It's a strange sort who is prepared to die in a ditch over Latin teaching.
Ad munimenta, commilitones!
The same posters who are outraged that other people's children are incurring a huge debt to read for "Mickey Mouse" degrees".
So you are in favour of withdrawing teaching and effectively cancelling GCSEs that children have been studying for? As they head into the mocks and the final straight?
Why not end Latin teaching after the exams?
No, you like to put words on my page. Canning a programme in mid term is ridiculous. I also believe Latin should be available to be taught to those who want to learn Latin.
My point is not my inconsistency, which as you can see in the above paragraph is not inconsistent. My point was those crying loudest about the removal of Latin are happy to see the back of what they consider "Mickey Mouse" courses. Likewise I don't care if someone wants to complete a Masters degree on the hits of Madonna.
The actual problem with degrees is that for a large number of people, they need a degree to get the same job that was previously non-degree. And which has a low-to-non-existent premium over not doing the degree.
Meanwhile the government caps medical degrees (and associated training), and companies import graduates from other countries.
Now I am all for improving academic standards, in nursing for example, however I am not averse to more imaginative delivery. I don't see why Solicitors if they do wish can't go through the Articled Clerk route if they do desire, but equally those who want to attend University for three years despite the debt incurred should be allowed to go to University.
I am all for day and block release to complete a combined work and study degree course.
It’s not about banning stuff. But it strikes me that it is mis-selling to claim that x of debt will get you y of monetary benefit, when it doesn’t.
The answers include, I think
- raising the quality of degrees at some institutions. Because many companies prefer grads from institutions abroad to quite screw universities in the U.K. - more honesty in selling the product. 16-18 year olds are vulnerable to mis-selling. - As you say, mix and match, part time degrees etc. I’d also add normalising doing a degree later than just after school.
If they are being deliberately missold a guarantee of untold riches you are right. But I am not sure that is true.
When I signed up to a straight Politics BSc. (Econ) I wasn't sold a pup, I was sold an experience and not a guaranteed career (granted in my day it was all courtesy of the Local Authority).
Universities are now selling “a degree with us gets you job and more money” - literal advertising.
Complete with dodgy stats.
Until quite recently, they were trying to shout down anyone who pointed out there are massive differences in value between different degrees.
Many companies only hire grads from a list of universities - they hire foreign grads rather than from the lower tiers of U.K. universities.
At one company, my boss tried hiring without that limitation. We had interviewees who were plainly getting nothing from their education - one sticks in my mind - his final year electronics project was trivial, and even then, had learnt nearly nothing about it…
I am not sure a University degree is a test of knowledge so much as a certificate of application over three years. The learning starts after one finds their first job.
I loved it. I would send everyone to University. As a nation I think we lose an awful lot by culling establishments and courses back to the top 5%. With what we saw with previous recent Governments and certainly postings on here a University education will be returned to exclusivity, probably in my lifetime, and I am already an old man.
It's a strange sort who is prepared to die in a ditch over Latin teaching.
Ad munimenta, commilitones!
The same posters who are outraged that other people's children are incurring a huge debt to read for "Mickey Mouse" degrees".
So you are in favour of withdrawing teaching and effectively cancelling GCSEs that children have been studying for? As they head into the mocks and the final straight?
Why not end Latin teaching after the exams?
No, you like to put words on my page. Canning a programme in mid term is ridiculous. I also believe Latin should be available to be taught to those who want to learn Latin.
My point is not my inconsistency, which as you can see in the above paragraph is not inconsistent. My point was those crying loudest about the removal of Latin are happy to see the back of what they consider "Mickey Mouse" courses. Likewise I don't care if someone wants to complete a Masters degree on the hits of Madonna.
The actual problem with degrees is that for a large number of people, they need a degree to get the same job that was previously non-degree. And which has a low-to-non-existent premium over not doing the degree.
Meanwhile the government caps medical degrees (and associated training), and companies import graduates from other countries.
Now I am all for improving academic standards, in nursing for example, however I am not averse to more imaginative delivery. I don't see why Solicitors if they do wish can't go through the Articled Clerk route if they do desire, but equally those who want to attend University for three years despite the debt incurred should be allowed to go to University.
I am all for day and block release to complete a combined work and study degree course.
It’s not about banning stuff. But it strikes me that it is mis-selling to claim that x of debt will get you y of monetary benefit, when it doesn’t.
The answers include, I think
- raising the quality of degrees at some institutions. Because many companies prefer grads from institutions abroad to quite screw universities in the U.K. - more honesty in selling the product. 16-18 year olds are vulnerable to mis-selling. - As you say, mix and match, part time degrees etc. I’d also add normalising doing a degree later than just after school.
If they are being deliberately missold a guarantee of untold riches you are right. But I am not sure that is true.
When I signed up to a straight Politics BSc. (Econ) I wasn't sold a pup, I was sold an experience and not a guaranteed career (granted in my day it was all courtesy of the Local Authority).
Universities are now selling “a degree with us gets you job and more money” - literal advertising.
Complete with dodgy stats.
Until quite recently, they were trying to shout down anyone who pointed out there are massive differences in value between different degrees.
Many companies only hire grads from a list of universities - they hire foreign grads rather than from the lower tiers of U.K. universities.
At one company, my boss tried hiring without that limitation. We had interviewees who were plainly getting nothing from their education - one sticks in my mind - his final year electronics project was trivial, and even then, had learnt nearly nothing about it…
I am not sure a University degree is a test of knowledge so much as a certificate of application over three years. The learning starts after one finds their first job.
I loved it. I would send everyone to University. As a nation I think we lose an awful lot by culling establishments and courses back to the top 5%. With what we saw with previous recent Governments and certainly postings on here a University education will be returned to exclusivity, probably in my lifetime, and I am already an old man.
I would expect that someone with ability, would come out of their degree, with a good knowledge of the subject of that degree!
That’s how I’ve always interviewed grads. If you specialised in Elizabethan poetry in your final year of your degree, what can you tell me about it?
Before such interviews I read up on the topic enough to ask some questions. The responses tell you quite a bit, I find.
Starmer isn’t sounding very strong on media questions on the economy.
Oh dear - did somebody ask him "How does AI create jobs?"....
Building the data centres and the power stations?
If used sensibly, AI could increase productivity.
There are several people on PB (including myself) who have used “AI” this way.
Think assistant rather than job replacement.
Historically, a noticeable improvement in productivity is associated with economic growth and job *creation*.
Of course, it is far from certain that AI will be used this way. Generating huge, unreadable documents just got easier…
Oh exactly. One of the senior managers at my work has for months been asking for some sort of comprehensive IT policy document for ISO9000 bollocks. I did explain to him that there’s at least a man-month of work in writing such a document properly, but he seemed happy enough with 100 pages of ChatGPT output that he doesn’t understand anyway, to be filed away and never read.
It's a strange sort who is prepared to die in a ditch over Latin teaching.
Ad munimenta, commilitones!
The same posters who are outraged that other people's children are incurring a huge debt to read for "Mickey Mouse" degrees".
So you are in favour of withdrawing teaching and effectively cancelling GCSEs that children have been studying for? As they head into the mocks and the final straight?
Why not end Latin teaching after the exams?
No, you like to put words on my page. Canning a programme in mid term is ridiculous. I also believe Latin should be available to be taught to those who want to learn Latin.
My point is not my inconsistency, which as you can see in the above paragraph is not inconsistent. My point was those crying loudest about the removal of Latin are happy to see the back of what they consider "Mickey Mouse" courses. Likewise I don't care if someone wants to complete a Masters degree on the hits of Madonna.
The actual problem with degrees is that for a large number of people, they need a degree to get the same job that was previously non-degree. And which has a low-to-non-existent premium over not doing the degree.
Meanwhile the government caps medical degrees (and associated training), and companies import graduates from other countries.
Now I am all for improving academic standards, in nursing for example, however I am not averse to more imaginative delivery. I don't see why Solicitors if they do wish can't go through the Articled Clerk route if they do desire, but equally those who want to attend University for three years despite the debt incurred should be allowed to go to University.
I am all for day and block release to complete a combined work and study degree course.
It’s not about banning stuff. But it strikes me that it is mis-selling to claim that x of debt will get you y of monetary benefit, when it doesn’t.
The answers include, I think
- raising the quality of degrees at some institutions. Because many companies prefer grads from institutions abroad to quite screw universities in the U.K. - more honesty in selling the product. 16-18 year olds are vulnerable to mis-selling. - As you say, mix and match, part time degrees etc. I’d also add normalising doing a degree later than just after school.
If they are being deliberately missold a guarantee of untold riches you are right. But I am not sure that is true.
When I signed up to a straight Politics BSc. (Econ) I wasn't sold a pup, I was sold an experience and not a guaranteed career (granted in my day it was all courtesy of the Local Authority).
Universities are now selling “a degree with us gets you job and more money” - literal advertising.
Complete with dodgy stats.
Until quite recently, they were trying to shout down anyone who pointed out there are massive differences in value between different degrees.
Many companies only hire grads from a list of universities - they hire foreign grads rather than from the lower tiers of U.K. universities.
At one company, my boss tried hiring without that limitation. We had interviewees who were plainly getting nothing from their education - one sticks in my mind - his final year electronics project was trivial, and even then, had learnt nearly nothing about it…
I am not sure a University degree is a test of knowledge so much as a certificate of application over three years. The learning starts after one finds their first job.
I loved it. I would send everyone to University. As a nation I think we lose an awful lot by culling establishments and courses back to the top 5%. With what we saw with previous recent Governments and certainly postings on here a University education will be returned to exclusivity, probably in my lifetime, and I am already an old man.
But it's less of a certificate of application than, say, having held down a job for three years.
It's a strange sort who is prepared to die in a ditch over Latin teaching.
Ad munimenta, commilitones!
The same posters who are outraged that other people's children are incurring a huge debt to read for "Mickey Mouse" degrees".
So you are in favour of withdrawing teaching and effectively cancelling GCSEs that children have been studying for? As they head into the mocks and the final straight?
Why not end Latin teaching after the exams?
No, you like to put words on my page. Canning a programme in mid term is ridiculous. I also believe Latin should be available to be taught to those who want to learn Latin.
My point is not my inconsistency, which as you can see in the above paragraph is not inconsistent. My point was those crying loudest about the removal of Latin are happy to see the back of what they consider "Mickey Mouse" courses. Likewise I don't care if someone wants to complete a Masters degree on the hits of Madonna.
The actual problem with degrees is that for a large number of people, they need a degree to get the same job that was previously non-degree. And which has a low-to-non-existent premium over not doing the degree.
Meanwhile the government caps medical degrees (and associated training), and companies import graduates from other countries.
Now I am all for improving academic standards, in nursing for example, however I am not averse to more imaginative delivery. I don't see why Solicitors if they do wish can't go through the Articled Clerk route if they do desire, but equally those who want to attend University for three years despite the debt incurred should be allowed to go to University.
I am all for day and block release to complete a combined work and study degree course.
It’s not about banning stuff. But it strikes me that it is mis-selling to claim that x of debt will get you y of monetary benefit, when it doesn’t.
The answers include, I think
- raising the quality of degrees at some institutions. Because many companies prefer grads from institutions abroad to quite screw universities in the U.K. - more honesty in selling the product. 16-18 year olds are vulnerable to mis-selling. - As you say, mix and match, part time degrees etc. I’d also add normalising doing a degree later than just after school.
