international fans to shift the Overton window so far that it's starting to hang off the side of the house.
Or perhaps it’s not Trump cheerleading but gentle banter and not being overly serious and that labelling anyone or any comments that say anything you disagree with as being part of international MAGA is a bit twattish - I expected more from you really.
Oh in that case I'm just engaging in gentle banter too. That seems to be the forum get out of jail card. If arguing that invading Greenland would be showing the spirit of enterprise = gentle banter, then anything anyone says is clearly also gentle banter.
Hey I like this. So let it be known that I am always just gently bantering whenever I say ... well anything that people don't appreciate. Which does happen now and again.
David Brindle @DavidJ_Brindle · 1h ‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at @CommonsHealth
Because Labour don't want to prioritise it. Things that Labour have prioritised are:
Giving Palantir the contract for NHS data Selling the Royal Mail to the Czechs Taking Winter Fuel Allowance from pensioners Giving Ed Miliband 22bn to extract gas from air and heat caves with it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a left-wing government for a change? I mean yes they fuck up the economy, but at least you get some nice things, like less dead old people.
Increasing taxes on employers and farmers to fund huge bungs for GPs and train drivers and scrapping remaining hereditary peers is pretty leftwing
Landowners, not farmers, please.
Most of those hit are farmers
But not the same thing. And a lot of farmers aren't hit. You're giving the impression of manipulating words to slant the argument.
In any case - the taxes haven't begun. And any competent planning will sort much of the issue.
The average net worth across all farms was £2.2 million in 2022/23 and 49% of farms had a net worth of at least £1.5 million.
So large numbers of farms will be hit planning or not
On topic, I have some sympathy with the general sentiments of the article but I also have deep scepticism with anything that involves council planning and/or regeneration, both of which are usually designed to stop things happening or indulge in officers' or councillors pet plans.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing....
In my (admittedly limited) experience, I've dealt with both pragmatic, helpful planning officers, and intransigent jobsworths of the kind you describe.
A new statutory code of conduct for planning officers might be a quicker and easier way of addressing that, rather than trying to rip up the system, which would mean a long and potentially losing debate with the NIMBY tendency?
My sister had an odd experience with planning. Had an extension designed including a half hipped roof. Planning officer said they couldn't have that style of roof as it was not in keeping with the area. This was utter bullshit as there are similar rooves within a few hundred yards of the house. Utterly weird, can only assume this guy didn't like them. But. He actually made suggestions about how to redesign the extension (effectively became a different project, extending from the kitchen rather than the lounge) that ended up working far better than the original plan would have.
Weird.
Planning Officers cannot be grouped and generalised.
They have seen far more plans than most people, other than perhaps 25 year career architects. It's good that you had one who gave helpful input.
They will often give views if asked in the right way. Also BCOs.
It's far easier and smoother for them if something is compliant. Mistakes corrected or improvements made at thinking stage are far better than sorting out hassles once it is half-built.
Most people start building projects from the inside out, whilst the place to start is plot / sun / views / orientation. Work in from there to outside-inside space, then windows and doors. Then start from the inside and meet at the walls.
That's all fine, but why should the planning officer be able to object to something when the reasons given are demonstrably factually incorrect? Its maddening.
On topic. Here is my idea - Every 5 years, local authorities should be allowed to hold an auction for the de-listing of 2% of their Grade II listed buildings. This would re-generate urban areas and provide an income stream to the councils independent of central government.
Yet would not be worth it if it led to historic buildings being knocked down or altered beyond recognition
David Brindle @DavidJ_Brindle · 1h ‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at @CommonsHealth
Because Labour don't want to prioritise it. Things that Labour have prioritised are:
Giving Palantir the contract for NHS data Selling the Royal Mail to the Czechs Taking Winter Fuel Allowance from pensioners Giving Ed Miliband 22bn to extract gas from air and heat caves with it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a left-wing government for a change? I mean yes they fuck up the economy, but at least you get some nice things, like less dead old people.
Increasing taxes on employers and farmers to fund huge bungs for GPs and train drivers and scrapping remaining hereditary peers is pretty leftwing
Landowners, not farmers, please.
Most of those hit are farmers
But not the same thing. And a lot of farmers aren't hit. You're giving the impression of manipulating words to slant the argument.
In any case - the taxes haven't begun. And any competent planning will sort much of the issue.
The average net worth across all farms was £2.2 million in 2022/23 and 49% of farms had a net worth of at least £1.5 million.
So large numbers of farms will be hit planning or not
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
She is turning into Labour's very own slow-burn Liz Truss.
Sunak & Hunt snuffed out the Truss/Kwarteng bondfire quickly enough. This situation seems altogether worse. There's no obvious will or desire to correct the obvious errors here by Labour and the general situation (For borrowing) has worsened globally since Truss in the long term.
What are the obvious errors? You mean the employers NI mainly?
Yes, it should have been a general rise in income tax imo. Employers NI is inflationary because obvs (Particularly the way it's been done) firms will need to pass on those costs. They could have used the supposed black hole to tell everyone that they can't in fact stick to their manifesto.
I think they would have got away with it as well (Without coming over all Scooby Doo here) as it was early in their term and as others have said, if the economy is doing fine and things feel better in 4 years or so time then Labour will get back in.
Sadly they have wasted that opportunity and we are in for a rocky time this year. Especially now the Trumpdozer soon to be in the Whitehouse.
On topic. Here is my idea - Every 5 years, local authorities should be allowed to hold an auction for the de-listing of 2% of their Grade II listed buildings. This would re-generate urban areas and provide an income stream to the councils independent of central government.
Yet would not be worth it if it led to historic buildings being knocked down or altered beyond recognition
Far too many buildings are grade 2 listed. This would improve housing availability without affecting genuinely important historic buildings.
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
Spending cuts are more likely, imo, should it come to the crunch.
