Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
There does seem to be a resentment among some on the left that ordinary private sector workers can build up a financial asset worth hundreds of thousands.
Perhaps Torsten Bell could comment on whether this law should be repealed:
The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013
Buying a factory would allow China to build influence in Germany's prized auto industry, home to some of the oldest and most prestigious car brands, the person said.
Chinese companies have invested across a range of industries in Germany, Europe's biggest economy, from telecommunications to robotics but have yet to set up traditional car manufacturing there, despite Mercedes-Benz having two large Chinese shareholders.
Any such move could mark China's most politically sensitive investment yet. VW has long been a symbol of Germany's industrial prowess, now threatened by a global economic slowdown hitting demand and a creaking transition to green technologies.
Building cars in Germany for sale in Europe would allow China's EV makers to avoid paying EU tariffs on electric cars imported from China and could pose a further threat to European manufacturers' competitiveness.
While bids could come from private firms, state-owned firms or joint ventures with foreign companies, Chinese authorities reserve the right to approve certain investments abroad and would likely be involved in any offer from early on.
Investment decisions would hinge on the new German government's stance towards China following an election in February, the person said...
It's simply Europe screwing it's own businesses. The Net Zero plans benefit China.
That ship sailed long ago. The fact is that is Germany doesn't develop a domestic EV industry, it won't have a car industry. The Chinese simply beat them to the new market.
This was predictable a decade ago, and has nothing to do with Net Zero. Climate change certainly incentivised the development of EVs, but now it's just about market forces.
And learn to use the apostrophe correctly, or don't use it.
BYD have just moved in to sharing the dealership premises for Cardiff and Newport Mercedes Benz. Anecdotally I would guess the fastest growing dealership group in South Wales is Nathaniel MG. Omoda have moved into Bassett's Nissan in Bridgend and Fordthorne in Cardiff. Jaecoo will open soon at Fordthorne.
I fear the ship might already have sailed (from Shanghai) for the European automotive industry.
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
It seems a sensible proposal, but like applying CGT to private home sales it would go down like a lead balloon though raising the age to 57 plus is good
Reducing the tax free lump sum would impact me but it is a while off, but I plan to take my pension pot ad UFPLS so get the tax free lump sum with every withdrawal.
Is the age to take a pension just limited to accessing a DC pot or will it apply to public sector and the remaining private sector DB schemes too ? That is coming in for DC anyway.
Get rid of the triple lock for sure. They should take the hit now and live with the consequences. Changing the inflation measure applied in the future is going to help.
I think any party committed to the triple lock continuing at the next GE is not serious about tackling the nations financial situation.
That doesn't mean no rise of course, but puts it back to the discretion of the Chancellor.
Similarly statements about no rises in this or that tax. We need honest approaches with governments able to adjust the tiller on the ship of state according to changes in wind direction and sea state.
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
It’s hardly Natural England that is a bar to growth. It’s the laws which it is their duty to regulate. Which they didn’t put on the statute.
And in any case we’ve seen where light touch regulation takes us. Rivers full of shit.
At a time of biodiversity and climate crisis, we need to do more for nature not less, but the farming lobby stands in the way of every single atrempt to create the conditions for nature recovery.
I suggest you stop looking for simple solutions and scapegoats and look at the bigger picture. Or at least substantiate your arguments better than whatever simplistic drivel is presented in the popular media.
How do other nations deal with their bats and great crested newts ?
Do you mean that other countries don’t build £120m bat tunnels and spend millions more relocating species that are found all over the country?
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
There does seem to be a resentment among some on the left that ordinary private sector workers can build up a financial asset worth hundreds of thousands.
Perhaps Torsten Bell could comment on whether this law should be repealed:
The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013
Tax relief on pensions should serve a public good otherwise tax them like other income.
Imo, it is fairly clear that there is a significant public good in allowing people to generate a tax pot of about £500k - that plus the state pension would put someone on an average income.
I really don't understand at all what the the public good is for waiving tax on pension pots £1m+, perhaps pb can explain it?
Not jealousy as personally I like and use my ISA and pension tax breaks.
Buying a factory would allow China to build influence in Germany's prized auto industry, home to some of the oldest and most prestigious car brands, the person said.
Chinese companies have invested across a range of industries in Germany, Europe's biggest economy, from telecommunications to robotics but have yet to set up traditional car manufacturing there, despite Mercedes-Benz having two large Chinese shareholders.
Any such move could mark China's most politically sensitive investment yet. VW has long been a symbol of Germany's industrial prowess, now threatened by a global economic slowdown hitting demand and a creaking transition to green technologies.
Building cars in Germany for sale in Europe would allow China's EV makers to avoid paying EU tariffs on electric cars imported from China and could pose a further threat to European manufacturers' competitiveness.
While bids could come from private firms, state-owned firms or joint ventures with foreign companies, Chinese authorities reserve the right to approve certain investments abroad and would likely be involved in any offer from early on.
Investment decisions would hinge on the new German government's stance towards China following an election in February, the person said...