If they are being deliberately missold a guarantee of untold riches you are right. But I am not sure that is true.
When I signed up to a straight Politics BSc. (Econ) I wasn't sold a pup, I was sold an experience and not a guaranteed career (granted in my day it was all courtesy of the Local Authority).
Universities are now selling “a degree with us gets you job and more money” - literal advertising.
Complete with dodgy stats.
Until quite recently, they were trying to shout down anyone who pointed out there are massive differences in value between different degrees.
Many companies only hire grads from a list of universities - they hire foreign grads rather than from the lower tiers of U.K. universities.
At one company, my boss tried hiring without that limitation. We had interviewees who were plainly getting nothing from their education - one sticks in my mind - his final year electronics project was trivial, and even then, had learnt nearly nothing about it…
I am not sure a University degree is a test of knowledge so much as a certificate of application over three years. The learning starts after one finds their first job.
I loved it. I would send everyone to University. As a nation I think we lose an awful lot by culling establishments and courses back to the top 5%. With what we saw with previous recent Governments and certainly postings on here a University education will be returned to exclusivity, probably in my lifetime, and I am already an old man.
I am sympathetic to what the Blair government was trying to achieve with expanding access to university and I think it absolutely has a role to play in driving social mobility. At the same time I know some young people who have gone into apprenticeships or straight into work (or hybrid work/learning schemes) who are absolutely thriving and don’t have the millstone of university fees around their neck - which nowadays amount to a graduate tax in all but name.
I think one of the downsides of the reforms was it created pressure for a “one size fits all” approach to post-18 learning, a feeling that a university degree was the natural next step. I think there’s a place for university education and experience for a great number of people, but I think younger people are becoming much more cognisant of the alternatives, and the government should continue to support and expand that choice with a view to facilitating the best possible training and education for particular professions and qualifications.
Who would have thought that Starmer would be forced into confirming his confidence in Reeves only 6 months after a landslide Labour win ?
The way the bond markets are heading she is at some risk of being Truss 2 due to her irresponsible growth and job destroying budget resulting in higher interest rates for longer and facing dramatic public spending cuts
She may not survive the year, and to be fair she looks as if she is carrying a heavy burden
Confess I’m a little stunned by the Sturgeon/Murrell divorce
There are relationships and relationships and then there are great love affairs of the ages, two souls dancing as one, a duet of passion that will resound forever: that, for me, was Nicola Sturgeon and that bloke she was with to cover her being a tuppence licker
If even a love like that must find its end, wherefore, and whither, any of us?
Nicola Sturgeon had a husband problem so it doesn't surprise me that much. I am talking politically but Sturgeon is a political animal, including her marriage.
I suspect she won't be charged if she's giving wide ranging interviews to the FT, but we'll see.
I'd be pretty amazed if she was charged. The idea that Sturgeon was involved in anything for personal gain is laughable, the modesty of her personal circumstances (ie the suburban house outside which they put up the cosplay blue tent) was slightly embarassing. I 'd be almost as surprised if Murrell was found to have been dipping his hand in the till, more likely to have been a stupid ****. Of course being a stupid **** isn't much excuse in law.
Who would have thought that Starmer would be forced into confirming his confidence in Reeves only 6 months after a landslide Labour win ?
The way the bond markets are heading she is at some risk of being Truss 2 due to her irresponsible growth and job destroying budget resulting in higher interest rates for longer and facing dramatic public spending cuts
She may not survive the year, and to be fair she looks as if she is carrying a heavy burden
She looked awful in some of the pictures this week and to be fair who’d have thought Starmer would have needed a relaunch less than 6 months after the election.
Truss putting in the boot. Not just blaming Reeves but taking some vindication from her plight as she sees similarities.
When you inherit a debt legacy that's 100% of GDP, a 1% rise in global interest rates implies an eventual rise in future interest costs that's something around around 2% of total government spending. And our debt is relatively short term compared to many major economies, so that feeds through fairly quickly to spending forecasts.
That's completely wrong, in fact the reverse of the truth.
Our average sovereign debt maturity is more than 14 years, compared with 6 in the US and Germany, 8 in France and 7 in Italy.
We pay over the odds for debt precisely to be somewhat insulated from short-term market fluctuations.
Yes, my mistake/ Relying on something overheard which was incorrect.
Nonetheless, this year the Treasury (see the Debt Management Report for 2024-25) plans to issue around £265bn of gilts - two third of which will be short and medium dates - which represents a full 10% of existing outstanding debt.
If you look at the redemptions - and the forecast additional financing required by deficit financing - the picture isn't wildly different for the rest of this Parliament. So the maturity profile of our debt mitigates the impact of rising interest rates, but not much over the course of this parliament.
Confess I’m a little stunned by the Sturgeon/Murrell divorce
There are relationships and relationships and then there are great love affairs of the ages, two souls dancing as one, a duet of passion that will resound forever: that, for me, was Nicola Sturgeon and that bloke she was with to cover her being a tuppence licker
If even a love like that must find its end, wherefore, and whither, any of us?
Nicola Sturgeon had a husband problem so it doesn't surprise me that much. I am talking politically but Sturgeon is a political animal, including her marriage.
I suspect she won't be charged if she's giving wide ranging interviews to the FT, but we'll see.
I'd be pretty amazed if she was charged. The idea that Sturgeon was involved in anything for personal gain is laughable, the modesty of her personal circumstances (ie the suburban house outside which they put up the cosplay blue tent) was slightly embarassing. I 'd be almost as surprised if Murrell was found to have been dipping his hand in the till, more likely to have been a stupid ****. Of course being a stupid **** isn't much excuse in law.
The mooted possibility is that Sturgeon was involved, not for personal gain. Hence the Murrell problem.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Then why even mention "hating foreigners"?
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
The single biggest reason Leave won was that the Leave campaign pushed an anti-immigration message.
Or, flip it around, the EU’s inflexibility on Free Movement and the Labour government’s insane decision to throw open the borders to the Accession countries - gave Leave an invaluable boost in the referendum
But I agree in essence: there were not enough sovereignty/democracy Leavers like me to win the vote alone. Leave needed the “control the border” voters as well
And then the Tories won Brexit and entirely lost control of the borders
I'd also say that freedom of movement combined with Merkel's decision to invite millions of Middle Easterners to Germany - and hence to anywhere in Europe - combined with the Cologne rape parties which took place in the lead-up to the vote - was sub-optimal for Remain's case as it pertained to immigration.
I'd echo the case that there was definitely a hearts and minds case to be made for Remain which wasn't really attempted beyond "only really dreadful people vote Leave and if you vote Leave we're going to punish you."
So you reckon it was xenophobia that won it for the Brexiteers?
Well there were lots of factors. Would any of them by themselves have led to a million people voting differently?Possibly, possibly not. On reflection, I think Remain running a decent campaign is probably the single biggest thing which could have gone differently - but if we're going to define 'aversion to Middle Eastern immigrants, particularly after they were invited by Angela Merkel and particularly after the rape parties' as xenophobia (i.e. it's not the same as those voting against immigration from Eastern Europe for reasons of perceived economic rather than cultural self-interest) - then possibly it's in the top three or four things which did for Remain (along with, inter alia, Cameron negotiating a really uninspiring deal, the EU not really being prepared to bend, a lukewarm Remainer as leader of the Labour Party, immigration from Eastern Europe being perceived to suppressing wages, and may be others I haven' thought of.)
When you inherit a debt legacy that's 100% of GDP, a 1% rise in global interest rates implies an eventual rise in future interest costs that's something around around 2% of total government spending. And our debt is relatively short term compared to many major economies, so that feeds through fairly quickly to spending forecasts.
And Trump's presidency might see rates push higher still, as the US has rather more influence in the markets than does the UK Treasury.
However good or however crap the Chancellor is doesn't do much to change that.
Yeah
you spent most of the election arguing with me that cuts were impossible..
Not my recollection.
I said before the election that neither party's economic forecasts added up, and cuts or tax raises would be likely after the election.
I might well have said that saying so was politically impossible for them.
It's a strange sort who is prepared to die in a ditch over Latin teaching.
Ad munimenta, commilitones!
The same posters who are outraged that other people's children are incurring a huge debt to read for "Mickey Mouse" degrees".
So you are in favour of withdrawing teaching and effectively cancelling GCSEs that children have been studying for? As they head into the mocks and the final straight?
Why not end Latin teaching after the exams?
No, you like to put words on my page. Canning a programme in mid term is ridiculous. I also believe Latin should be available to be taught to those who want to learn Latin.
My point is not my inconsistency, which as you can see in the above paragraph is not inconsistent. My point was those crying loudest about the removal of Latin are happy to see the back of what they consider "Mickey Mouse" courses. Likewise I don't care if someone wants to complete a Masters degree on the hits of Madonna.
The actual problem with degrees is that for a large number of people, they need a degree to get the same job that was previously non-degree. And which has a low-to-non-existent premium over not doing the degree.
Meanwhile the government caps medical degrees (and associated training), and companies import graduates from other countries.
Now I am all for improving academic standards, in nursing for example, however I am not averse to more imaginative delivery. I don't see why Solicitors if they do wish can't go through the Articled Clerk route if they do desire, but equally those who want to attend University for three years despite the debt incurred should be allowed to go to University.
I am all for day and block release to complete a combined work and study degree course.
It’s not about banning stuff. But it strikes me that it is mis-selling to claim that x of debt will get you y of monetary benefit, when it doesn’t.
The answers include, I think
- raising the quality of degrees at some institutions. Because many companies prefer grads from institutions abroad to quite screw universities in the U.K. - more honesty in selling the product. 16-18 year olds are vulnerable to mis-selling. - As you say, mix and match, part time degrees etc. I’d also add normalising doing a degree later than just after school.
If they are being deliberately missold a guarantee of untold riches you are right. But I am not sure that is true.
When I signed up to a straight Politics BSc. (Econ) I wasn't sold a pup, I was sold an experience and not a guaranteed career (granted in my day it was all courtesy of the Local Authority).
Universities are now selling “a degree with us gets you job and more money” - literal advertising.
Complete with dodgy stats.
Until quite recently, they were trying to shout down anyone who pointed out there are massive differences in value between different degrees.
Many companies only hire grads from a list of universities - they hire foreign grads rather than from the lower tiers of U.K. universities.
At one company, my boss tried hiring without that limitation. We had interviewees who were plainly getting nothing from their education - one sticks in my mind - his final year electronics project was trivial, and even then, had learnt nearly nothing about it…
I am not sure a University degree is a test of knowledge so much as a certificate of application over three years. The learning starts after one finds their first job.
I loved it. I would send everyone to University. As a nation I think we lose an awful lot by culling establishments and courses back to the top 5%. With what we saw with previous recent Governments and certainly postings on here a University education will be returned to exclusivity, probably in my lifetime, and I am already an old man.
I am sympathetic to what the Blair government was trying to achieve with expanding access to university and I think it absolutely has a role to play in driving social mobility. At the same time I know some young people who have gone into apprenticeships or straight into work (or hybrid work/learning schemes) who are absolutely thriving and don’t have the millstone of university fees around their neck - which nowadays amount to a graduate tax in all but name.
I think one of the downsides of the reforms was it created pressure for a “one size fits all” approach to post-18 learning, a feeling that a university degree was the natural next step. I think there’s a place for university education and experience for a great number of people, but I think younger people are becoming much more cognisant of the alternatives, and the government should continue to support and expand that choice with a view to facilitating the best possible training and education for particular professions and qualifications.