Be interesting to see how public sector pay goes, Labours client vote, the sainted Nurses are already saying 2.8% is not enough.
Labour set a precedent by rolling over and caving in without getting anything for it last year. You cannot blame the Public sector for trying the same again.,
I'll do a hostage to fortune. There'll be a settlement at modest numbers without more strikes.
On topic. Here is my idea - Every 5 years, local authorities should be allowed to hold an auction for the de-listing of 2% of their Grade II listed buildings. This would re-generate urban areas and provide an income stream to the councils independent of central government.
Yet would not be worth it if it led to historic buildings being knocked down or altered beyond recognition
Far too many buildings are grade 2 listed. This would improve housing availability without affecting genuinely important historic buildings.
Follow Scotland's example. We have no Grade 2 listed buildings at all.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
OTOH, he’s massively degraded Russia’s military.
Has he though? It seems that Russia's conventional forces at the start of this war were actually fairly rubbish, but now Russia seems to be slowly winning against Western-supplied Ukraine. It looks increasingly likely that a shit Trump-imposed 'peace' will allow Putin to claim that Russia defeated the West.
Yes, he has. Russian stocks of all sorts of equipment have been run down drastically during the war and are pretty near exhausted now, with minimal capacity for domestic replacement (hence Iranian and North Korean supplies - the crucial question now being China).
Russia is only 'winning' in the sense of advancing because it is expending huge numbers of men and materiel to gain small and strategically irrelevant amounts of land - around 0.5% of Ukraine last year in return for about 400,000 casualties. That is not 'winning'. Winning would be progressing along a path towards victory but those losses are unsustainable because you run out of capacity before you reach your objectives. Not to mention the domestic effects, with an economy that is overheating while also suffering shortages. Russia is actually losing and will do so when its army runs out of things to fight with, or when domestic pressure reaches a point where the government can no longer conduct the war.
That would be encouraging if it were not for the fact that Trump seems to be indicating that he is going to sacrifice all these years of enormous sacrifice by the Ukrainians to make a Putin-friendly deal. IE - refusing to allow Ukraine membership of NATO while sanctioning Russian expropriation of Ukrainian territory. Nauseating.
Trump cannot make such a deal if Ukraine is willing to fight on. Europe needs to step up to fill the gap. Unfortunately, it seems even more in fear of Trump than of Putin.
Ukraine will fight on regardless, Merz if he wins in Germany next month seems more willing to expand military aid to Ukraine than Scholz has been
Recent polling suggests that Zelenskyy has lost a lot of trust of the Ukrainian population. There's a suggestion that current manpower problems for the Ukrainian armed forces are less a result of an unwillingness to fight, but an unwillingness to fight under the current leadership.
Ukraine's willingness to fight, and ability to remain united to fight effectively, are not inexhaustible.
A lot of people, including myself, have criticised a ceasefire/peace deal on the current lines as an opportunity for Russia to rearm and have another go later, but it would also be an opportunity for Ukraine to do the same, and to do something Putin cannot do - rebuild trust in the political leadership of the country with a period of democratic politics as normal.
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
Spending cuts are more likely, imo, should it come to the crunch.
Be interesting to see how public sector pay goes, Labours client vote, the sainted Nurses are already saying 2.8% is not enough.
Labour set a precedent by rolling over and caving in without getting anything for it last year. You cannot blame the Public sector for trying the same again.,
I'll do a hostage to fortune. There'll be a settlement at modest numbers without more strikes.
I really hope you are right.
You're not Rogerdamus or Leondamus so you may well be right.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Where does he get the cash flow to do what SpaceX does without going to market? I can see it is profitable, but the upfront investments are massive and never-ending. They’ve never consolidated around one successful launch vehicle.
They have cost-engineered the hell out of space flight, in a way that’s never been done before. It’s an astonishing business. When your rocket costs you $10m to launch, and the competitor rocket costs $300m to launch, there’s a fair amount of scope for making money in the middle.
Yes but if your failure rate is 20-30% and you keep trying to innovate, I am still amazed the cash flow works without someone with deep pockets having a lot of patience. But then I assumed Meta and Google would run out of other people’s money so what do I know?
SpaceX is selling F9 launches for $50-60 million. They cost them less than $20 million. Development was paid off long ago.
F9 is now proven to be one of the most reliable rockets built to this point. Insurance for a payload on F9 is rock bottom in price now.
In addition, when you launch, all kind of services beyond bolting the satellite to the rocket are required. These are extra. The markup on those is very nice.
Military launches cost more because of the huge paperwork requirements. But again, SpaceX streamlined this - they bid less than others and still make a profit.
Dragon for NASA is similar - unlike Boeing, they are making money.
Starlink is now making money.
They are spending $1-2 Billion a year on developing Starship/Super Heavy. And that is not even eating all of the profits. Even before the fact that NASA are part funding development for the Artemis lunar landing program.
The marginal cost of a Starship/Super Heavy launch is estimated at $90 million. Fully expended. Which is less than the price of many medium lift expendable rockets. If they start reusing the first stage, that marginal cost drops to $30 million, or so.
Interesting. Goes against all my instincts! (First degree incorporated space science and I did some stuff thereafter, but I am a tad out of date. He does make Ariane look really stupid).
For ‘regular’ space transport, pretty much everything else is now either obsolete or massively overpriced.
Which obviously gives another set of problems, Ariane and the various Chinese efforts will continue because they’re state-backed.
The Chinese are pivoting to full reusability, Meth-LOX, stainless steel etc. Much of it blatant copies in a rather childish manner.
Or pragmatic manner.
Some of it nonsensical - one explanation is that some Chinese companies are following the scams like ARCA, with a CGI dressing on top.
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky · 2h Still plenty of appetite for UK debt among investors. Today's auction - £4.25bn of 5 year govt debt - was covered three times (eg three bids for each available bond). Perhaps that's to be expected with interest rates of 4.49%(!)