It's simply Europe screwing it's own businesses. The Net Zero plans benefit China.
That ship sailed long ago. The fact is that is Germany doesn't develop a domestic EV industry, it won't have a car industry. The Chinese simply beat them to the new market.
This was predictable a decade ago, and has nothing to do with Net Zero. Climate change certainly incentivised the development of EVs, but now it's just about market forces.
And learn to use the apostrophe correctly, or don't use it.
They can develop an EV industry but on the timescales proposed theyre screwed.
The Net Zero timescale is of far less importance than market forces. It was the luddites in the industry who are responsible for the position of their auto industry.
The debate is about how they might mitigate that. The Net Zero argument is a separate one.
If the market forces were driving this, why is the government stiffing car markers £15k a car if they sell more than 80% ICE?
The reality is that the buying public is not yet convinced about EVs and so the government is forcing their adoption.
Had the fools in government not done this (having less than 10 years previously forced car makers to go diesel for environmental reasons!), there would still be an EV transition, but not quite as fast. Also Europe would still have a car industry.
Or would it be even closer to extinction by foreign EV makers ?
The point is that with a very few years, EVs will be superior to ICE vehicles in almost every respect, and be cheaper. And that's entirely independent of anything the EU (or we) do.
Fining car makers and banning ICEs does seem an odd way to go about it though. Surely it would have been better to have gradually increased taxation on ICE vehicles and used the revenue to subsidise EV purchases or infrastructure. I think Norway has taken an approach more like this and now sells very few ICE vehicles.
More that Norway had a huge taxes on cars. Which they omitted for EVs when they came in. So a Tesla Model S was a cheap car in Norway.
Which is basically the same thing. No bans, no fines; they just used taxation differentials to quickly achieve the desired result.
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
It’s hardly Natural England that is a bar to growth. It’s the laws which it is their duty to regulate. Which they didn’t put on the statute.
And in any case we’ve seen where light touch regulation takes us. Rivers full of shit.
At a time of biodiversity and climate crisis, we need to do more for nature not less, but the farming lobby stands in the way of every single atrempt to create the conditions for nature recovery.
I suggest you stop looking for simple solutions and scapegoats and look at the bigger picture. Or at least substantiate your arguments better than whatever simplistic drivel is presented in the popular media.
How do other nations deal with their bats and great crested newts ?
Do you mean that other countries don’t build £120m bat tunnels and spend millions more relocating species that are found all over the country?
That’s formally designating a park as a park, still no £120m bat tunnels.
I didn’t say it was exactly the same.
On the bat tunnel.
The thing that struck me, in all the reporting was the claim that "Not a single bat could be allowed to die"
This requirement is insane - we don't design projects to prevent all human deaths. Otherwise there would be zero infrastructure projects.
So either the requirement was misreported everywhere, or we have another classic.
People who don't actually know or understand regulations trying to implement them and coming up with absurd results.
I wonder what the wording in the law is?
I could imagine it being something like: "..obliged to take reasonable steps to minimise harm.."
So then we have to decide what is reasonable, based on how much harm is avoided at what cost.
This is a question of judgement, and that can be hard. It can be tempting to take a simplistic approach, of attempting to reduce harm to zero, whatever the cost, as a way of avoiding making a judgement. Certainly I could see that it might be seen as courageous for someone to conclude that there was nothing reasonable that could be done to reduce harm, and I suppose you wouldn't want that to be the conclusion every time - often there will be relatively simple things that can be done with a beneficial impact.
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
It seems a sensible proposal, but like applying CGT to private home sales it would go down like a lead balloon though raising the age to 57 plus is good
CGT should certainly apply to any property except the primary residence. Although the primary residence capital gain should be dealt with too, probably through IHT. Why should any unearned income be tax free while earned income is taxed?
Everyone seems to agree that working people deserve more and pensioners deserve less. But pensions policy has to take account of the fact that people move from the first category to the second in the course of their lives. If the government makes pension saving less attractive fewer people will do so and the money will end up somewhere else.
When Macron tried to raise the French pension age students joined the protests. They were sensible enough to realise it was going to impact them rather than the existing elderly.
Err, demographics mean future pension changes are inevitable and will hit the young hard before they retire. Sensible they were not.
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
It’s hardly Natural England that is a bar to growth. It’s the laws which it is their duty to regulate. Which they didn’t put on the statute.
And in any case we’ve seen where light touch regulation takes us. Rivers full of shit.
At a time of biodiversity and climate crisis, we need to do more for nature not less, but the farming lobby stands in the way of every single atrempt to create the conditions for nature recovery.
I suggest you stop looking for simple solutions and scapegoats and look at the bigger picture. Or at least substantiate your arguments better than whatever simplistic drivel is presented in the popular media.
How do other nations deal with their bats and great crested newts ?
Do you mean that other countries don’t build £120m bat tunnels and spend millions more relocating species that are found all over the country?
That’s formally designating a park as a park, still no £120m bat tunnels.
I didn’t say it was exactly the same.
On the bat tunnel.