I can't remember which party it was (Greens? LibDems?) - but at one point they had a policy which was something like 'At 18 you get access to a loan of NNNN pounds. Spend it on a degree, training, setting up a company, or other-approved-things'.
I thought the idea had some merit - though as is apparent, the details have slipped my mind.
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
Who thinks that Keir, Rach and Ange haven't asked their favourite LLMs how to run the country?
I listened to Keir's 'AI all the things' speech just there. It was fine as these things go. But I had to turn off the media questions as they were so epically dreadful. Nothing, zero, zilch about what he'd been talking about - at best general questions anyone would have asked, at worst just a talking point with the word 'AI' bolted onto it.
NB: Quite q dodgy pollster, but a more reliable Danish pollster also has a majority of Greenlanders wanting to join the USA. At the same time, some polls show Greenlanders wanting to join the EU...
Whatever the case, it looks like they will vote for full independence from Denmark ASAP
The Greenlandic PM has said Greenlanders want to be neither Danish or American but independent yes.
Though with a population of 50,000 ie less than Harlow he might find it difficult to hold off Trump on that
It's a peculiar form of independence, which would require huge subsidies from Denmark, and the USA being responsible for defending Greenland.
It's not really a viable standalone state, is it. You need more people than that.
A tiny island, or city state, can survive with that sort of population. But, a vast island, of huge strategic significance? Not really,
Any independence which requires another country to subsidise you and defend you, is going to be independence in name only. My guess is that an independent Greenland would be de facto, a US protectorate.
Hi. My name is Don. I'm here to help ( ... myself to your resources)
Who thinks that Keir, Rach and Ange haven't asked their favourite LLMs how to run the country?
I listened to Keir's 'AI all the things' speech just there. It was fine as these things go. But I had to turn off the media questions as they were so epically dreadful. Nothing, zero, zilch about what he'd been talking about - at best general questions anyone would have asked, at worst just a talking point with the word 'AI' bolted onto it.
After he started with "Artificial Intulligence" (sic), I was pleased he went with "AI" for the rest of the speech
I agree on the speech, and the press questions, overall. He did manage his usual trick of making whatever he speaks about sound like the most boring thing ever discussed by anybody
Who thinks that Keir, Rach and Ange haven't asked their favourite LLMs how to run the country?
I listened to Keir's 'AI all the things' speech just there. It was fine as these things go. But I had to turn off the media questions as they were so epically dreadful. Nothing, zero, zilch about what he'd been talking about - at best general questions anyone would have asked, at worst just a talking point with the word 'AI' bolted onto it.
Presumably the usual story with "political" journalists totally ignorant of what was actually being talked about. How many times did we have to put up with that during Covid?
12-minute video on US in Greenland. Covers the history since 1945 (Thule Air Force Base is pronounced "tu-lay", which always throws me) and raises the possibility that if Greenland is for sale, will China buy it?
Who thinks that Keir, Rach and Ange haven't asked their favourite LLMs how to run the country?
I listened to Keir's 'AI all the things' speech just there. It was fine as these things go. But I had to turn off the media questions as they were so epically dreadful. Nothing, zero, zilch about what he'd been talking about - at best general questions anyone would have asked, at worst just a talking point with the word 'AI' bolted onto it.
After he started with "Artificial Intulligence" (sic), I was pleased he went with "AI" for the rest of the speech
I agree on the speech, and the press questions, overall. He did manage his usual trick of making whatever he speaks about sound like the most boring thing ever discussed by anybody
I have an LLM chatbot which pretends to be a Yorkshire-based Air-fryer obsessed Youtuber. Don't ask... But giving it the transcript of the speech and asking it what it thought was 1000x more insightful than any of the media questions. I for one welcome our LLM-powered press pack.
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
Who thinks that Keir, Rach and Ange haven't asked their favourite LLMs how to run the country?
I listened to Keir's 'AI all the things' speech just there. It was fine as these things go. But I had to turn off the media questions as they were so epically dreadful. Nothing, zero, zilch about what he'd been talking about - at best general questions anyone would have asked, at worst just a talking point with the word 'AI' bolted onto it.
Presumably the usual story with "political" journalists totally ignorant of what was actually being talked about. How many times did we have to put up with that during Covid?
And they all missed the good political question: does ChatGTP have a seat in Cabinet?
12-minute video on US in Greenland. Covers the history since 1945 (Thule Air Force Base is pronounced "tu-lay", which always throws me) and raises the possibility that if Greenland is for sale, will China buy it?
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Absolutely the case. It’s because the leading proponents of the remain campaign were tentative at best, and often themselves Eurosceptic. Cameron’s “renegotiation” was all about distancing the UK from the heart of the project.
That and some voter complacency (“send a message to Cameron”) meant a close contest went one way when it might have gone the other.
I was just listening to the episodes Political Currency did on Brexit with Michael Gove last year. Gove said that for Leave to win everything had to go right for them, and that sounds right to me. If Remain had run a better campaign; if Labour at the time had had a leader who'd actively campaigned for Remain; if Boris (or Gove) hadn't opted to support Leave; etc etc. The result was so close that there are a lot of things you could point to and say "that's what swung it".
Per the header, the Scottish indyref had a harder task by not having "status quo" on their side, and although they got a lot of things going their way they didn't get enough -- Osborne reckoned the business about the currency was enough to persuade undecideds to stay put.
Currency remains a killer. Ten years on and still no answer.
Actually the killer was Brexit as Sturgeon seems to have acknowledged. In 2014 the story told was that Scotland would remain a part of the Single Market with rUK at which point many of the most problematic issues disappear ( whether this would have in fact happened is beside the point).
Brexit meant that Scotland would need to choose between its largest market (rUK) and the SM. The NI example showed just how hard that would be. Furthermore, there would be no seamless transition but the rigours of a new application to the EU with all fiscal problems that would cause an independent Scotland. Years and years of uncertainty and economic mess. There are no good answers to this.
Posts like this make me go, Independence Now! If the best argument for the Union is we've made Scotland a hostage, we might as well give up now. Yes there will be an economic cost as with Brexit, but at least we get something out of it as a nation!
Well, thankfully that is not the majority view. As a Unionist I have no doubt we are substantial net gainers from the Union, not just in terms of public spending but in access to the rUK market and the backroom jobs that we gain from that. Others think differently, and that is fair enough, but the argument for Independence is a lot weaker now than it was in 2014.
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
I think it’s highly unlikely she’ll go in the near future, but if she did her replacement would almost certainly be Johnny Reynolds.
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
Who thinks that Keir, Rach and Ange haven't asked their favourite LLMs how to run the country?
I listened to Keir's 'AI all the things' speech just there. It was fine as these things go. But I had to turn off the media questions as they were so epically dreadful. Nothing, zero, zilch about what he'd been talking about - at best general questions anyone would have asked, at worst just a talking point with the word 'AI' bolted onto it.
As the Americans are now saying, no matter how much you hate the mainstream media it isn’t enough.
One week until Trump's inauguration. Trump 1 was like a Berlusconi figure. Trump 2 is more like Putin. Will Musk end up like Berezovsky, or will the oligarchs (or natural causes) get to Trump first?
Musk will become Nikolai Yezhov.
Who?
Head of the Soviet secret police under Stalin, but fell out of favour and was executed.
Who thinks that Keir, Rach and Ange haven't asked their favourite LLMs how to run the country?
I listened to Keir's 'AI all the things' speech just there. It was fine as these things go. But I had to turn off the media questions as they were so epically dreadful. Nothing, zero, zilch about what he'd been talking about - at best general questions anyone would have asked, at worst just a talking point with the word 'AI' bolted onto it.
As the Americans are now saying, no matter how much you hate the mainstream media it isn’t enough.
Maybe we need British politicians to start taking the Trump approach with them.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Absolutely the case. It’s because the leading proponents of the remain campaign were tentative at best, and often themselves Eurosceptic. Cameron’s “renegotiation” was all about distancing the UK from the heart of the project.
That and some voter complacency (“send a message to Cameron”) meant a close contest went one way when it might have gone the other.
I was just listening to the episodes Political Currency did on Brexit with Michael Gove last year. Gove said that for Leave to win everything had to go right for them, and that sounds right to me. If Remain had run a better campaign; if Labour at the time had had a leader who'd actively campaigned for Remain; if Boris (or Gove) hadn't opted to support Leave; etc etc. The result was so close that there are a lot of things you could point to and say "that's what swung it".
Per the header, the Scottish indyref had a harder task by not having "status quo" on their side, and although they got a lot of things going their way they didn't get enough -- Osborne reckoned the business about the currency was enough to persuade undecideds to stay put.
Currency remains a killer. Ten years on and still no answer.
Actually the killer was Brexit as Sturgeon seems to have acknowledged. In 2014 the story told was that Scotland would remain a part of the Single Market with rUK at which point many of the most problematic issues disappear ( whether this would have in fact happened is beside the point).
Brexit meant that Scotland would need to choose between its largest market (rUK) and the SM. The NI example showed just how hard that would be. Furthermore, there would be no seamless transition but the rigours of a new application to the EU with all fiscal problems that would cause an independent Scotland. Years and years of uncertainty and economic mess. There are no good answers to this.
Posts like this make me go, Independence Now! If the best argument for the Union is we've made Scotland a hostage, we might as well give up now. Yes there will be an economic cost as with Brexit, but at least we get something out of it as a nation!
Which is what? Finally having to own your own problems? Before Brexit UK governments delighted in blaming the EU for everything bad. Now it cannot. The Scottish government does the same with the UK government. After independence it won't be able to.
Who thinks that Keir, Rach and Ange haven't asked their favourite LLMs how to run the country?
I listened to Keir's 'AI all the things' speech just there. It was fine as these things go. But I had to turn off the media questions as they were so epically dreadful. Nothing, zero, zilch about what he'd been talking about - at best general questions anyone would have asked, at worst just a talking point with the word 'AI' bolted onto it.
Presumably the usual story with "political" journalists totally ignorant of what was actually being talked about. How many times did we have to put up with that during Covid?
On the contrary, watching a bunch of arts degrees trying to understand concepts such as exponential growth and herd immunity, were some of the highlights of the pandemic!
When you inherit a debt legacy that's 100% of GDP, a 1% rise in global interest rates implies an eventual rise in future interest costs that's something around around 2% of total government spending. And our debt is relatively short term compared to many major economies, so that feeds through fairly quickly to spending forecasts.
And Trump's presidency might see rates push higher still, as the US has rather more influence in the markets than does the UK Treasury.
However good or however crap the Chancellor is doesn't do much to change that.
Yeah
you spent most of the election arguing with me that cuts were impossible..
Not my recollection.
I said before the election that neither party's economic forecasts added up, and cuts or tax raises would be likely after the election.
I might well have said that saying so was politically impossible for them.
That's true. The best of the bad options would probably have been an Income Tax rise for the better off, but no politician could say that or even leave it up in the air. The Tories of the past are to blame for this - 'Labour's Tax Bombshell' means that all governments will have to find stealth taxes to see us through hard times for the foreseeable future.
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
Streeting does not inspire confidence frankly.
Bring back Balls?
Put Ed Balls into the Lords and make him chancellor. I don't think he'd do it though. He seems pretty happy out of politics and I think he's probably recognised that he had turned into a proper **** as a politician and being out is good for his mental health.
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
I think it’s highly unlikely she’ll go in the near future, but if she did her replacement would almost certainly be Johnny Reynolds.