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
She is turning into Labour's very own slow-burn Liz Truss.
Sunak & Hunt snuffed out the Truss/Kwarteng bondfire quickly enough. This situation seems altogether worse. There's no obvious will or desire to correct the obvious errors here by Labour and the general situation (For borrowing) has worsened globally since Truss in the long term.
What are the obvious errors? You mean the employers NI mainly?
Yes, it should have been a general rise in income tax imo. Employers NI is inflationary because obvs (Particularly the way it's been done) firms will need to pass on those costs. They could have used the supposed black hole to tell everyone that they can't in fact stick to their manifesto.
Income tax would have been fairer as it taxes different income sources too.
What I think might prove to be Reeves’ fatal error was her ridiculous quote that she wouldn’t be raising any more taxes at the CBI though. She didn’t have to say that, and I wonder if that was run past Labours media team first (if it was they deserve all the flak they are getting at the moment). This was after the US election when the government must have known there were chances for future economic shocks, leaving aside all the budget fallout. Simply mind-boggling.
David Brindle @DavidJ_Brindle · 1h ‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at @CommonsHealth
Because Labour don't want to prioritise it. Things that Labour have prioritised are:
Giving Palantir the contract for NHS data Selling the Royal Mail to the Czechs Taking Winter Fuel Allowance from pensioners Giving Ed Miliband 22bn to extract gas from air and heat caves with it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a left-wing government for a change? I mean yes they fuck up the economy, but at least you get some nice things, like less dead old people.
Increasing taxes on employers and farmers to fund huge bungs for GPs and train drivers and scrapping remaining hereditary peers is pretty leftwing
Landowners, not farmers, please.
Most of those hit are farmers
But not the same thing. And a lot of farmers aren't hit. You're giving the impression of manipulating words to slant the argument.
In any case - the taxes haven't begun. And any competent planning will sort much of the issue.
The average net worth across all farms was £2.2 million in 2022/23 and 49% of farms had a net worth of at least £1.5 million.
So large numbers of farms will be hit planning or not
B ut that is still not the same thing. Landowners, not farmers, is the key word.
No it isn't as it is agricultural property relief being removed over £1 million it is not specifically an extra tax on landowners otherwise it would hit all owner occupiers in the UK
On topic. Here is my idea - Every 5 years, local authorities should be allowed to hold an auction for the de-listing of 2% of their Grade II listed buildings. This would re-generate urban areas and provide an income stream to the councils independent of central government.
Yet would not be worth it if it led to historic buildings being knocked down or altered beyond recognition
Far too many buildings are grade 2 listed. This would improve housing availability without affecting genuinely important historic buildings.
You could also build in a council veto in order to safeguard important buildings - but a limited number only, so they'd have to be used sparingly.
On topic. Here is my idea - Every 5 years, local authorities should be allowed to hold an auction for the de-listing of 2% of their Grade II listed buildings. This would re-generate urban areas and provide an income stream to the councils independent of central government.
Yet would not be worth it if it led to historic buildings being knocked down or altered beyond recognition
Far too many buildings are grade 2 listed. This would improve housing availability without affecting genuinely important historic buildings.
Follow Scotland's example. We have no Grade 2 listed buildings at all.
Scotland has Category C buildings which are similar
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
Spending cuts are more likely, imo, should it come to the crunch.
Be interesting to see how public sector pay goes, Labours client vote, the sainted Nurses are already saying 2.8% is not enough.
Labour set a precedent by rolling over and caving in without getting anything for it last year. You cannot blame the Public sector for trying the same again.,
Were the calling off of the several years long NHS strikes not a quid pro quo?
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
Spending cuts are more likely, imo, should it come to the crunch.
Be interesting to see how public sector pay goes, Labours client vote, the sainted Nurses are already saying 2.8% is not enough.
Labour set a precedent by rolling over and caving in without getting anything for it last year. You cannot blame the Public sector for trying the same again.,
I'll do a hostage to fortune. There'll be a settlement at modest numbers without more strikes.
I really hope you are right.
You're not Rogerdamus or Leondamus so you may well be right.
"kinabaludamus" doesn't roll too well tbf.
But anyway, yes. Let's see. It can join "Trump2" and "impact of the OSB" in that bucket.
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky · 2h Still plenty of appetite for UK debt among investors. Today's auction - £4.25bn of 5 year govt debt - was covered three times (eg three bids for each available bond). Perhaps that's to be expected with interest rates of 4.49%(!)
On topic. Here is my idea - Every 5 years, local authorities should be allowed to hold an auction for the de-listing of 2% of their Grade II listed buildings. This would re-generate urban areas and provide an income stream to the councils independent of central government.
Yet would not be worth it if it led to historic buildings being knocked down or altered beyond recognition
The historically worthwhile buildings are Grade I. I am thinking more of the current ludicrous cases where developers can basically build a new building, but have to keep the current facade.
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
Spending cuts are more likely, imo, should it come to the crunch.
Be interesting to see how public sector pay goes, Labours client vote, the sainted Nurses are already saying 2.8% is not enough.
Labour set a precedent by rolling over and caving in without getting anything for it last year. You cannot blame the Public sector for trying the same again.,
I'll do a hostage to fortune. There'll be a settlement at modest numbers without more strikes.
I really hope you are right.
You're not Rogerdamus or Leondamus so you may well be right.
"kinabaludamus" doesn't roll too well tbf.
Clearly it does not trip off the tongue, that is for sure.
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
She is turning into Labour's very own slow-burn Liz Truss.
There's a big difference, though. In Truss's case, there was an expectation, rapidly fulfilled, that the policy would be dumped by the Tories (along with her, as it turned out). I don't think the markets have any such expectation of Reeves and/or Labour ?
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky · 2h Still plenty of appetite for UK debt among investors. Today's auction - £4.25bn of 5 year govt debt - was covered three times (eg three bids for each available bond). Perhaps that's to be expected with interest rates of 4.49%(!)