The thing that struck me, in all the reporting was the claim that "Not a single bat could be allowed to die"
This requirement is insane - we don't design projects to prevent all human deaths. Otherwise there would be zero infrastructure projects.
So either the requirement was misreported everywhere, or we have another classic.
People who don't actually know or understand regulations trying to implement them and coming up with absurd results.
Bugger the bats. There are millions of the fuckers.
I remember the old Woodrow Wyatt "Voice of Reason" column, he would rage against bats and bat protection stopping people working on lofts and outhouses.
Ahead of the Texas House speaker race, Republican lawmakers appeared outside for a prayer meeting where pastors called for Christians to “take charge and authority” over the legislature and exercise their rightful “jurisdiction over the affairs of men.” https://x.com/RobertDownen_/status/1879261230344384552
To be fair, that sounds like Evangelical pseudo-theological rhetoric aimed at God.
You can find the jigsaw pieces it is built from mainly yanked out of bits of the NT and the book of Revelation. Do they they assert "authority" over the "principalities and powers" somewhere?There's doubtless some questionable stuff in it, as well as some bollocks, but it's also their habitual argot.
Translated, it means he thinks people of his particular view should be in positions in Government. Of course, his faith means that they should act with extra integrity and probity, but once it's been through the Trumpvangelical filter they tend to lose the principles, and the respect for others.
Sensible Evangelicals pray publicly in language (to borrow from the Book of Common Prayer) "understanded of the people".
I think one decent example of not imposing "my values" when in a ministerial position was Mogg on abortion. IIRC he said, even as a down-the-line Roman Catholic, that he drew a clear distinction between his views and the law which should be set by Parliament. Trumpists have imo lost that distinction, and what they have left is victory in a Machiavellian battle.
I can report that China totally dominates the new car market here in junta-ruled south central Myanmar. Probably not a massive market, in the wider scheme, but interesting
20, 40 , 60 years ago it must have been very different, they might even have driven new British cars, at one point
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
It seems a sensible proposal, but like applying CGT to private home sales it would go down like a lead balloon though raising the age to 57 plus is good
Reducing the tax free lump sum would impact me but it is a while off, but I plan to take my pension pot ad UFPLS so get the tax free lump sum with every withdrawal.
Is the age to take a pension just limited to accessing a DC pot or will it apply to public sector and the remaining private sector DB schemes too ? That is coming in for DC anyway.
Get rid of the triple lock for sure. They should take the hit now and live with the consequences. Changing the inflation measure applied in the future is going to help.
I think any party committed to the triple lock continuing at the next GE is not serious about tackling the nations financial situation.
That doesn't mean no rise of course, but puts it back to the discretion of the Chancellor.
Similarly statements about no rises in this or that tax. We need honest approaches with governments able to adjust the tiller on the ship of state according to changes in wind direction and sea state.
Which is why I suggested that as Labour Chancellor I would have gone for -
1) Merge Income Tax and employee NI. This brings a number of people into paying NI (in effect). 2) As part of this reform, simplify the bands and increase the rates a bit 3) Sell it as "Needed to save the NHS" and "We will bring rates down, later, when we can" - AKA Election Give Away. 4) Put all the pensioner benefits apart from the actual pension in the blender. Roll out new, means tested benefits. So WFP would go away. 5) Sell this as "More for the poor"
The markets would have liked this - tax to spend is OK, borrow to spend is what upsets things. The Labour supporters would have been happier with this, I reckon.
Badenoch is set to do a big speech where she fesses up to some of the Tories' mistakes in government.
A sensible first step, I think.
One of the items is essentially admitting they lied about having any plans for what would happen after Brexit.
That was the dire David Cameron, five Prime Ministers ago. It also didn't stop them winning triumphantly in 2019 or leading in the polls for the first half of that Parliament, so I'm not sure how beneficial it will be.
Far better to admit to mistakes on mattes of current salience, such as uncontrolled immigration, statist economic policies and Nut Zero lunacy. People might actually care.
That would be agreeing 100% with RUK. A risky strategy with massive downside. It might work but if it doesn't you're looking at RUK becoming the perceived alternative to Labour at the next election. That's good for them and for Labour, terrible for the Cons.
I can report that China totally dominates the new car market here in junta-ruled south central Myanmar. Probably not a massive market, in the wider scheme, but interesting
20, 40 , 60 years ago it must have been very different, they might even have driven new British cars, at one point
Not only that but rejoining terms would be fairly dtaconian and then the constant interference in day to day life which we have all forgotten would be back and start to grate again.
It's why I maintain that the polls on rejoining will shift massively when the costs are placed in front of the electorate.
My favourite example of this was that detailed polling by the Blair think tank which showed that people generally wanted a closer relationship with the EU, but also showed that even Remainers wanted restrictions on free movement*, which of course the EU has already ruled out as the four freedoms are considered to be inviolable.
I suspect that this is at the heart of why Labour do not want to get into such debate, as they already know that what people might stomach isn't deliverable.