Pat McFadden seemed to be covering a lot of her brief on Today this morning (she is, of course, in China right now). He was reasonably coherent as long as he could keep to his talking points but he got quite repetitious in a relatively short interview.
It's a strange sort who is prepared to die in a ditch over Latin teaching.
Ad munimenta, commilitones!
The same posters who are outraged that other people's children are incurring a huge debt to read for "Mickey Mouse" degrees".
So you are in favour of withdrawing teaching and effectively cancelling GCSEs that children have been studying for? As they head into the mocks and the final straight?
Why not end Latin teaching after the exams?
No, you like to put words on my page. Canning a programme in mid term is ridiculous. I also believe Latin should be available to be taught to those who want to learn Latin.
My point is not my inconsistency, which as you can see in the above paragraph is not inconsistent. My point was those crying loudest about the removal of Latin are happy to see the back of what they consider "Mickey Mouse" courses. Likewise I don't care if someone wants to complete a Masters degree on the hits of Madonna.
The actual problem with degrees is that for a large number of people, they need a degree to get the same job that was previously non-degree. And which has a low-to-non-existent premium over not doing the degree.
Meanwhile the government caps medical degrees (and associated training), and companies import graduates from other countries.
Now I am all for improving academic standards, in nursing for example, however I am not averse to more imaginative delivery. I don't see why Solicitors if they do wish can't go through the Articled Clerk route if they do desire, but equally those who want to attend University for three years despite the debt incurred should be allowed to go to University.
I am all for day and block release to complete a combined work and study degree course.
It’s not about banning stuff. But it strikes me that it is mis-selling to claim that x of debt will get you y of monetary benefit, when it doesn’t.
The answers include, I think
- raising the quality of degrees at some institutions. Because many companies prefer grads from institutions abroad to quite screw universities in the U.K. - more honesty in selling the product. 16-18 year olds are vulnerable to mis-selling. - As you say, mix and match, part time degrees etc. I’d also add normalising doing a degree later than just after school.
If they are being deliberately missold a guarantee of untold riches you are right. But I am not sure that is true.
When I signed up to a straight Politics BSc. (Econ) I wasn't sold a pup, I was sold an experience and not a guaranteed career (granted in my day it was all courtesy of the Local Authority).
Universities are now selling “a degree with us gets you job and more money” - literal advertising.
Complete with dodgy stats.
Until quite recently, they were trying to shout down anyone who pointed out there are massive differences in value between different degrees.
Many companies only hire grads from a list of universities - they hire foreign grads rather than from the lower tiers of U.K. universities.
At one company, my boss tried hiring without that limitation. We had interviewees who were plainly getting nothing from their education - one sticks in my mind - his final year electronics project was trivial, and even then, had learnt nearly nothing about it…
I am not sure a University degree is a test of knowledge so much as a certificate of application over three years. The learning starts after one finds their first job.
I loved it. I would send everyone to University. As a nation I think we lose an awful lot by culling establishments and courses back to the top 5%. With what we saw with previous recent Governments and certainly postings on here a University education will be returned to exclusivity, probably in my lifetime, and I am already an old man.
Just because you loved it, doesn't mean everybody else would. Lots of people really dislike their time as students. And lots of 18 year olds can't wait to bring home a steady wage.
University certainly isn't suitable for even 50% of the population - I'd say no more than about 30%. Sending everybody to univesity would just result in staggering drop-out rates as well as dumbing-down courses even further than they've already been.
Blair's expansion of higher education far beyond those who benefit from it in economic or intellectual terms has been an expensive disaster and we should be setting about reversing it, though as always with badly-thought-through government waste, from miners to small farmers to lawyers there's a huge lobbying industry that will fight tooth and nail to keep its funding and privileges.
Who thinks that Keir, Rach and Ange haven't asked their favourite LLMs how to run the country?
I listened to Keir's 'AI all the things' speech just there. It was fine as these things go. But I had to turn off the media questions as they were so epically dreadful. Nothing, zero, zilch about what he'd been talking about - at best general questions anyone would have asked, at worst just a talking point with the word 'AI' bolted onto it.
As the Americans are now saying, no matter how much you hate the mainstream media it isn’t enough.
Maybe we need British politicians to start taking the Trump approach with them.
We've already got one: Liz Truss. In her latest pronouncements she wants to 'fix' various media outlets that are hostile to her.
Confess I’m a little stunned by the Sturgeon/Murrell divorce
There are relationships and relationships and then there are great love affairs of the ages, two souls dancing as one, a duet of passion that will resound forever: that, for me, was Nicola Sturgeon and that bloke she was with to cover her being a tuppence licker
If even a love like that must find its end, wherefore, and whither, any of us?
Nicola Sturgeon had a husband problem so it doesn't surprise me that much. I am talking politically but Sturgeon is a political animal, including her marriage.
I suspect she won't be charged if she's giving wide ranging interviews to the FT, but we'll see.
I'd be pretty amazed if she was charged. The idea that Sturgeon was involved in anything for personal gain is laughable, the modesty of her personal circumstances (ie the suburban house outside which they put up the cosplay blue tent) was slightly embarassing. I 'd be almost as surprised if Murrell was found to have been dipping his hand in the till, more likely to have been a stupid ****. Of course being a stupid **** isn't much excuse in law.
12-minute video on US in Greenland. Covers the history since 1945 (Thule Air Force Base is pronounced "tu-lay", which always throws me) and raises the possibility that if Greenland is for sale, will China buy it?
Good afternoon everyone. After two weeks of cold and sunshine we are back to our default mild, damp and gloomy weather here in the West of Scotland.
The Glen Sannox made her first passenger carrying journeys yesterday, in a swap with the Alfred. Possibly to discombobulate the Scottish media.
With reference to the thread header (someone needs to make it worthwhile for TSE to write them), Scottish independence needs the following to increase it’s support. A Labour run Scottish Government in 2026, probably with Green and Lib Dem support, proving to be as useless as the current administration. Reform involved in the UK Government in 2029, either as a majority or in conjunction with the Conservatives. This would be so economically illiterate that sterling would tank, rendering the currency question irrelevant. Reform remaining a minor party in Scotland.
The problem with the UK at the moment is that politicians are too political. Just heard a bbc report about some Labour economic plans and Labour MPs were complaining to the reporter that the plans were for the long term and so wouldn’t make people feel better in time for the next election.
So bugger the country, it’s all about the electoral cycle. And all parties are bad on this.
Maybe we need ten year gaps between elections to allow longer term thinking.
There's no obvious answer to that short termism. Even a ten year term would lead to short term decisions being taken over the long view.
Make them too long, and you fall into the dictatorship trap anyway, of starting out with best intentions but then just running a country like your own personal property and sodding everyone else.
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
Streeting does not inspire confidence frankly.
Bring back Balls?
Put Ed Balls into the Lords and make him chancellor. I don't think he'd do it though. He seems pretty happy out of politics and I think he's probably recognised that he had turned into a proper **** as a politician and being out is good for his mental health.
Let the Tony Blair Institute take over the Cabinet Office and put Blair in charge.
12-minute video on US in Greenland. Covers the history since 1945 (Thule Air Force Base is pronounced "tu-lay", which always throws me) and raises the possibility that if Greenland is for sale, will China buy it?
Confess I’m a little stunned by the Sturgeon/Murrell divorce
There are relationships and relationships and then there are great love affairs of the ages, two souls dancing as one, a duet of passion that will resound forever: that, for me, was Nicola Sturgeon and that bloke she was with to cover her being a tuppence licker
If even a love like that must find its end, wherefore, and whither, any of us?
Nicola Sturgeon had a husband problem so it doesn't surprise me that much. I am talking politically but Sturgeon is a political animal, including her marriage.
I suspect she won't be charged if she's giving wide ranging interviews to the FT, but we'll see.
I'd be pretty amazed if she was charged. The idea that Sturgeon was involved in anything for personal gain is laughable, the modesty of her personal circumstances (ie the suburban house outside which they put up the cosplay blue tent) was slightly embarassing. I 'd be almost as surprised if Murrell was found to have been dipping his hand in the till, more likely to have been a stupid ****. Of course being a stupid **** isn't much excuse in law.
So where is the feckin' money?
Now the odd couple have split up, we’re closer to finding out.
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
Streeting does not inspire confidence frankly.
Bring back Balls?
Put Ed Balls into the Lords and make him chancellor...
Where is the real @MaxPB and what have you done with him?
12-minute video on US in Greenland. Covers the history since 1945 (Thule Air Force Base is pronounced "tu-lay", which always throws me) and raises the possibility that if Greenland is for sale, will China buy it?
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
Streeting does not inspire confidence frankly.
Bring back Balls?
Put Ed Balls into the Lords and make him chancellor. I don't think he'd do it though. He seems pretty happy out of politics and I think he's probably recognised that he had turned into a proper **** as a politician and being out is good for his mental health.
I don't know, but keep reading on here that Chancellor has to be in the Commons
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
Streeting does not inspire confidence frankly.
Bring back Balls?
Put Ed Balls into the Lords and make him chancellor. I don't think he'd do it though. He seems pretty happy out of politics and I think he's probably recognised that he had turned into a proper **** as a politician and being out is good for his mental health.
Let the Tony Blair Institute take over the Cabinet Office and put Blair in charge.
That would mean putting him in the Lords though, and there’s not a cat in Hell’s chance he wants to be forced to declare his interests and earnings.
I've read some of the excerpts from the big AI speech and it's complete nonsense.
This is the UK government version of startups adding AI to their company name just before going to VC pitch meetings. It's laughable that they're wasting time on this as a policy announcement, more and more I find the companies who shout loudest about how much they "do AI" are the ones who have the least knowledge on how to properly implement it, this government is going to be exactly the same. The biggest productivity gains from AI will be at the lowest levels, implementing it in customer service, using it for basic comms and triaging customer problems for departments. None of that is a big strategy but customers of government departments could see huge benefits from AI because they would have a much better initial experience than they currently get wading through the treacle that is government customer service.
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
I think it’s highly unlikely she’ll go in the near future, but if she did her replacement would almost certainly be Johnny Reynolds.
Pat McFadden seemed to be covering a lot of her brief on Today this morning (she is, of course, in China right now). He was reasonably coherent as long as he could keep to his talking points but he got quite repetitious in a relatively short interview.
The Times suggesting that McFadden would be the inheritor to the job if RR gets axed. I don't know enough about him to judge but I don't think there's much chance he could be worse than the call centre manager.
I was just listening to the episodes Political Currency did on Brexit with Michael Gove last year. Gove said that for Leave to win everything had to go right for them, and that sounds right to me. If Remain had run a better campaign; if Labour at the time had had a leader who'd actively campaigned for Remain; if Boris (or Gove) hadn't opted to support Leave; etc etc. The result was so close that there are a lot of things you could point to and say "that's what swung it".
I think that was right. Everything did go 'right' for Leave: Anyone of the following the other way would've swung it. Gove with Leave - Check Johnson with Leave - Check Labour leader secretly Leave - Check Cameron, despite winning in 2015 wasn't very popular (36.9% of the vote) - Check Migration crisis rumbling on (even though Brexit would never solve it) - Check
Change any one, heck, I expected Cameron to hold the referendum in 2017 - and the result would've been the other way. I still remember John Oliver interviewed a Leave voter the day after, who confessed they'd only voted Leave to stick it to Cameron and they didn't really mean to vote Leave and wanted to Remain.