The US has alot of debt maturing in 2025 of which over half is in the first 3 months.
Stormy weather ahead ?
The incoming administration's tax plans - essentially rolling forward almost all of the TCJA cuts and adding in a few new ones while maintaining or increasing spending - herald a stepchange even over the massive deficit rises in both the 2016-2020 and 2020-2024 terms. The US does have the benefit of stronger GDP growth and a reserve currency to shield itself, but even so. Their deficit numbers make the UK look like the picture of fiscal rectitude.
To be fair, most of the G7's deficit numbers make the UK like the picture of fiscal rectitude, with the exception of that permanent picture of fiscal constipation Germany.
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
Spending cuts are more likely, imo, should it come to the crunch.
Be interesting to see how public sector pay goes, Labours client vote, the sainted Nurses are already saying 2.8% is not enough.
Labour set a precedent by rolling over and caving in without getting anything for it last year. You cannot blame the Public sector for trying the same again.,
I'll do a hostage to fortune. There'll be a settlement at modest numbers without more strikes.
I really hope you are right.
You're not Rogerdamus or Leondamus so you may well be right.
"kinabaludamus" doesn't roll too well tbf.
Clearly it does not trip off the tongue, that is for sure.
If it should be needed, we could always go with 'kinabaloney'.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
Is there any chance we can persuade him to take NI off our hands? “Our” in this context is probably the UK and the RoI….
Take Scotland pretty please
So Trumpian ownership is preferable to English ownership. I thought you were an advocate of independence rather than "a new boss who is the same as the old boss".
Independence would be best option, but being 51st state would be better than being in UK in my humble opinion.
"Austria's president Alexander Van der Bellen has tasked the leader of the far-right Freedom Party, Herbert Kickl, with forming a coalition government. If the talks are successful, Austria will, for the first time, have a government led by the Eurosceptic, Russia-friendly Freedom Party (FPO). The FPO has been in power before, but only as a junior coalition partner. The party came first in September's elections, with roughly 29% of the vote, but was then sidelined."
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Almost $500bn :-)
There was a sale of secondary shares last month that valued SpaceX at $350bn and Musk owns about 40% of it.
Personally, if I was Musk, I would be selling of my Tesla shares but holding onto the SpaceX ones.
Ha yes, Tesla is likely to get eaten by the Chinese to some extent in the next few years, SpaceX is a decade ahead of everyone else, and Western governments and companies are never giving anything sensitive to the Chinese any time soon.
They steal it all or buy it under the counter regardless
FFS. We're going to be paying Mauritius £8.9B in exchange for giving them land that they never owned in the first place, over a thousand miles away from them.
Crazy. Batshit crazy. No confidence that this government can do anything except f**k up.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
Is there any chance we can persuade him to take NI off our hands? “Our” in this context is probably the UK and the RoI….
Take Scotland pretty please
So Trumpian ownership is preferable to English ownership. I thought you were an advocate of independence rather than "a new boss who is the same as the old boss".
Independence would be best option, but being 51st state would be better than being in UK in my humble opinion.
Interesting. I thought you would be more pro-european than u.s.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
Is there any chance we can persuade him to take NI off our hands? “Our” in this context is probably the UK and the RoI….
Take Scotland pretty please
So Trumpian ownership is preferable to English ownership. I thought you were an advocate of independence rather than "a new boss who is the same as the old boss".
Independence would be best option, but being 51st state would be better than being in UK in my humble opinion.
If Scottish Nationalists proposed leaving a Starmer led UK to become the 51st state of a Trump led USA that would be the surefire way to guarantee a unionist landslide in any indyref2.
Alba might prefer that, the SNP wouldn't for that very reason
On topic. Here is my idea - Every 5 years, local authorities should be allowed to hold an auction for the de-listing of 2% of their Grade II listed buildings. This would re-generate urban areas and provide an income stream to the councils independent of central government.
Yet would not be worth it if it led to historic buildings being knocked down or altered beyond recognition
Far too many buildings are grade 2 listed. This would improve housing availability without affecting genuinely important historic buildings.
Follow Scotland's example. We have no Grade 2 listed buildings at all.
Scotland has Category C buildings which are similar
David Brindle @DavidJ_Brindle · 1h ‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at @CommonsHealth
Because Labour don't want to prioritise it. Things that Labour have prioritised are:
Giving Palantir the contract for NHS data Selling the Royal Mail to the Czechs Taking Winter Fuel Allowance from pensioners Giving Ed Miliband 22bn to extract gas from air and heat caves with it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a left-wing government for a change? I mean yes they fuck up the economy, but at least you get some nice things, like less dead old people.
Increasing taxes on employers and farmers to fund huge bungs for GPs and train drivers and scrapping remaining hereditary peers is pretty leftwing
Landowners, not farmers, please.
Most of those hit are farmers
But not the same thing. And a lot of farmers aren't hit. You're giving the impression of manipulating words to slant the argument.
In any case - the taxes haven't begun. And any competent planning will sort much of the issue.
The average net worth across all farms was £2.2 million in 2022/23 and 49% of farms had a net worth of at least £1.5 million.
So large numbers of farms will be hit planning or not
B ut that is still not the same thing. Landowners, not farmers, is the key word.
No it isn't as it is agricultural property relief being removed over £1 million it is not specifically an extra tax on landowners otherwise it would hit all owner occupiers in the UK
Landowners whose land is used for farming, sure.
But it beginds with Landowners. Not Farmers. Farmers do not necessarily own their land, and that's what counts.
We're not brain dead on PB and it's an insult to all of us to have jejune propaganda on here.
FFS. We're going to be paying Mauritius £8.9B in exchange for giving them land that they never owned in the first place, over a thousand miles away from them.
Crazy. Batshit crazy. No confidence that this government can do anything except f**k up.