* This would even make a halfway house like EFTA a real challenge to achieve.
The reality is that free movement, by making it easy to come and go and come back again and go again, provided labour markets with needed people while leading to lower long-term migration to the UK than the Conservatives' post-Brexit approach, where anyone who got a visa to come into the country then very much wants to make that permanent.
Buying a factory would allow China to build influence in Germany's prized auto industry, home to some of the oldest and most prestigious car brands, the person said.
Chinese companies have invested across a range of industries in Germany, Europe's biggest economy, from telecommunications to robotics but have yet to set up traditional car manufacturing there, despite Mercedes-Benz having two large Chinese shareholders.
Any such move could mark China's most politically sensitive investment yet. VW has long been a symbol of Germany's industrial prowess, now threatened by a global economic slowdown hitting demand and a creaking transition to green technologies.
Building cars in Germany for sale in Europe would allow China's EV makers to avoid paying EU tariffs on electric cars imported from China and could pose a further threat to European manufacturers' competitiveness.
While bids could come from private firms, state-owned firms or joint ventures with foreign companies, Chinese authorities reserve the right to approve certain investments abroad and would likely be involved in any offer from early on.
Investment decisions would hinge on the new German government's stance towards China following an election in February, the person said...
It's simply Europe screwing it's own businesses. The Net Zero plans benefit China.
That ship sailed long ago. The fact is that is Germany doesn't develop a domestic EV industry, it won't have a car industry. The Chinese simply beat them to the new market.
This was predictable a decade ago, and has nothing to do with Net Zero. Climate change certainly incentivised the development of EVs, but now it's just about market forces.
And learn to use the apostrophe correctly, or don't use it.
BYD have just moved in to sharing the dealership premises for Cardiff and Newport Mercedes Benz. Anecdotally I would guess the fastest growing dealership group in South Wales is Nathaniel MG. Omoda have moved into Bassett's Nissan in Bridgend and Fordthorne in Cardiff. Jaecoo will open soon at Fordthorne.
I fear the ship might already have sailed (from Shanghai) for the European automotive industry.
I’m surprised that Chinese brands don’t start buying up defunct country brands and sell the cars in recognisable brands.
So for example Mitsubishi owned an Australian brand called Lonsdale where a lot of Mitsubishis were sold in Oz under that brand as it was largely recognised.
Obviously MG is being used but brands like Triumph, Rover and Austin could be revived for the UK market maybe.
Labour - Mike Amesbury - 22,358 Reform UK - Jason Moorcroft - 7,662 Conservative - Jade Marsden - 6,756 Green - Chris Copeman - 2,715 Liberal Democrats - Chris Rowe - 2,149
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
There does seem to be a resentment among some on the left that ordinary private sector workers can build up a financial asset worth hundreds of thousands.
Perhaps Torsten Bell could comment on whether this law should be repealed:
The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013
There does seem to be a resentment among some on the right that ordinary public sector workers can build up a financial asset worth hundreds of thousands.
Surely. Isn't that a criminal offence, so they have to? I forget the deets of electoral law
The bad news for Labour is relentless. It feels like a weary government facing defeat after 13 years in power. Yet they won a landslide six months ago. V odd
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
He needs to get it past the BMA first - they effectively dictate pensions policy in this country.
Badenoch is set to do a big speech where she fesses up to some of the Tories' mistakes in government.
A sensible first step, I think.
One of the items is essentially admitting they lied about having any plans for what would happen after Brexit.
That was the dire David Cameron, five Prime Ministers ago. It also didn't stop them winning triumphantly in 2019 or leading in the polls for the first half of that Parliament, so I'm not sure how beneficial it will be.
Far better to admit to mistakes on mattes of current salience, such as uncontrolled immigration, statist economic policies and Nut Zero lunacy. People might actually care.
Also worth pointing out the Tories Parliamentary party were split 50/50 and half of them campaigned to remain. The Tory govt enacted Brexit as the will of the people. Whether die hard remainers, like that Femi bloke and the tit in the Top hat, like it or not.
We have left the EU, we are not going back.
Focus on the here and now not revisiting the battles of 2016.
But as you keep pointing out, Brexit is the here and now. The fact that we never had a coherent plan of how to manage the UK's new situation - and still don't - is not something to be ignored.
The equivalent would be my saying "Labour are in government; there's no point in arguing about their policies". That would be absurd.
The world has moved on from events 9 years ago.
Remainers constantly ignore the other side of the equation which is whether the EU would want us back. There is no appetite for it
Also have you noticed how whenever you point out we'd have to hand over £20-30 billion every year and adopt the Euro if we rejoin, even the most ardent Remoaner always changes the subject?
Not only that but rejoining terms would be fairly dtaconian and then the constant interference in day to day life which we have all forgotten would be back and start to grate again.
It's why I maintain that the polls on rejoining will shift massively when the costs are placed in front of the electorate.
Makes the £6.5 billion we were actually paying seem a bargain.
£6.5 billion is actually close to what Norway contributes now on a per-pop basis.