Which is another failure of politics, which no system tweaks can ever sort out. Never vote AGAINST something. Vote FOR something. Even if you think you can't win.
Who thinks that Keir, Rach and Ange haven't asked their favourite LLMs how to run the country?
I listened to Keir's 'AI all the things' speech just there. It was fine as these things go. But I had to turn off the media questions as they were so epically dreadful. Nothing, zero, zilch about what he'd been talking about - at best general questions anyone would have asked, at worst just a talking point with the word 'AI' bolted onto it.
As the Americans are now saying, no matter how much you hate the mainstream media it isn’t enough.
Maybe we need British politicians to start taking the Trump approach with them.
We've already got one: Liz Truss. In her latest pronouncements she wants to 'fix' various media outlets that are hostile to her.
Looking at some details from Bannon's earlier tirade against Musk mentioning Techofeudalism, I ca see that it was actually Varoufakis's term after all. There're been several economists, like Mazzucato, working on parts of it, but what he's done is basically created a whole new theoretical framework for it. It's not perfect, or fully refined yet, and is going to be developed a lot over the next few years. It's going to be more apposite with each passing year, and people are going to be adding more to it.
12-minute video on US in Greenland. Covers the history since 1945 (Thule Air Force Base is pronounced "tu-lay", which always throws me) and raises the possibility that if Greenland is for sale, will China buy it?
It's now Pituffik Space Base, and no - Denmark and the Trump team won't allow Greenland to be bought by China.
China is clearly interested, though. Despite having no Arctic border, it has labelled itself as an 'Arctic adjacent' state.
Well if Greenland wants to get invaded, then selling out to China might be a good way to go about it.
Unless China actually plans on sparking WW3 by trying to take the US space base there, the invasion and victory by the US will be over in literally 0 seconds.
It's a strange sort who is prepared to die in a ditch over Latin teaching.
Ad munimenta, commilitones!
The same posters who are outraged that other people's children are incurring a huge debt to read for "Mickey Mouse" degrees".
So you are in favour of withdrawing teaching and effectively cancelling GCSEs that children have been studying for? As they head into the mocks and the final straight?
Why not end Latin teaching after the exams?
No, you like to put words on my page. Canning a programme in mid term is ridiculous. I also believe Latin should be available to be taught to those who want to learn Latin.
My point is not my inconsistency, which as you can see in the above paragraph is not inconsistent. My point was those crying loudest about the removal of Latin are happy to see the back of what they consider "Mickey Mouse" courses. Likewise I don't care if someone wants to complete a Masters degree on the hits of Madonna.
The actual problem with degrees is that for a large number of people, they need a degree to get the same job that was previously non-degree. And which has a low-to-non-existent premium over not doing the degree.
Meanwhile the government caps medical degrees (and associated training), and companies import graduates from other countries.
Now I am all for improving academic standards, in nursing for example, however I am not averse to more imaginative delivery. I don't see why Solicitors if they do wish can't go through the Articled Clerk route if they do desire, but equally those who want to attend University for three years despite the debt incurred should be allowed to go to University.
I am all for day and block release to complete a combined work and study degree course.
It’s not about banning stuff. But it strikes me that it is mis-selling to claim that x of debt will get you y of monetary benefit, when it doesn’t.
The answers include, I think
- raising the quality of degrees at some institutions. Because many companies prefer grads from institutions abroad to quite screw universities in the U.K. - more honesty in selling the product. 16-18 year olds are vulnerable to mis-selling. - As you say, mix and match, part time degrees etc. I’d also add normalising doing a degree later than just after school.
If they are being deliberately missold a guarantee of untold riches you are right. But I am not sure that is true.
When I signed up to a straight Politics BSc. (Econ) I wasn't sold a pup, I was sold an experience and not a guaranteed career (granted in my day it was all courtesy of the Local Authority).
Universities are now selling “a degree with us gets you job and more money” - literal advertising.
Complete with dodgy stats.
Until quite recently, they were trying to shout down anyone who pointed out there are massive differences in value between different degrees.
Many companies only hire grads from a list of universities - they hire foreign grads rather than from the lower tiers of U.K. universities.
At one company, my boss tried hiring without that limitation. We had interviewees who were plainly getting nothing from their education - one sticks in my mind - his final year electronics project was trivial, and even then, had learnt nearly nothing about it…
I am not sure a University degree is a test of knowledge so much as a certificate of application over three years. The learning starts after one finds their first job.
I loved it. I would send everyone to University. As a nation I think we lose an awful lot by culling establishments and courses back to the top 5%. With what we saw with previous recent Governments and certainly postings on here a University education will be returned to exclusivity, probably in my lifetime, and I am already an old man.
I would expect that someone with ability, would come out of their degree, with a good knowledge of the subject of that degree!
That’s how I’ve always interviewed grads. If you specialised in Elizabethan poetry in your final year of your degree, what can you tell me about it?
Before such interviews I read up on the topic enough to ask some questions. The responses tell you quite a bit, I find.
Like the ability to think, to organise ideas and explain them in a coherent and interesting manner.....
Starmer isn’t sounding very strong on media questions on the economy.
Oh dear - did somebody ask him "How does AI create jobs?"....
Building the data centres and the power stations?
If used sensibly, AI could increase productivity.
There are several people on PB (including myself) who have used “AI” this way.
Think assistant rather than job replacement.
Historically, a noticeable improvement in productivity is associated with economic growth and job *creation*.
Of course, it is far from certain that AI will be used this way. Generating huge, unreadable documents just got easier…
Oh exactly. One of the senior managers at my work has for months been asking for some sort of comprehensive IT policy document for ISO9000 bollocks. I did explain to him that there’s at least a man-month of work in writing such a document properly, but he seemed happy enough with 100 pages of ChatGPT output that he doesn’t understand anyway, to be filed away and never read.
Could you have not just found one from elsewhere and done a search replace of company x with your company’s name
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
Streeting does not inspire confidence frankly.
Bring back Balls?
Put Ed Balls into the Lords and make him chancellor...
Where is the real @MaxPB and what have you done with him?
Ed Balls have carved a good career out for himself since he left politics and seems to be a far nicer person.
I Cannot see him wanting to go back into politics. He is probably earning more too.
I don't think the Remain campaign was shit - it was very good. Fear was what they had, and they deployed it well.
I also think the Leave campaign was rubbish.
I think without both of those factors, Leave's victory would have been far more emphatic.
Because Leave won it's forgotten now that the Leave campaign was fractious, poorly organised and crap. And I was in it.
I certainly didn't expect a win.
The remain campaign was, however, worse.
I know the status quo isn’t an easy sell but they really did a bad job of selling something that was - easy holidays and we didn’t even have to give up the pound
The problem with the UK at the moment is that politicians are too political. Just heard a bbc report about some Labour economic plans and Labour MPs were complaining to the reporter that the plans were for the long term and so wouldn’t make people feel better in time for the next election.
So bugger the country, it’s all about the electoral cycle. And all parties are bad on this.
Maybe we need ten year gaps between elections to allow longer term thinking.
There's no obvious answer to that short termism. Even a ten year term would lead to short term decisions being taken over the long view.
Make them too long, and you fall into the dictatorship trap anyway, of starting out with best intentions but then just running a country like your own personal property and sodding everyone else.
Yes long terms could be problematic. Maybe a referendum after 4.5 years as to whether there should be a GE in 6 months, has to reach a sensible %.
So if enough people are content to let the gov carry on with longer term aims or good management then all ok but if they are being shitbags then the % cut off will get hit and a GE to follow.
I know it’s all a bit convoluted but there really needs a way to he found to reduce short-termism.
When you inherit a debt legacy that's 100% of GDP, a 1% rise in global interest rates implies an eventual rise in future interest costs that's something around around 2% of total government spending. And our debt is relatively short term compared to many major economies, so that feeds through fairly quickly to spending forecasts.
And Trump's presidency might see rates push higher still, as the US has rather more influence in the markets than does the UK Treasury.
However good or however crap the Chancellor is doesn't do much to change that.
Yeah
you spent most of the election arguing with me that cuts were impossible..
Not my recollection.
I said before the election that neither party's economic forecasts added up, and cuts or tax raises would be likely after the election.
I might well have said that saying so was politically impossible for them.
That's true. The best of the bad options would probably have been an Income Tax rise for the better off, but no politician could say that or even leave it up in the air. The Tories of the past are to blame for this - 'Labour's Tax Bombshell' means that all governments will have to find stealth taxes to see us through hard times for the foreseeable future.
Yes, Labour are utterly paranoid about being again seen as the party who love to tax people. Avoiding this is absolute number 1 on their political priorities. That's why if it does come to tax rises or spending cuts it will be cuts.
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
Streeting does not inspire confidence frankly.
Bring back Balls?
Put Ed Balls into the Lords and make him chancellor. I don't think he'd do it though. He seems pretty happy out of politics and I think he's probably recognised that he had turned into a proper **** as a politician and being out is good for his mental health.
Let the Tony Blair Institute take over the Cabinet Office and put Blair in charge.
That would mean putting him in the Lords though, and there’s not a cat in Hell’s chance he wants to be forced to declare his interests and earnings.
No, you wouldn’t have to make him accountable. Keep Labour ministers as front people.
Who thinks that Keir, Rach and Ange haven't asked their favourite LLMs how to run the country?
I listened to Keir's 'AI all the things' speech just there. It was fine as these things go. But I had to turn off the media questions as they were so epically dreadful. Nothing, zero, zilch about what he'd been talking about - at best general questions anyone would have asked, at worst just a talking point with the word 'AI' bolted onto it.
As the Americans are now saying, no matter how much you hate the mainstream media it isn’t enough.
Maybe we need British politicians to start taking the Trump approach with them.
We've already got one: Liz Truss. In her latest pronouncements she wants to 'fix' various media outlets that are hostile to her.
God I'm tired of this "fix" rhetoric. It's meant to sound all focused and punchy but in fact it sounds dumb.
I think with Liz it comes with more sinister undertones. We'll be talking about putting the media under the control of right-wing overlords. She's clearly seen what Musk has been doing and wants to position herself as one of his lieutenants.
I've read some of the excerpts from the big AI speech and it's complete nonsense.
This is the UK government version of startups adding AI to their company name just before going to VC pitch meetings. It's laughable that they're wasting time on this as a policy announcement, more and more I find the companies who shout loudest about how much they "do AI" are the ones who have the least knowledge on how to properly implement it, this government is going to be exactly the same. The biggest productivity gains from AI will be at the lowest levels, implementing it in customer service, using it for basic comms and triaging customer problems for departments. None of that is a big strategy but customers of government departments could see huge benefits from AI because they would have a much better initial experience than they currently get wading through the treacle that is government customer service.
They are going to do everything I tell my clients not to do.
Given that may sales pitch is basically it’s OK for internal work but don’t let AI anywhere near the outside world without a sanity check stage first - I just know they are going to use it for first / second line support work
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Absolutely the case. It’s because the leading proponents of the remain campaign were tentative at best, and often themselves Eurosceptic. Cameron’s “renegotiation” was all about distancing the UK from the heart of the project.
That and some voter complacency (“send a message to Cameron”) meant a close contest went one way when it might have gone the other.
I was just listening to the episodes Political Currency did on Brexit with Michael Gove last year. Gove said that for Leave to win everything had to go right for them, and that sounds right to me. If Remain had run a better campaign; if Labour at the time had had a leader who'd actively campaigned for Remain; if Boris (or Gove) hadn't opted to support Leave; etc etc. The result was so close that there are a lot of things you could point to and say "that's what swung it".