Country Gov’t gross debt 2024 (Share of GDP) Gov’t gross debt 2029F (Share of GDP) Change 🇯🇵 Japan 254.6% 251.7% -2.9 pp 🇮🇹 Italy 139.2% 144.9% +5.7 pp 🇺🇸 U.S. 123.3% 133.9% +10.6 pp 🇫🇷 France 111.6% 115.2% +3.6 pp 🇨🇦 Canada 104.7% 95.4% -9.3 pp 🇬🇧 UK 104.3% 110.1% +5.8 pp 🇩🇪 Germany 63.7% 57.7% -6.0 pp
Ours is growing, though from a relatively lower base and nowhere near as quickly as the US. Germany is a mad outlier with enough dry powder to engineer an economic boom and still have a healthy balance sheet.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
Is there any chance we can persuade him to take NI off our hands? “Our” in this context is probably the UK and the RoI….
Take Scotland pretty please
So Trumpian ownership is preferable to English ownership. I thought you were an advocate of independence rather than "a new boss who is the same as the old boss".
Independence would be best option, but being 51st state would be better than being in UK in my humble opinion.
Interesting. I thought you would be more pro-european than u.s.
I assume our Malc already has private health insurance.
On topic. Here is my idea - Every 5 years, local authorities should be allowed to hold an auction for the de-listing of 2% of their Grade II listed buildings. This would re-generate urban areas and provide an income stream to the councils independent of central government.
Yet would not be worth it if it led to historic buildings being knocked down or altered beyond recognition
Far too many buildings are grade 2 listed. This would improve housing availability without affecting genuinely important historic buildings.
Follow Scotland's example. We have no Grade 2 listed buildings at all.
Scotland has Category C buildings which are similar
"REFORM UK’s entrance into Scottish politics will “split the pro-Union vote” and help the SNP stay in power, a senior Tory MSP has said.
Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Conservative’s economy spokesperson, pointed to polling in recent weeks which has shown Nigel Farage’s party are likely to emerge with at least 10 MSPs from the Holyrood elections in around 16 months."
*watches float bob in the water*
Seriously, it's a slightly odd argument as splitting doesn't help the winner so much as in FPTP. What he really means is the Tories get fewer MSPs.
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky · 2h Still plenty of appetite for UK debt among investors. Today's auction - £4.25bn of 5 year govt debt - was covered three times (eg three bids for each available bond). Perhaps that's to be expected with interest rates of 4.49%(!)
The US has alot of debt maturing in 2025 of which over half is in the first 3 months.
Stormy weather ahead ?
The incoming administration's tax plans - essentially rolling forward almost all of the TCJA cuts and adding in a few new ones while maintaining or increasing spending - herald a stepchange even over the massive deficit rises in both the 2016-2020 and 2020-2024 terms. The US does have the benefit of stronger GDP growth and a reserve currency to shield itself, but even so. Their deficit numbers make the UK look like the picture of fiscal rectitude.
To be fair, most of the G7's deficit numbers make the UK like the picture of fiscal rectitude, with the exception of that permanent picture of fiscal constipation Germany.
Rightly or wrongly, Trump largely got a pass for his extraordinary fiscal irresponsibility the first time around, because of Covid.
That seems to have been extended to him this time around, up until the point where people have to get to grips with the reality of his actually taking office.
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
She is turning into Labour's very own slow-burn Liz Truss.
Sunak & Hunt snuffed out the Truss/Kwarteng bondfire quickly enough. This situation seems altogether worse. There's no obvious will or desire to correct the obvious errors here by Labour and the general situation (For borrowing) has worsened globally since Truss in the long term.
What are the obvious errors? You mean the employers NI mainly?
Yes, it should have been a general rise in income tax imo. Employers NI is inflationary because obvs (Particularly the way it's been done) firms will need to pass on those costs. They could have used the supposed black hole to tell everyone that they can't in fact stick to their manifesto.
I think they would have got away with it as well (Without coming over all Scooby Doo here) as it was early in their term and as others have said, if the economy is doing fine and things feel better in 4 years or so time then Labour will get back in.
Sadly they have wasted that opportunity and we are in for a rocky time this year. Especially now the Trumpdozer soon to be in the Whitehouse.
Yes and constant mention of blackhole and then doling out big pay rises and 22Bn to that clown Milliband rather negates the message. Will be free for all in public sector next pay round as well.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
Because it almost certainly increases the oil price, and because it creates chaos in the West which as we all know your mate enjoys immensely.
Where you see chaos, others would see vitality and the spirit of enterprise. If the West becomes a museum then it will lose the future.
Bullying is not 'vitality' and the 'spirit of enterprise'. It is bullying. And Trump is bullying various countries.
It's not far off Putin's own worldview: my country can get anything it wants. That's never proved stable for the world in the past, and it won't be in the future.
Then there's also the question of self-determination.
It's on days like today that the total lack of gender balance on this forum is laid bare.
A few of this morning's sub-threads:
"let's play war games!" "space rockets!" "what model of Jag is that?" "they're reformulating Formula 1 tracks!"
Though the usual decided lack of football chat, to be fair.
Well, we could also talk about thing, but we're not allowed to talk about thing, so it devolves into tedious laddish banter, perforce
FFS. We're going to be paying Mauritius £8.9B in exchange for giving them land that they never owned in the first place, over a thousand miles away from them.
Crazy. Batshit crazy. No confidence that this government can do anything except f**k up.
I thought Mauritius were seeking to renegotiate, after they realized Sir Keir had shafted them.
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
Spending cuts are more likely, imo, should it come to the crunch.
Be interesting to see how public sector pay goes, Labours client vote, the sainted Nurses are already saying 2.8% is not enough.
Labour set a precedent by rolling over and caving in without getting anything for it last year. You cannot blame the Public sector for trying the same again.,
I'll do a hostage to fortune. There'll be a settlement at modest numbers without more strikes.
I really hope you are right.
You're not Rogerdamus or Leondamus so you may well be right.