Interesting that the Mail and Express both lead on the crisis in the NHS. Caused by 14 years of Tory government, or 6 months of Labour?
Good morning
25 years of labour here in Wales
The NHS is devolved in Wales and Scotland
And funded from Westminster.
Bollox , your absolute arse in parsley, a small proportion of the money robbed from Scotland and Wales is returned as a sop , SNHS is not funded how Scotland would do it if it kept it's own money , instead our money is stolen and spent mainly in London , they then publish fake figures to try and pretend we get more money than England. Yet we get a miniscule portion of our hard earned cash back.
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
It seems a sensible proposal, but like applying CGT to private home sales it would go down like a lead balloon though raising the age to 57 plus is good
Reducing the tax free lump sum would impact me but it is a while off, but I plan to take my pension pot ad UFPLS so get the tax free lump sum with every withdrawal.
Is the age to take a pension just limited to accessing a DC pot or will it apply to public sector and the remaining private sector DB schemes too ? That is coming in for DC anyway.
Get rid of the triple lock for sure. They should take the hit now and live with the consequences. Changing the inflation measure applied in the future is going to help.
I think any party committed to the triple lock continuing at the next GE is not serious about tackling the nations financial situation.
That doesn't mean no rise of course, but puts it back to the discretion of the Chancellor.
Similarly statements about no rises in this or that tax. We need honest approaches with governments able to adjust the tiller on the ship of state according to changes in wind direction and sea state.
Which is why I suggested that as Labour Chancellor I would have gone for -
1) Merge Income Tax and employee NI. This brings a number of people into paying NI (in effect). 2) As part of this reform, simplify the bands and increase the rates a bit 3) Sell it as "Needed to save the NHS" and "We will bring rates down, later, when we can" - AKA Election Give Away. 4) Put all the pensioner benefits apart from the actual pension in the blender. Roll out new, means tested benefits. So WFP would go away. 5) Sell this as "More for the poor"
The markets would have liked this - tax to spend is OK, borrow to spend is what upsets things. The Labour supporters would have been happier with this, I reckon.
Opinion polls would be shocking. There are losers from merging income tax and NI, and public expectations of budgets are no-one loses out.
Labour - Mike Amesbury - 22,358 Reform UK - Jason Moorcroft - 7,662 Conservative - Jade Marsden - 6,756 Green - Chris Copeman - 2,715 Liberal Democrats - Chris Rowe - 2,149
Growth of 0.1% could easily be a contraction of 0.1% or worse after revisions.
Or growth of 0.2%. GDP estimates go all over the place when they’re revised but in recent years they’ve tended to go up.
I think that that you are missing the important PB herd consensus:
Under Tory chancellors revisions are always upwards under Labour ones always downwards.
Similarly rich people need bumper payrises to motivate them, poor people getting payrises are a drag on productivity.
I've taken to scrolling past the "Reeves is shit" posters, the Tory/Reform/ Trump/Musk rampers and when they are on, the race baiters. There not much left to read. I note with sadness the non-RefCon post count has diminished considerably.
I can report that China totally dominates the new car market here in junta-ruled south central Myanmar. Probably not a massive market, in the wider scheme, but interesting
20, 40 , 60 years ago it must have been very different, they might even have driven new British cars, at one point
No 2nd hand jags ?!
Older cars are all Japanese, new cars are all Chinese
Bit disappointed not to see vintage Austin Allegros, etc
Badenoch is set to do a big speech where she fesses up to some of the Tories' mistakes in government.
A sensible first step, I think.
One of the items is essentially admitting they lied about having any plans for what would happen after Brexit.
That was the dire David Cameron, five Prime Ministers ago. It also didn't stop them winning triumphantly in 2019 or leading in the polls for the first half of that Parliament, so I'm not sure how beneficial it will be.
Far better to admit to mistakes on mattes of current salience, such as uncontrolled immigration, statist economic policies and Nut Zero lunacy. People might actually care.
Also worth pointing out the Tories Parliamentary party were split 50/50 and half of them campaigned to remain. The Tory govt enacted Brexit as the will of the people. Whether die hard remainers, like that Femi bloke and the tit in the Top hat, like it or not.
We have left the EU, we are not going back.
Focus on the here and now not revisiting the battles of 2016.
But as you keep pointing out, Brexit is the here and now. The fact that we never had a coherent plan of how to manage the UK's new situation - and still don't - is not something to be ignored.
The equivalent would be my saying "Labour are in government; there's no point in arguing about their policies". That would be absurd.
The world has moved on from events 9 years ago.
Remainers constantly ignore the other side of the equation which is whether the EU would want us back. There is no appetite for it
Also have you noticed how whenever you point out we'd have to hand over £20-30 billion every year and adopt the Euro if we rejoin, even the most ardent Remoaner always changes the subject?
Not only that but rejoining terms would be fairly dtaconian and then the constant interference in day to day life which we have all forgotten would be back and start to grate again.
It's why I maintain that the polls on rejoining will shift massively when the costs are placed in front of the electorate.