Per the header, the Scottish indyref had a harder task by not having "status quo" on their side, and although they got a lot of things going their way they didn't get enough -- Osborne reckoned the business about the currency was enough to persuade undecideds to stay put.
Currency remains a killer. Ten years on and still no answer.
Actually the killer was Brexit as Sturgeon seems to have acknowledged. In 2014 the story told was that Scotland would remain a part of the Single Market with rUK at which point many of the most problematic issues disappear ( whether this would have in fact happened is beside the point).
Brexit meant that Scotland would need to choose between its largest market (rUK) and the SM. The NI example showed just how hard that would be. Furthermore, there would be no seamless transition but the rigours of a new application to the EU with all fiscal problems that would cause an independent Scotland. Years and years of uncertainty and economic mess. There are no good answers to this.
Posts like this make me go, Independence Now! If the best argument for the Union is we've made Scotland a hostage, we might as well give up now. Yes there will be an economic cost as with Brexit, but at least we get something out of it as a nation!
Which is what? Finally having to own your own problems? Before Brexit UK governments delighted in blaming the EU for everything bad. Now it cannot. The Scottish government does the same with the UK government. After independence it won't be able to.
Which is what? An independent nation with a solid thousand plus years of history taking its rightful place in the international pantheon of nations. Something Brexit hasn't achieved because the UK was an independent state already but independence would for Scotland.
The independent status has a cost. And so does Union in a different way. I'm in favour of both unions in principle and taking the cost but there needs to be mutual respect. Which is where @davidl is going wrong in my view, from a Unionist perspective.
When you inherit a debt legacy that's 100% of GDP, a 1% rise in global interest rates implies an eventual rise in future interest costs that's something around around 2% of total government spending. And our debt is relatively short term compared to many major economies, so that feeds through fairly quickly to spending forecasts.
And Trump's presidency might see rates push higher still, as the US has rather more influence in the markets than does the UK Treasury.
However good or however crap the Chancellor is doesn't do much to change that.
Yeah
you spent most of the election arguing with me that cuts were impossible..
Not my recollection.
I said before the election that neither party's economic forecasts added up, and cuts or tax raises would be likely after the election.
I might well have said that saying so was politically impossible for them.
That's true. The best of the bad options would probably have been an Income Tax rise for the better off, but no politician could say that or even leave it up in the air. The Tories of the past are to blame for this - 'Labour's Tax Bombshell' means that all governments will have to find stealth taxes to see us through hard times for the foreseeable future.
Yes, Labour are utterly paranoid about being again seen as the party who love to tax people. Avoiding this is absolute number 1 on their political priorities. That's why if it does come to tax rises or spending cuts it will be cuts.
I fear that they'll continue their noble quest to tax employers
I don't know, but keep reading on here that Chancellor has to be in the Commons
It would be brave. The big 'four' are expected to be from the Commons, but don't technically have to be. Cameron last year as Foreign Sec is one, as was Lord Home who did the same in the 1970s.
You can get away with Foreign Sec and Home Sec.... maybe. Chancellor would be VERY brave to have as unelected, and I don't think you'd ever get away with the PM being unelected except in a major war situation.
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
She will have a second chance with the spring statement. A difficult balancing act to save her job.
On the one hand, she needs to sufficiently change tack to mollify the markets, to demonstrate that she has learned.
On the other hand she had to absolutely avoid the public gaining any impression that the government have u-turned, or are doing anything other than implementing the long-envisaged next stages of their most perfect plan.
And then, market sentiment* and public relations aside, she actually has to make some progress on turning the economy and the public finances around. No pressure, like.
I don't think the Remain campaign was shit - it was very good. Fear was what they had, and they deployed it well.
I also think the Leave campaign was rubbish.
I think without both of those factors, Leave's victory would have been far more emphatic.
Because Leave won it's forgotten now that the Leave campaign was fractious, poorly organised and crap. And I was in it.
I certainly didn't expect a win.
Yes, as someone who also campaigned for it, the amount of revisionism about how amazing the Leave campaign was is funny to me. There would be days where volunteers turned up but we had no instructions or material to give them because no one had sent anything to us. The reason Leave won is because people didn't like the EU or immigration and they saw it as a way of giving the elite a good kicking. It isn't really any more complicated than that. All of these people talking about how the Remain side needed to run a positive campaign are kidding themselves too, there is a tiny proportion of the UK public, then and now, who feel positively towards the EU and any campaign which tried to capture some positive sentiment or engender such would have ended with a Leave landslide. No, the Remain campaign did well to get to 48% and while there was a path to to a Remain vote before Dave's renegotiation, after that I think it became impossible.
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
Streeting does not inspire confidence frankly.
Bring back Balls?
Streeting (and Stephen Kinnock) have a problem in that social care has been absolutely betrayed and pushed out into 2028+ (now delayed since 2011) but neither regarded it as a resignation issue, when everyone knows, because they tell us, that social care and the NHS crisis are, as the bookies say, linked contingencies.
Unless China actually plans on sparking WW3 by trying to take the US space base there, the invasion and victory by the US will be over in literally 0 seconds.
Maybe not. I'm sure I recall somewhere about a war between China and the US that involved fighting in cold climates.... was it Alaska? The Battle for Anchorage? 2073 wasn't it?
It's a strange sort who is prepared to die in a ditch over Latin teaching.
Ad munimenta, commilitones!
The same posters who are outraged that other people's children are incurring a huge debt to read for "Mickey Mouse" degrees".
So you are in favour of withdrawing teaching and effectively cancelling GCSEs that children have been studying for? As they head into the mocks and the final straight?
Why not end Latin teaching after the exams?
No, you like to put words on my page. Canning a programme in mid term is ridiculous. I also believe Latin should be available to be taught to those who want to learn Latin.
My point is not my inconsistency, which as you can see in the above paragraph is not inconsistent. My point was those crying loudest about the removal of Latin are happy to see the back of what they consider "Mickey Mouse" courses. Likewise I don't care if someone wants to complete a Masters degree on the hits of Madonna.
The actual problem with degrees is that for a large number of people, they need a degree to get the same job that was previously non-degree. And which has a low-to-non-existent premium over not doing the degree.
Meanwhile the government caps medical degrees (and associated training), and companies import graduates from other countries.
Now I am all for improving academic standards, in nursing for example, however I am not averse to more imaginative delivery. I don't see why Solicitors if they do wish can't go through the Articled Clerk route if they do desire, but equally those who want to attend University for three years despite the debt incurred should be allowed to go to University.
I am all for day and block release to complete a combined work and study degree course.
It’s not about banning stuff. But it strikes me that it is mis-selling to claim that x of debt will get you y of monetary benefit, when it doesn’t.
The answers include, I think
- raising the quality of degrees at some institutions. Because many companies prefer grads from institutions abroad to quite screw universities in the U.K. - more honesty in selling the product. 16-18 year olds are vulnerable to mis-selling. - As you say, mix and match, part time degrees etc. I’d also add normalising doing a degree later than just after school.
If they are being deliberately missold a guarantee of untold riches you are right. But I am not sure that is true.
When I signed up to a straight Politics BSc. (Econ) I wasn't sold a pup, I was sold an experience and not a guaranteed career (granted in my day it was all courtesy of the Local Authority).
Universities are now selling “a degree with us gets you job and more money” - literal advertising.
Complete with dodgy stats.
Until quite recently, they were trying to shout down anyone who pointed out there are massive differences in value between different degrees.
Many companies only hire grads from a list of universities - they hire foreign grads rather than from the lower tiers of U.K. universities.
At one company, my boss tried hiring without that limitation. We had interviewees who were plainly getting nothing from their education - one sticks in my mind - his final year electronics project was trivial, and even then, had learnt nearly nothing about it…
I am not sure a University degree is a test of knowledge so much as a certificate of application over three years. The learning starts after one finds their first job.
I loved it. I would send everyone to University. As a nation I think we lose an awful lot by culling establishments and courses back to the top 5%. With what we saw with previous recent Governments and certainly postings on here a University education will be returned to exclusivity, probably in my lifetime, and I am already an old man.
The problem is that even at 50%, a lot of students really aren't up to it.
I don't think the Remain campaign was shit - it was very good. Fear was what they had, and they deployed it well.
I also think the Leave campaign was rubbish.
I think without both of those factors, Leave's victory would have been far more emphatic.
Because Leave won it's forgotten now that the Leave campaign was fractious, poorly organised and crap. And I was in it.
I certainly didn't expect a win.
Yes, as someone who also campaigned for it, the amount of revisionism about how amazing the Leave campaign was is funny to me. There would be days where volunteers turned up but we had no instructions or material to give them because no one had sent anything to us. The reason Leave won is because people didn't like the EU or immigration and they saw it as a way of giving the elite a good kicking. It isn't really any more complicated than that. All of these people talking about how the Remain side needed to run a positive campaign are kidding themselves too, there is a tiny proportion of the UK public, then and now, who feel positively towards the EU and any campaign which tried to capture some positive sentiment or engender such would have ended with a Leave landslide. No, the Remain campaign did well to get to 48% and while there was a path to to a Remain vote before Dave's renegotiation, after that I think it became impossible.
I think the biggest mistake was Cameron doing the renegotiation first.
If the vote had been first he could have said what can you give us to keep us in and then used that in a second vote of EU light vs out.
Instead the referendum was EU light or out and that left no leeway afterwards
I've read some of the excerpts from the big AI speech and it's complete nonsense.
This is the UK government version of startups adding AI to their company name just before going to VC pitch meetings. It's laughable that they're wasting time on this as a policy announcement, more and more I find the companies who shout loudest about how much they "do AI" are the ones who have the least knowledge on how to properly implement it, this government is going to be exactly the same. The biggest productivity gains from AI will be at the lowest levels, implementing it in customer service, using it for basic comms and triaging customer problems for departments. None of that is a big strategy but customers of government departments could see huge benefits from AI because they would have a much better initial experience than they currently get wading through the treacle that is government customer service.
AI is today's dead cat, as it gets dutifully covered, and isn't about tax, spend, borrow, gilts, NHS, social care, Trump, the economy, IHT, NI, etc.
When you inherit a debt legacy that's 100% of GDP, a 1% rise in global interest rates implies an eventual rise in future interest costs that's something around around 2% of total government spending. And our debt is relatively short term compared to many major economies, so that feeds through fairly quickly to spending forecasts.
And Trump's presidency might see rates push higher still, as the US has rather more influence in the markets than does the UK Treasury.
However good or however crap the Chancellor is doesn't do much to change that.
Yeah
you spent most of the election arguing with me that cuts were impossible..
Not my recollection.
I said before the election that neither party's economic forecasts added up, and cuts or tax raises would be likely after the election.
I might well have said that saying so was politically impossible for them.
That's true. The best of the bad options would probably have been an Income Tax rise for the better off, but no politician could say that or even leave it up in the air. The Tories of the past are to blame for this - 'Labour's Tax Bombshell' means that all governments will have to find stealth taxes to see us through hard times for the foreseeable future.
Yes, Labour are utterly paranoid about being again seen as the party who love to tax people. Avoiding this is absolute number 1 on their political priorities. That's why if it does come to tax rises or spending cuts it will be cuts.