"kinabaludamus" doesn't roll too well tbf.
Clearly it does not trip off the tongue, that is for sure.
If it should be needed, we could always go with 'kinabaloney'.
Oh god no, that's quite good.
I'm going to revert to "Nigel" for Farage in retaliation.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
Is there any chance we can persuade him to take NI off our hands? “Our” in this context is probably the UK and the RoI….
Take Scotland pretty please
So Trumpian ownership is preferable to English ownership. I thought you were an advocate of independence rather than "a new boss who is the same as the old boss".
Independence would be best option, but being 51st state would be better than being in UK in my humble opinion.
Interesting. I thought you would be more pro-european than u.s.
Unfortunately us joining EU has never been mooted, it indeed would be the preferable option , independent and in EU. Best of all worlds. Prisoners are unable to choose though.
On topic. Here is my idea - Every 5 years, local authorities should be allowed to hold an auction for the de-listing of 2% of their Grade II listed buildings. This would re-generate urban areas and provide an income stream to the councils independent of central government.
Yet would not be worth it if it led to historic buildings being knocked down or altered beyond recognition
Far too many buildings are grade 2 listed. This would improve housing availability without affecting genuinely important historic buildings.
Follow Scotland's example. We have no Grade 2 listed buildings at all.
Scotland has Category C buildings which are similar
"REFORM UK’s entrance into Scottish politics will “split the pro-Union vote” and help the SNP stay in power, a senior Tory MSP has said.
Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Conservative’s economy spokesperson, pointed to polling in recent weeks which has shown Nigel Farage’s party are likely to emerge with at least 10 MSPs from the Holyrood elections in around 16 months."
*watches float bob in the water*
Seriously, it's a slightly odd argument as splitting doesn't help the winner so much as in FPTP. What he really means is the Tories get fewer MSPs.
Indeed, Reform will get MSPs largely proportionate to voteshare unlike MPs under FPTP and their MSPs will vote down indyref2 as much as Tory MSPs would
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky · 2h Still plenty of appetite for UK debt among investors. Today's auction - £4.25bn of 5 year govt debt - was covered three times (eg three bids for each available bond). Perhaps that's to be expected with interest rates of 4.49%(!)
The US has alot of debt maturing in 2025 of which over half is in the first 3 months.
Stormy weather ahead ?
The incoming administration's tax plans - essentially rolling forward almost all of the TCJA cuts and adding in a few new ones while maintaining or increasing spending - herald a stepchange even over the massive deficit rises in both the 2016-2020 and 2020-2024 terms. The US does have the benefit of stronger GDP growth and a reserve currency to shield itself, but even so. Their deficit numbers make the UK look like the picture of fiscal rectitude.
To be fair, most of the G7's deficit numbers make the UK like the picture of fiscal rectitude, with the exception of that permanent picture of fiscal constipation Germany.
Rightly or wrongly, Trump largely got a pass for his extraordinary fiscal irresponsibility the first time around, because of Covid.
That seems to have been extended to him this time around, up until the point where people have to get to grips with the reality of his actually taking office.
It's an interesting test of global market appetite. The numbers are eye watering. Japan is able to fund its vast government debt because it borrows off its own savers. Americans don't save, so the US has to borrow internationally.
My guess is that the party goes on, until and unless the US suffers a growth shock. Trade war could deliver that, as might actual war. Or a drift towards crony capitalism and greater regulatory uncertainty for investors (see his comments on wind farms), which is a risk this time round.
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
Spending cuts are more likely, imo, should it come to the crunch.
Be interesting to see how public sector pay goes, Labours client vote, the sainted Nurses are already saying 2.8% is not enough.
Labour set a precedent by rolling over and caving in without getting anything for it last year. You cannot blame the Public sector for trying the same again.,
I'll do a hostage to fortune. There'll be a settlement at modest numbers without more strikes.
I really hope you are right.
You're not Rogerdamus or Leondamus so you may well be right.
"kinabaludamus" doesn't roll too well tbf.
Clearly it does not trip off the tongue, that is for sure.
If it should be needed, we could always go with 'kinabaloney'.
Oh god no, that's quite good.
I'm going to revert to "Nigel" for Farage in retaliation.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
Because it almost certainly increases the oil price, and because it creates chaos in the West which as we all know your mate enjoys immensely.
Where you see chaos, others would see vitality and the spirit of enterprise. If the West becomes a museum then it will lose the future.
Bullying is not 'vitality' and the 'spirit of enterprise'. It is bullying. And Trump is bullying various countries.
It's not far off Putin's own worldview: my country can get anything it wants. That's never proved stable for the world in the past, and it won't be in the future.
Then there's also the question of self-determination.
It's on days like today that the total lack of gender balance on this forum is laid bare.
A few of this morning's sub-threads:
"let's play war games!" "space rockets!" "what model of Jag is that?" "they're reformulating Formula 1 tracks!"
Though the usual decided lack of football chat, to be fair.
Well, we could also talk about thing, but we're not allowed to talk about thing, so it devolves into tedious laddish banter, perforce
Welcome to the future of PB
To be fair Trump invading Panama and Greenland isn't remotely tedious, but it's certainly quite boy's-own.
David Brindle @DavidJ_Brindle · 1h ‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at @CommonsHealth
Because Labour don't want to prioritise it. Things that Labour have prioritised are:
Giving Palantir the contract for NHS data Selling the Royal Mail to the Czechs Taking Winter Fuel Allowance from pensioners Giving Ed Miliband 22bn to extract gas from air and heat caves with it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a left-wing government for a change? I mean yes they fuck up the economy, but at least you get some nice things, like less dead old people.
Increasing taxes on employers and farmers to fund huge bungs for GPs and train drivers and scrapping remaining hereditary peers is pretty leftwing
Landowners, not farmers, please.
Most of those hit are farmers
But not the same thing. And a lot of farmers aren't hit. You're giving the impression of manipulating words to slant the argument.