Makes the £6.5 billion we were actually paying seem a bargain.
Labour - Mike Amesbury - 22,358 Reform UK - Jason Moorcroft - 7,662 Conservative - Jade Marsden - 6,756 Green - Chris Copeman - 2,715 Liberal Democrats - Chris Rowe - 2,149
It's Whiter, older and more deprived than the English average. On paper it should be good Reform territory.
Surely. Isn't that a criminal offence, so they have to? I forget the deets of electoral law
The bad news for Labour is relentless. It feels like a weary government facing defeat after 13 years in power. Yet they won a landslide six months ago. V odd
The recall process gets triggered if he receives a custodial sentence (including suspended ones).
Surely. Isn't that a criminal offence, so they have to? I forget the deets of electoral law
The bad news for Labour is relentless. It feels like a weary government facing defeat after 13 years in power. Yet they won a landslide six months ago. V odd
No, you can be an MP as long as not serving a prison term of a year or more at the time.
A recall petition is likely though if he gets a custodial sentence as that is triggered if any custodial sentence is given of any length even if suspended. If he just gets community service or a fine though he may be able to avoid that too
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
It seems a sensible proposal, but like applying CGT to private home sales it would go down like a lead balloon though raising the age to 57 plus is good
CGT should certainly apply to any property except the primary residence. Although the primary residence capital gain should be dealt with too, probably through IHT. Why should any unearned income be tax free while earned income is taxed?
Rare moment of agreement to be honest
IHT is the best way to deal with primary residence
I also agree with the Welsh government's attitude to second homes including upto 300% council tax uplift
Rachel from Accounts hits the back of the net. She is Alexander Isak
With a per capita decline?
Population is growing more than 0.1% so per capita that is recessionary.
Well said. That so many pundits and hacks ignore that hugely important point is quite depressing, in itself
Who gives a fuck if we have 0.000038% growth if we are actually getting POORER
What's mad is that Labour will likely achieve GDP per capita growth simply because the Conservatives suppressed it so much with their politically mad 1,000,000 per year immigration strategy.
And if Sainsbos, Tesco, Amazon and the rest AI/robotic away most of the low-wage jobs getting smashed by the secondary threshold on employer NICs (and a lack of immigration) , they'll also achieve substantial productivity growth.
Meanwhile total economic output could flatline. Economic stats are hard work.
Labour - Mike Amesbury - 22,358 Reform UK - Jason Moorcroft - 7,662 Conservative - Jade Marsden - 6,756 Green - Chris Copeman - 2,715 Liberal Democrats - Chris Rowe - 2,149
Farage certainly wants a by election in Runcorn then
Growth of 0.1% could easily be a contraction of 0.1% or worse after revisions.
Or growth of 0.2%. GDP estimates go all over the place when they’re revised but in recent years they’ve tended to go up.
I think that that you are missing the important PB herd consensus:
Under Tory chancellors revisions are always upwards under Labour ones always downwards.
Similarly rich people need bumper payrises to motivate them, poor people getting payrises are a drag on productivity.
I've taken to scrolling past the "Reeves is shit" posters, the Tory/Reform/ Trump/Musk rampers and when they are on, the race baiters. There not much left to read. I note with sadness the non-RefCon post count has diminished considerably.
Pity she really is shit though.
Quite. The "Reeves is shit" comments might be less annoying for PB lefties if Reeves wasn't so painfully and obviously, well, shit
Mathhew Parris demolishes her here, showing that the old coot still has a bit of kick in him
"Where was the evidence of capability, or of any plan? There was never good reason to believe that Labour knew what to do. The Chancellor has not changed: she is now, as she was in opposition, an empty vessel. The Prime Minister has not changed: he is still today, as he was when opposition leader, bereft of ideas. Commentators were too credulous. The emperor never did have any clothes."
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
It seems a sensible proposal, but like applying CGT to private home sales it would go down like a lead balloon though raising the age to 57 plus is good
Reducing the tax free lump sum would impact me but it is a while off, but I plan to take my pension pot ad UFPLS so get the tax free lump sum with every withdrawal.
Is the age to take a pension just limited to accessing a DC pot or will it apply to public sector and the remaining private sector DB schemes too ? That is coming in for DC anyway.
Get rid of the triple lock for sure. They should take the hit now and live with the consequences. Changing the inflation measure applied in the future is going to help.
Certainly kill pensions , no-one with any sense would save money and would kill the investments that pension funds make, sounds just the kind of absolutely mental thing Labour would do to make things even worse.
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
It seems a sensible proposal, but like applying CGT to private home sales it would go down like a lead balloon though raising the age to 57 plus is good
Reducing the tax free lump sum would impact me but it is a while off, but I plan to take my pension pot ad UFPLS so get the tax free lump sum with every withdrawal.
Is the age to take a pension just limited to accessing a DC pot or will it apply to public sector and the remaining private sector DB schemes too ? That is coming in for DC anyway.
Get rid of the triple lock for sure. They should take the hit now and live with the consequences. Changing the inflation measure applied in the future is going to help.