I fear that they'll continue their noble quest to tax employers
From a poorly paid employee
That's maxed out for now, I think. There's scope on pensions (the high earner rebate) but I think it'll be spending cuts winning the day.
Just got an email from an NHS trust (I sold them some software) advertising a webinar. They say it is ok for them to send the email because I am a "formal contact" since I am in the procurement system. Fair enough. All very GDPR.
But they didn't use BCC, so now I know the email addresses of the other thousand or so "formal contacts"...
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
Streeting does not inspire confidence frankly.
Bring back Balls?
Streeting (and Stephen Kinnock) have a problem in that social care has been absolutely betrayed and pushed out into 2028+ (now delayed since 2011) but neither regarded it as a resignation issue, when everyone knows, because they tell us, that social care and the NHS crisis are, as the bookies say, linked contingencies.
As is local Government finance as all councils are social care departments with whatever cash is left over spent on everything else.
And I don’t think anyone elects their local council to run a social care department where standards as determined outside the councillors control
She got dealt a very duff hand and a difficult situation. I have sympathy for that. Nigel Lawson, one of the most intellectually competent and confident Chancellors in my lifetime, would have struggled.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I think she needs to go tbh, the markets don't have much confidence in her. Starmer needs to appoint someone non mad to the position which to my mind only really leaves Streeting whose successor in health and social will get the mother of hospital passes with what he must do to restore confidence.
Streeting does not inspire confidence frankly.
Bring back Balls?
Put Ed Balls into the Lords and make him chancellor. I don't think he'd do it though. He seems pretty happy out of politics and I think he's probably recognised that he had turned into a proper **** as a politician and being out is good for his mental health.
Let the Tony Blair Institute take over the Cabinet Office and put Blair in charge.
You seem to have a thing for dictators and wannabe dictators. Putin, Trump, and now Blair.
Just got an email from an NHS trust (I sold them some software) advertising a webinar. They say it is ok for them to send the email because I am a "formal contact" since I am in the procurement system. Fair enough. All very GDPR.
But they didn't use BCC, so now I know the email addresses of the other thousand or so "formal contacts"...
I've read some of the excerpts from the big AI speech and it's complete nonsense.
This is the UK government version of startups adding AI to their company name just before going to VC pitch meetings. It's laughable that they're wasting time on this as a policy announcement, more and more I find the companies who shout loudest about how much they "do AI" are the ones who have the least knowledge on how to properly implement it, this government is going to be exactly the same. The biggest productivity gains from AI will be at the lowest levels, implementing it in customer service, using it for basic comms and triaging customer problems for departments. None of that is a big strategy but customers of government departments could see huge benefits from AI because they would have a much better initial experience than they currently get wading through the treacle that is government customer service.
AI is today's dead cat, as it gets dutifully covered, and isn't about tax, spend, borrow, gilts, NHS, social care, Trump, the economy, IHT, NI, etc.
It didn't work though, the story is now RR getting the dreaded vote of confidence. Tomorrow's media will all be speculation on who replaces her and which of the budget measures will need to be reversed to win back market confidence.
I've read some of the excerpts from the big AI speech and it's complete nonsense.
This is the UK government version of startups adding AI to their company name just before going to VC pitch meetings. It's laughable that they're wasting time on this as a policy announcement, more and more I find the companies who shout loudest about how much they "do AI" are the ones who have the least knowledge on how to properly implement it, this government is going to be exactly the same. The biggest productivity gains from AI will be at the lowest levels, implementing it in customer service, using it for basic comms and triaging customer problems for departments. None of that is a big strategy but customers of government departments could see huge benefits from AI because they would have a much better initial experience than they currently get wading through the treacle that is government customer service.
AI is today's dead cat, as it gets dutifully covered, and isn't about tax, spend, borrow, gilts, NHS, social care, Trump, the economy, IHT, NI, etc.
I don't think the Remain campaign was shit - it was very good. Fear was what they had, and they deployed it well.
I also think the Leave campaign was rubbish.
I think without both of those factors, Leave's victory would have been far more emphatic.
Because Leave won it's forgotten now that the Leave campaign was fractious, poorly organised and crap. And I was in it.
I certainly didn't expect a win.
Yes, as someone who also campaigned for it, the amount of revisionism about how amazing the Leave campaign was is funny to me. There would be days where volunteers turned up but we had no instructions or material to give them because no one had sent anything to us. The reason Leave won is because people didn't like the EU or immigration and they saw it as a way of giving the elite a good kicking. It isn't really any more complicated than that. All of these people talking about how the Remain side needed to run a positive campaign are kidding themselves too, there is a tiny proportion of the UK public, then and now, who feel positively towards the EU and any campaign which tried to capture some positive sentiment or engender such would have ended with a Leave landslide. No, the Remain campaign did well to get to 48% and while there was a path to to a Remain vote before Dave's renegotiation, after that I think it became impossible.
I think that just about sums it up. The masses were given an all too rare opportunity to give the elite a kicking and for their vote actually to make a difference.
It's a strange sort who is prepared to die in a ditch over Latin teaching.
Ad munimenta, commilitones!
The same posters who are outraged that other people's children are incurring a huge debt to read for "Mickey Mouse" degrees".
So you are in favour of withdrawing teaching and effectively cancelling GCSEs that children have been studying for? As they head into the mocks and the final straight?
Why not end Latin teaching after the exams?
No, you like to put words on my page. Canning a programme in mid term is ridiculous. I also believe Latin should be available to be taught to those who want to learn Latin.
My point is not my inconsistency, which as you can see in the above paragraph is not inconsistent. My point was those crying loudest about the removal of Latin are happy to see the back of what they consider "Mickey Mouse" courses. Likewise I don't care if someone wants to complete a Masters degree on the hits of Madonna.
The actual problem with degrees is that for a large number of people, they need a degree to get the same job that was previously non-degree. And which has a low-to-non-existent premium over not doing the degree.
Meanwhile the government caps medical degrees (and associated training), and companies import graduates from other countries.
Now I am all for improving academic standards, in nursing for example, however I am not averse to more imaginative delivery. I don't see why Solicitors if they do wish can't go through the Articled Clerk route if they do desire, but equally those who want to attend University for three years despite the debt incurred should be allowed to go to University.
I am all for day and block release to complete a combined work and study degree course.
It’s not about banning stuff. But it strikes me that it is mis-selling to claim that x of debt will get you y of monetary benefit, when it doesn’t.
The answers include, I think
- raising the quality of degrees at some institutions. Because many companies prefer grads from institutions abroad to quite screw universities in the U.K. - more honesty in selling the product. 16-18 year olds are vulnerable to mis-selling. - As you say, mix and match, part time degrees etc. I’d also add normalising doing a degree later than just after school.
If they are being deliberately missold a guarantee of untold riches you are right. But I am not sure that is true.
When I signed up to a straight Politics BSc. (Econ) I wasn't sold a pup, I was sold an experience and not a guaranteed career (granted in my day it was all courtesy of the Local Authority).
Universities are now selling “a degree with us gets you job and more money” - literal advertising.
Complete with dodgy stats.
Until quite recently, they were trying to shout down anyone who pointed out there are massive differences in value between different degrees.
Many companies only hire grads from a list of universities - they hire foreign grads rather than from the lower tiers of U.K. universities.
At one company, my boss tried hiring without that limitation. We had interviewees who were plainly getting nothing from their education - one sticks in my mind - his final year electronics project was trivial, and even then, had learnt nearly nothing about it…
I am not sure a University degree is a test of knowledge so much as a certificate of application over three years. The learning starts after one finds their first job.
I loved it. I would send everyone to University. As a nation I think we lose an awful lot by culling establishments and courses back to the top 5%. With what we saw with previous recent Governments and certainly postings on here a University education will be returned to exclusivity, probably in my lifetime, and I am already an old man.
I would expect that someone with ability, would come out of their degree, with a good knowledge of the subject of that degree!
That’s how I’ve always interviewed grads. If you specialised in Elizabethan poetry in your final year of your degree, what can you tell me about it?
Before such interviews I read up on the topic enough to ask some questions. The responses tell you quite a bit, I find.
This comment has wide relevance in the age of interweb and AI and all that. There are two things that really work in finding out what people are like and how bright they are: one is three hour exam papers taking into the room only a pen and answering well framed questions; the other is rigorous conversation/cross examination about what they are supposed to know with no aids except your brain.
On another Malmesbury related topic, Bagehot in the Economist this week is excellent on the triumph in the UK of process over decision, action and result.
I don't think the Remain campaign was shit - it was very good. Fear was what they had, and they deployed it well.
I also think the Leave campaign was rubbish.
I think without both of those factors, Leave's victory would have been far more emphatic.
Because Leave won it's forgotten now that the Leave campaign was fractious, poorly organised and crap. And I was in it.
I certainly didn't expect a win.
Yes, as someone who also campaigned for it, the amount of revisionism about how amazing the Leave campaign was is funny to me. There would be days where volunteers turned up but we had no instructions or material to give them because no one had sent anything to us. The reason Leave won is because people didn't like the EU or immigration and they saw it as a way of giving the elite a good kicking. It isn't really any more complicated than that. All of these people talking about how the Remain side needed to run a positive campaign are kidding themselves too, there is a tiny proportion of the UK public, then and now, who feel positively towards the EU and any campaign which tried to capture some positive sentiment or engender such would have ended with a Leave landslide. No, the Remain campaign did well to get to 48% and while there was a path to to a Remain vote before Dave's renegotiation, after that I think it became impossible.
I think that just about sums it up. The masses were given an all too rare opportunity to give the elite a kicking and for their vote actually to make a difference.
And they took it.
And it's the same story in France and the Netherlands when the public got their chance to give the elite a kicking over the EU constitution they turned around and told the EU and the elites to get fucked. I don't think the UK is some wild outlier as some try and paint it.
I've read some of the excerpts from the big AI speech and it's complete nonsense.
This is the UK government version of startups adding AI to their company name just before going to VC pitch meetings. It's laughable that they're wasting time on this as a policy announcement, more and more I find the companies who shout loudest about how much they "do AI" are the ones who have the least knowledge on how to properly implement it, this government is going to be exactly the same. The biggest productivity gains from AI will be at the lowest levels, implementing it in customer service, using it for basic comms and triaging customer problems for departments. None of that is a big strategy but customers of government departments could see huge benefits from AI because they would have a much better initial experience than they currently get wading through the treacle that is government customer service.
AI is today's dead cat, as it gets dutifully covered, and isn't about tax, spend, borrow, gilts, NHS, social care, Trump, the economy, IHT, NI, etc.
I don't think you really expect any politician (or indeed civil servant) to know anything at all about AI. The key thing is to signal that you're open to it, won't regulate it away, and crucially will allow the public sector to lead the way and take on some of the initial risk.
As Max says, some of the biggest gains could be in simple stuff. Given the very high labour costs associated with UK-based staff in DWP, HMRC and the NHS, you can see how the government could really crack on with AI as long as they embrace it properly - the relative benefits are much higher than for a private firm employing cheap labour abroad.
Who thinks that Keir, Rach and Ange haven't asked their favourite LLMs how to run the country?
I listened to Keir's 'AI all the things' speech just there. It was fine as these things go. But I had to turn off the media questions as they were so epically dreadful. Nothing, zero, zilch about what he'd been talking about - at best general questions anyone would have asked, at worst just a talking point with the word 'AI' bolted onto it.
As the Americans are now saying, no matter how much you hate the mainstream media it isn’t enough.