In any case - the taxes haven't begun. And any competent planning will sort much of the issue.
The average net worth across all farms was £2.2 million in 2022/23 and 49% of farms had a net worth of at least £1.5 million.
So large numbers of farms will be hit planning or not
B ut that is still not the same thing. Landowners, not farmers, is the key word.
No it isn't as it is agricultural property relief being removed over £1 million it is not specifically an extra tax on landowners otherwise it would hit all owner occupiers in the UK
Landowners whose land is used for farming, sure.
But it beginds with Landowners. Not Farmers. Farmers do not necessarily own their land, and that's what counts.
We're not brain dead on PB and it's an insult to all of us to have jejune propaganda on here.
No it doesn't, as landowners include someone who owns a 2 bed property and garden in Stoke.
This ending of agricultural property relief is primarily going to hit farmers
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
Because it almost certainly increases the oil price, and because it creates chaos in the West which as we all know your mate enjoys immensely.
Where you see chaos, others would see vitality and the spirit of enterprise. If the West becomes a museum then it will lose the future.
Bullying is not 'vitality' and the 'spirit of enterprise'. It is bullying. And Trump is bullying various countries.
It's not far off Putin's own worldview: my country can get anything it wants. That's never proved stable for the world in the past, and it won't be in the future.
Then there's also the question of self-determination.
It's on days like today that the total lack of gender balance on this forum is laid bare.
A few of this morning's sub-threads:
"let's play war games!" "space rockets!" "what model of Jag is that?" "they're reformulating Formula 1 tracks!"
Though the usual decided lack of football chat, to be fair.
Well, we could also talk about thing, but we're not allowed to talk about thing, so it devolves into tedious laddish banter, perforce
Welcome to the future of PB
To be fair Trump invading Panama and Greenland isn't remotely tedious, but it's certainly quite boy's-own.
"Austria's president Alexander Van der Bellen has tasked the leader of the far-right Freedom Party, Herbert Kickl, with forming a coalition government. If the talks are successful, Austria will, for the first time, have a government led by the Eurosceptic, Russia-friendly Freedom Party (FPO). The FPO has been in power before, but only as a junior coalition partner. The party came first in September's elections, with roughly 29% of the vote, but was then sidelined."
Well the FPO did win the largest number of members of the Austrian Parliament and the centre right governing party has replaced its leader with a grouping more likely to deal with them
On topic, I have some sympathy with the general sentiments of the article but I also have deep scepticism with anything that involves council planning and/or regeneration, both of which are usually designed to stop things happening or indulge in officers' or councillors pet plans.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing....
In my (admittedly limited) experience, I've dealt with both pragmatic, helpful planning officers, and intransigent jobsworths of the kind you describe.
A new statutory code of conduct for planning officers might be a quicker and easier way of addressing that, rather than trying to rip up the system, which would mean a long and potentially losing debate with the NIMBY tendency?
My sister had an odd experience with planning. Had an extension designed including a half hipped roof. Planning officer said they couldn't have that style of roof as it was not in keeping with the area. This was utter bullshit as there are similar rooves within a few hundred yards of the house. Utterly weird, can only assume this guy didn't like them. But. He actually made suggestions about how to redesign the extension (effectively became a different project, extending from the kitchen rather than the lounge) that ended up working far better than the original plan would have.
Weird.
We had a dormer rejected as being out of keeping with the area despite dozens on our and surrounding streets. Instead they wanted a Velux. Planning is a bizarre world.
Veluxes look good but they are a bit crap in practice. You can't have curtains, the slides get mouldy, and they are noisy when it rains. Plus you feel really hemmed in.
The Veluxe blinds, that can be added, are quite good now.
That's what I meant by "slides" (sorry, wrong word?). You can't clean them nor take them down to clean them nor replace them (I think?). So if they get mouldy or dirty, you be stuck in a room with diagonal walls and mouldy things. Not good.
I’ve taken mine down - daughter wanted different coloured ones. New design, maybe? All you need is a small screwdriver - which comes in the box with the blinds.
They were quite cheap.
If they are getting moldy, then you have a damp problem. Cleaning them is just dealing with a symptom, then.
One advantage of air source heating - air conditioning that can run in reverse to heat - is that you get dehumidification for free, as part of the system.
Comments
It's an irrelevance, as it won't be adopted, but she's not lying.
(If it did stand a chance of being adopted, I think it unlikely it would have been put forward. So it's posturing from both sides.)
The constant reference to a power unit for storage is triggering me tbh
We aren't make to take it...seriously?
I'd be more inclined to take it seriously if he said he and Musk have claimed Mars as the 51st state. And Musk is going to personally plant the flag...
They have seen far more plans than most people, other than perhaps 25 year career architects. It's good that you had one who gave helpful input.
They will often give views if asked in the right way. Also BCOs.
It's far easier and smoother for them if something is compliant. Mistakes corrected or improvements made at thinking stage are far better than sorting out hassles once it is half-built.
Most people start building projects from the inside out, whilst the place to start is plot / sun / views / orientation. Work in from there to outside-inside space, then windows and doors. Then start from the inside and meet at the walls.
In any case - the taxes haven't begun. And any competent planning will sort much of the issue.
It's Musk who has the personal connection with Canada, as mentioned, and he who seems to have the greater thirst for pure acquisition rather than preening, vanity
Sorry @TheScreamingEagles
It would be great if people could be a bit more sensible with their posts because it's ruining PB for the rest of us.
Every 5 years, local authorities should be allowed to hold an auction for the de-listing of 2% of their Grade II listed buildings.
This would re-generate urban areas and provide an income stream to the councils independent of central government.
Here’s a suggested list of conversations. Crazy weather in the US. Hong Kong police arresting HK democracy advocates in UK. Leon in China: has he been stitched up at the top levels of Secret State and will never be seen again? Rachelnomics: all pain out early in Parliament making re-election easy, or voters already lost and change of government 2029 already certain? Football. Cricket: Musk buying the hundred Franchise actually makes it better? Airports. Moths.