I think any party committed to the triple lock continuing at the next GE is not serious about tackling the nations financial situation.
That doesn't mean no rise of course, but puts it back to the discretion of the Chancellor.
Similarly statements about no rises in this or that tax. We need honest approaches with governments able to adjust the tiller on the ship of state according to changes in wind direction and sea state.
Which is why I suggested that as Labour Chancellor I would have gone for -
1) Merge Income Tax and employee NI. This brings a number of people into paying NI (in effect). 2) As part of this reform, simplify the bands and increase the rates a bit 3) Sell it as "Needed to save the NHS" and "We will bring rates down, later, when we can" - AKA Election Give Away. 4) Put all the pensioner benefits apart from the actual pension in the blender. Roll out new, means tested benefits. So WFP would go away. 5) Sell this as "More for the poor"
The markets would have liked this - tax to spend is OK, borrow to spend is what upsets things. The Labour supporters would have been happier with this, I reckon.
Opinion polls would be shocking. There are losers from merging income tax and NI, and public expectations of budgets are no-one loses out.
The excellent H.I.Sutton has a video out on China's build-up for an invasion of Taiwan. They are building a fleet of barges whose only purpose is amphibious landing.
The sound quality is poor, but it's a case where the content matters far more than the presentation. I am changing my view to a *likelihood* that China tries to take Taiwan by force within the next four years.
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
It’s hardly Natural England that is a bar to growth. It’s the laws which it is their duty to regulate. Which they didn’t put on the statute.
And in any case we’ve seen where light touch regulation takes us. Rivers full of shit.
At a time of biodiversity and climate crisis, we need to do more for nature not less, but the farming lobby stands in the way of every single atrempt to create the conditions for nature recovery.
I suggest you stop looking for simple solutions and scapegoats and look at the bigger picture. Or at least substantiate your arguments better than whatever simplistic drivel is presented in the popular media.
How do other nations deal with their bats and great crested newts ?
Do you mean that other countries don’t build £120m bat tunnels and spend millions more relocating species that are found all over the country?
Not only that but rejoining terms would be fairly dtaconian and then the constant interference in day to day life which we have all forgotten would be back and start to grate again.
It's why I maintain that the polls on rejoining will shift massively when the costs are placed in front of the electorate.
My favourite example of this was that detailed polling by the Blair think tank which showed that people generally wanted a closer relationship with the EU, but also showed that even Remainers wanted restrictions on free movement*, which of course the EU has already ruled out as the four freedoms are considered to be inviolable.
I suspect that this is at the heart of why Labour do not want to get into such debate, as they already know that what people might stomach isn't deliverable.
* This would even make a halfway house like EFTA a real challenge to achieve.
Though to be fair by 2028 we will have had 7 years of no free movement from the EU/EEA, which is exactly what we could have got had Blair imposed the 7 year transition controls on Eastern European migrants in 2004. So I suspect EU migration from then will be less of an issue. Voters will likely still want strict visa controls on most non EU immigration though (except for from a few nations like Australia and New Zealand and Canada, Singapore and maybe the USA)
Surely. Isn't that a criminal offence, so they have to? I forget the deets of electoral law
The bad news for Labour is relentless. It feels like a weary government facing defeat after 13 years in power. Yet they won a landslide six months ago. V odd
The recall process gets triggered if he receives a custodial sentence (including suspended ones).
Illuminating, ta
It will be an interesting test, in that case, if he gets away with a large fine or community service, to see if he can continue as an MP. Would Labour even want that? It's terrible optics. An MP with a criminal conviction for assault?
It's not a speeding fine, or even drunk driving. It's way worse than that
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
It seems a sensible proposal, but like applying CGT to private home sales it would go down like a lead balloon though raising the age to 57 plus is good
Reducing the tax free lump sum would impact me but it is a while off, but I plan to take my pension pot ad UFPLS so get the tax free lump sum with every withdrawal.
Is the age to take a pension just limited to accessing a DC pot or will it apply to public sector and the remaining private sector DB schemes too ? That is coming in for DC anyway.
Get rid of the triple lock for sure. They should take the hit now and live with the consequences. Changing the inflation measure applied in the future is going to help.
I think any party committed to the triple lock continuing at the next GE is not serious about tackling the nations financial situation.
That doesn't mean no rise of course, but puts it back to the discretion of the Chancellor.
Similarly statements about no rises in this or that tax. We need honest approaches with governments able to adjust the tiller on the ship of state according to changes in wind direction and sea state.
Which is why I suggested that as Labour Chancellor I would have gone for -
1) Merge Income Tax and employee NI. This brings a number of people into paying NI (in effect). 2) As part of this reform, simplify the bands and increase the rates a bit 3) Sell it as "Needed to save the NHS" and "We will bring rates down, later, when we can" - AKA Election Give Away. 4) Put all the pensioner benefits apart from the actual pension in the blender. Roll out new, means tested benefits. So WFP would go away. 5) Sell this as "More for the poor"
The markets would have liked this - tax to spend is OK, borrow to spend is what upsets things. The Labour supporters would have been happier with this, I reckon.