If people didn't learn from 2020-21 how useless the British press is, I'm not sure they're capable of learning...
Just got an email from an NHS trust (I sold them some software) advertising a webinar. They say it is ok for them to send the email because I am a "formal contact" since I am in the procurement system. Fair enough. All very GDPR.
But they didn't use BCC, so now I know the email addresses of the other thousand or so "formal contacts"...
Ooops.
I was nice enough to email the sender privately about it. Others are doing reply-all. It's getting spicy.
I don't think the Remain campaign was shit - it was very good. Fear was what they had, and they deployed it well.
I also think the Leave campaign was rubbish.
I think without both of those factors, Leave's victory would have been far more emphatic.
Because Leave won it's forgotten now that the Leave campaign was fractious, poorly organised and crap. And I was in it.
I certainly didn't expect a win.
Yes, as someone who also campaigned for it, the amount of revisionism about how amazing the Leave campaign was is funny to me. There would be days where volunteers turned up but we had no instructions or material to give them because no one had sent anything to us. The reason Leave won is because people didn't like the EU or immigration and they saw it as a way of giving the elite a good kicking. It isn't really any more complicated than that. All of these people talking about how the Remain side needed to run a positive campaign are kidding themselves too, there is a tiny proportion of the UK public, then and now, who feel positively towards the EU and any campaign which tried to capture some positive sentiment or engender such would have ended with a Leave landslide. No, the Remain campaign did well to get to 48% and while there was a path to to a Remain vote before Dave's renegotiation, after that I think it became impossible.
I think that just about sums it up. The masses were given an all too rare opportunity to give the elite a kicking and for their vote actually to make a difference.
And they took it.
And it's the same story in France and the Netherlands when the public got their chance to give the elite a kicking over the EU constitution they turned around and told the EU and the elites to get fucked. I don't think the UK is some wild outlier as some try and paint it.
There would never have been a Brexit referendum if on the big calls we, like others, had had relevant referenda as we went along. And unlike other countries there is no possibility that we would have had to go back and vote again because we got it wrong.
I think that just about sums it up. The masses were given an all too rare opportunity to give the elite a kicking and for their vote actually to make a difference.
And they took it.
You know, I hadn't thought about it till now, but it was the first and only significant vote I've voted in where I won, and indeed only the second vote ever were I won.
I'm from a family of Labour voters, so 1997 me did the duty and voted Labour.... at Aberystwyth University. So I lost. Since then, I've moved back to Merseyside and my political beliefs have moved to the centre and I voted LD mostly down the line. So I've lost (heavily).
Comments
I loved it. I would send everyone to University. As a nation I think we lose an awful lot by culling establishments and courses back to the top 5%. With what we saw with previous recent Governments and certainly postings on here a University education will be returned to exclusivity, probably in my lifetime, and I am already an old man.
There are several people on PB (including myself) who have used “AI” this way.
Think assistant rather than job replacement.
Historically, a noticeable improvement in productivity is associated with economic growth and job *creation*.
Of course, it is far from certain that AI will be used this way. Generating huge, unreadable documents just got easier…
That’s how I’ve always interviewed grads. If you specialised in Elizabethan poetry in your final year of your degree, what can you tell me about it?
Before such interviews I read up on the topic enough to ask some questions. The responses tell you quite a bit, I find.
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1878778249964409144?s=61
I think one of the downsides of the reforms was it created pressure for a “one size fits all” approach to post-18 learning, a feeling that a university degree was the natural next step. I think there’s a place for university education and experience for a great number of people, but I think younger people are becoming much more cognisant of the alternatives, and the government should continue to support and expand that choice with a view to facilitating the best possible training and education for particular professions and qualifications.
Who would have thought that Starmer would be forced into confirming his confidence in Reeves only 6 months after a landslide Labour win ?
The way the bond markets are heading she is at some risk of being Truss 2 due to her irresponsible growth and job destroying budget resulting in higher interest rates for longer and facing dramatic public spending cuts
She may not survive the year, and to be fair she looks as if she is carrying a heavy burden
I 'd be almost as surprised if Murrell was found to have been dipping his hand in the till, more likely to have been a stupid ****. Of course being a stupid **** isn't much excuse in law.
Truss putting in the boot. Not just blaming Reeves but taking some vindication from her plight as she sees similarities.
https://x.com/trussliz/status/1878764304650133565?s=61
Relying on something overheard which was incorrect.
Nonetheless, this year the Treasury (see the Debt Management Report for 2024-25) plans to issue around £265bn of gilts - two third of which will be short and medium dates - which represents a full 10% of existing outstanding debt.
If you look at the redemptions - and the forecast additional financing required by deficit financing - the picture isn't wildly different for the rest of this Parliament.
So the maturity profile of our debt mitigates the impact of rising interest rates, but not much over the course of this parliament.
I said before the election that neither party's economic forecasts added up, and cuts or tax raises would be likely after the election.
I might well have said that saying so was politically impossible for them.
I thought the idea had some merit - though as is apparent, the details have slipped my mind.
But she has definitely made a very poor situation worse. A lot of this was semi-inevitable. She boxed herself in before the election. She boxed herself in further in the run up to the budget that was excessively delayed. She used the excuse of the £22bn "black hole" which was met with derision. She spent far too much of her money on trying to buy peace with the Unions.
The problem is that it is not going to get better. The increase of gilt yields has wiped out her headroom. Having repeatedly claimed that austerity is a matter of choice she will now have to accept it is a consequence of being in government and being responsible with taxpayers money. And Starmer does not strike me as someone you would want to be relying upon in difficult times.
I agree on the speech, and the press questions, overall. He did manage his usual trick of making whatever he speaks about sound like the most boring thing ever discussed by anybody
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATKsjXUZMxw
Bring back Balls?
I also think the Leave campaign was rubbish.
I think without both of those factors, Leave's victory would have been far more emphatic.
"Who? /s"
The best of the bad options would probably have been an Income Tax rise for the better off, but no politician could say that or even leave it up in the air. The Tories of the past are to blame for this - 'Labour's Tax Bombshell' means that all governments will have to find stealth taxes to see us through hard times for the foreseeable future.
University certainly isn't suitable for even 50% of the population - I'd say no more than about 30%. Sending everybody to univesity would just result in staggering drop-out rates as well as dumbing-down courses even further than they've already been.
Blair's expansion of higher education far beyond those who benefit from it in economic or intellectual terms has been an expensive disaster and we should be setting about reversing it, though as always with badly-thought-through government waste, from miners to small farmers to lawyers there's a huge lobbying industry that will fight tooth and nail to keep its funding and privileges.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/13/liz-truss-says-uk-will-fail-unless-british-media-outlets-are-fixed
Despite having no Arctic border, it has labelled itself as an 'Arctic adjacent' state.
The Glen Sannox made her first passenger carrying journeys yesterday, in a swap with the Alfred. Possibly to discombobulate the Scottish media.
With reference to the thread header (someone needs to make it worthwhile for TSE to write them), Scottish independence needs the following to increase it’s support. A Labour run Scottish Government in 2026, probably with Green and Lib Dem support, proving to be as useless as the current administration. Reform involved in the UK Government in 2029, either as a majority or in conjunction with the Conservatives. This would be so economically illiterate that sterling would tank, rendering the currency question irrelevant. Reform remaining a minor party in Scotland.
Even a ten year term would lead to short term decisions being taken over the long view.
Make them too long, and you fall into the dictatorship trap anyway, of starting out with best intentions but then just running a country like your own personal property and sodding everyone else.
This is the UK government version of startups adding AI to their company name just before going to VC pitch meetings. It's laughable that they're wasting time on this as a policy announcement, more and more I find the companies who shout loudest about how much they "do AI" are the ones who have the least knowledge on how to properly implement it, this government is going to be exactly the same. The biggest productivity gains from AI will be at the lowest levels, implementing it in customer service, using it for basic comms and triaging customer problems for departments. None of that is a big strategy but customers of government departments could see huge benefits from AI because they would have a much better initial experience than they currently get wading through the treacle that is government customer service.
I certainly didn't expect a win.
Anyone of the following the other way would've swung it.
Gove with Leave - Check
Johnson with Leave - Check
Labour leader secretly Leave - Check
Cameron, despite winning in 2015 wasn't very popular (36.9% of the vote) - Check
Migration crisis rumbling on (even though Brexit would never solve it) - Check
Change any one, heck, I expected Cameron to hold the referendum in 2017 - and the result would've been the other way. I still remember John Oliver interviewed a Leave voter the day after, who confessed they'd only voted Leave to stick it to Cameron and they didn't really mean to vote Leave and wanted to Remain.
Which is another failure of politics, which no system tweaks can ever sort out. Never vote AGAINST something. Vote FOR something. Even if you think you can't win.
Looking at some details from Bannon's earlier tirade against Musk mentioning Techofeudalism, I ca see that it was actually Varoufakis's term after all. There're been several economists, like Mazzucato, working on parts of it, but what he's done is basically created a whole new theoretical framework for it. It's not perfect, or fully refined yet, and is going to be developed a lot over the next few years. It's going to be more apposite with each passing year, and people are going to be adding more to it.
I Cannot see him wanting to go back into politics. He is probably earning more too.
I know the status quo isn’t an easy sell but they really did a bad job of selling something that was - easy holidays and we didn’t even have to give up the pound
So if enough people are content to let the gov carry on with longer term aims or good management then all ok but if they are being shitbags then the % cut off will get hit and a GE to follow.
I know it’s all a bit convoluted but there really needs a way to he found to reduce short-termism.
Given that may sales pitch is basically it’s OK for internal work but don’t let AI anywhere near the outside world without a sanity check stage first - I just know they are going to use it for first / second line support work
The independent status has a cost. And so does Union in a different way. I'm in favour of both unions in principle and taking the cost but there needs to be mutual respect. Which is where @davidl is going wrong in my view, from a Unionist perspective.
From a poorly paid employee
You can get away with Foreign Sec and Home Sec.... maybe. Chancellor would be VERY brave to have as unelected, and I don't think you'd ever get away with the PM being unelected except in a major war situation.
On the one hand, she needs to sufficiently change tack to mollify the markets, to demonstrate that she has learned.
On the other hand she had to absolutely avoid the public gaining any impression that the government have u-turned, or are doing anything other than implementing the long-envisaged next stages of their most perfect plan.
And then, market sentiment* and public relations aside, she actually has to make some progress on turning the economy and the public finances around. No pressure, like.
I wonder how that war turned out...... /s
If the vote had been first he could have said what can you give us to keep us in and then used that in a second vote of EU light vs out.
Instead the referendum was EU light or out and that left no leeway afterwards
But they didn't use BCC, so now I know the email addresses of the other thousand or so "formal contacts"...
And I don’t think anyone elects their local council to run a social care department where standards as determined outside the councillors control
And they took it.
On another Malmesbury related topic, Bagehot in the Economist this week is excellent on the triumph in the UK of process over decision, action and result.
As Max says, some of the biggest gains could be in simple stuff. Given the very high labour costs associated with UK-based staff in DWP, HMRC and the NHS, you can see how the government could really crack on with AI as long as they embrace it properly - the relative benefits are much higher than for a private firm employing cheap labour abroad.
I'm from a family of Labour voters, so 1997 me did the duty and voted Labour.... at Aberystwyth University. So I lost. Since then, I've moved back to Merseyside and my political beliefs have moved to the centre and I voted LD mostly down the line. So I've lost (heavily).
But I won in 2016..... funny that.