Here’s moth of the day. I probably got it from this site in first place. It is lovely and amazing
.
Labour set a precedent by rolling over and caving in without getting anything for it last year. You cannot blame the Public sector for trying the same again.,
Coalburn 2 is the same again, and there's another project at Kincardine also the same.
So in total you'd have 1.5GW/3GWh.
That's a lot of batteries. Wonder where they will be imported from?
So large numbers of farms will be hit planning or not
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/balance-sheet-analysis-and-farming-performance-england/balance-sheet-analysis-and-farming-performance-england-202223-statistics-notice
Zhōngguó
Sadly they have wasted that opportunity and we are in for a rocky time this year. Especially now the Trumpdozer soon to be in the Whitehouse.
Ukraine's willingness to fight, and ability to remain united to fight effectively, are not inexhaustible.
A lot of people, including myself, have criticised a ceasefire/peace deal on the current lines as an opportunity for Russia to rearm and have another go later, but it would also be an opportunity for Ukraine to do the same, and to do something Putin cannot do - rebuild trust in the political leadership of the country with a period of democratic politics as normal.
You're not Rogerdamus or Leondamus so you may well be right.
Did you see the footage of the MRBM test interception, where they dropped it from a C-17 to air launch ?
https://x.com/heatloss1986/status/1876922894292242574
Ed Conway
@EdConwaySky
·
2h
Still plenty of appetite for UK debt among investors. Today's auction - £4.25bn of 5 year govt debt - was covered three times (eg three bids for each available bond).
Perhaps that's to be expected with interest rates of 4.49%(!)
https://x.com/EdConwaySky
What I think might prove to be Reeves’ fatal error was her ridiculous quote that she wouldn’t be raising any more taxes at the CBI though. She didn’t have to say that, and I wonder if that was run past Labours media team first (if it was they deserve all the flak they are getting at the moment). This was after the US election when the government must have known there were chances for future economic shocks, leaving aside all the budget fallout. Simply mind-boggling.
https://www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/info/200216/conservation_areas/96/listed_building_consent/3
https://www.ft.com/content/3ed51022-9d22-407a-a965-27a6d3b25582
While that's not yet sanctioning them, that could be on the cards, so any deals need to be done quickly.
But anyway, yes. Let's see. It can join "Trump2" and "impact of the OSB" in that bucket.
The US has alot of debt maturing in 2025 of which over half is in the first 3 months.
Stormy weather ahead ?
I am thinking more of the current ludicrous cases where developers can basically build a new building, but have to keep the current facade.
In Truss's case, there was an expectation, rapidly fulfilled, that the policy would be dumped by the Tories (along with her, as it turned out). I don't think the markets have any such expectation of Reeves and/or Labour ?
To be fair, most of the G7's deficit numbers make the UK like the picture of fiscal rectitude, with the exception of that permanent picture of fiscal constipation Germany.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clykjz8kk9xo
Crazy. Batshit crazy. No confidence that this government can do anything except f**k up.
Alba might prefer that, the SNP wouldn't for that very reason
But it beginds with Landowners. Not Farmers. Farmers do not necessarily own their land, and that's what counts.
We're not brain dead on PB and it's an insult to all of us to have jejune propaganda on here.
Seems reasonable.
https://newdiplomatng.com/government-debt-projections/
Country Gov’t gross debt 2024
(Share of GDP) Gov’t gross debt 2029F
(Share of GDP) Change
🇯🇵 Japan 254.6% 251.7% -2.9 pp
🇮🇹 Italy 139.2% 144.9% +5.7 pp
🇺🇸 U.S. 123.3% 133.9% +10.6 pp
🇫🇷 France 111.6% 115.2% +3.6 pp
🇨🇦 Canada 104.7% 95.4% -9.3 pp
🇬🇧 UK 104.3% 110.1% +5.8 pp
🇩🇪 Germany 63.7% 57.7% -6.0 pp
Ours is growing, though from a relatively lower base and nowhere near as quickly as the US. Germany is a mad outlier with enough dry powder to engineer an economic boom and still have a healthy balance sheet.
But look also at Canada. Look too at Canada's GDP performance and projections. https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp-growth
Yet Trudeau has just stepped down because his government is so unpopular.
"REFORM UK’s entrance into Scottish politics will “split the pro-Union vote” and help the SNP stay in power, a senior Tory MSP has said.
Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Conservative’s economy spokesperson, pointed to polling in recent weeks which has shown Nigel Farage’s party are likely to emerge with at least 10 MSPs from the Holyrood elections in around 16 months."
*watches float bob in the water*
Seriously, it's a slightly odd argument as splitting doesn't help the winner so much as in FPTP. What he really means is the Tories get fewer MSPs.
That seems to have been extended to him this time around, up until the point where people have to get to grips with the reality of his actually taking office.
Welcome to the future of PB
I'm going to revert to "Nigel" for Farage in retaliation.
https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/1876978952318619849
My guess is that the party goes on, until and unless the US suffers a growth shock. Trade war could deliver that, as might actual war. Or a drift towards crony capitalism and greater regulatory uncertainty for investors (see his comments on wind farms), which is a risk this time round.
This ending of agricultural property relief is primarily going to hit farmers
Trump will love that, and Musk may push him on to taking a tougher line with Canada.
One it won't be, is a Labour gain. Nice rural area, so no candidate obviously. Wonder if we will see more of this in the coming months.
They were quite cheap.
If they are getting moldy, then you have a damp problem. Cleaning them is just dealing with a symptom, then.
One advantage of air source heating - air conditioning that can run in reverse to heat - is that you get dehumidification for free, as part of the system.
What do you reckon. Is the Independent popular enough to seal the deal as a Lib Dem ?