Opinion polls would be shocking. There are losers from merging income tax and NI, and public expectations of budgets are no-one loses out.
More shocking than they are currently?
Yes, sub 20% I suspect. Although if it worked and the global economy favourable by 28 then it could be recoverable.
Surely. Isn't that a criminal offence, so they have to? I forget the deets of electoral law
The bad news for Labour is relentless. It feels like a weary government facing defeat after 13 years in power. Yet they won a landslide six months ago. V odd
The recall process gets triggered if he receives a custodial sentence (including suspended ones).
Illuminating, ta
It will be an interesting test, in that case, if he gets away with a large fine or community service, to see if he can continue as an MP. Would Labour even want that? It's terrible optics. An MP with a criminal conviction for assault?
It's not a speeding fine, or even drunk driving. It's way worse than that
I think politics would be better in this country if politicians could punch constituents.
It would certainly reduce the abuse MPs get and allow us to get a better MPs.
Not only that but rejoining terms would be fairly dtaconian and then the constant interference in day to day life which we have all forgotten would be back and start to grate again.
It's why I maintain that the polls on rejoining will shift massively when the costs are placed in front of the electorate.
My favourite example of this was that detailed polling by the Blair think tank which showed that people generally wanted a closer relationship with the EU, but also showed that even Remainers wanted restrictions on free movement*, which of course the EU has already ruled out as the four freedoms are considered to be inviolable.
I suspect that this is at the heart of why Labour do not want to get into such debate, as they already know that what people might stomach isn't deliverable.
* This would even make a halfway house like EFTA a real challenge to achieve.
The reality is that free movement, by making it easy to come and go and come back again and go again, provided labour markets with needed people while leading to lower long-term migration to the UK than the Conservatives' post-Brexit approach, where anyone who got a visa to come into the country then very much wants to make that permanent.
Yep. I'm afraid as time passes Brexit looks more and more like not so much a mistake as an act of vandalism against our own property. I've moved on, you have to, but it still irks. WTF were we thinking? What on earth was going on in that little head of ours?
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Labour - Mike Amesbury - 22,358 Reform UK - Jason Moorcroft - 7,662 Conservative - Jade Marsden - 6,756 Green - Chris Copeman - 2,715 Liberal Democrats - Chris Rowe - 2,149
Farage certainly wants a by election in Runcorn then
It would be interesting to see if Reform receive tactical voting to keep out labour
The excellent H.I.Sutton has a video out on China's build-up for an invasion of Taiwan. They are building a fleet of barges whose only purpose is amphibious landing.
The sound quality is poor, but it's a case where the content matters far more than the presentation. I am changing my view to a *likelihood* that China tries to take Taiwan by force within the next four years.
I wonder if they see Trump as a good opportunity, or as a dangerous variable
I saw an article the other day which argued that a successful Chinese invasion of Taiwan would give china such an advantage in chips, tech, AI, robotics, that it could overtake America and rule the world
I am not at all sure it is true, but even if it is only potentially true, America could not risk that. So America would either have to fight China mano a mano, or demand that Taiwan destroy its own tech industry before the Chinese seize it
Rachel from Accounts hits the back of the net. She is Alexander Isak
With a per capita decline?
Population is growing more than 0.1% so per capita that is recessionary.
Well said. That so many pundits and hacks ignore that hugely important point is quite depressing, in itself
Who gives a fuck if we have 0.000038% growth if we are actually getting POORER
Growth is good, but it has become a peacock's tail: a status symbol to boast to other peacocks, with an overinflated importance. Net household income is a much better metric.
Buying a factory would allow China to build influence in Germany's prized auto industry, home to some of the oldest and most prestigious car brands, the person said.
Chinese companies have invested across a range of industries in Germany, Europe's biggest economy, from telecommunications to robotics but have yet to set up traditional car manufacturing there, despite Mercedes-Benz having two large Chinese shareholders.
Any such move could mark China's most politically sensitive investment yet. VW has long been a symbol of Germany's industrial prowess, now threatened by a global economic slowdown hitting demand and a creaking transition to green technologies.
Building cars in Germany for sale in Europe would allow China's EV makers to avoid paying EU tariffs on electric cars imported from China and could pose a further threat to European manufacturers' competitiveness.
While bids could come from private firms, state-owned firms or joint ventures with foreign companies, Chinese authorities reserve the right to approve certain investments abroad and would likely be involved in any offer from early on.
Investment decisions would hinge on the new German government's stance towards China following an election in February, the person said...
It's simply Europe screwing it's own businesses. The Net Zero plans benefit China.
That ship sailed long ago. The fact is that is Germany doesn't develop a domestic EV industry, it won't have a car industry. The Chinese simply beat them to the new market.
This was predictable a decade ago, and has nothing to do with Net Zero. Climate change certainly incentivised the development of EVs, but now it's just about market forces.
And learn to use the apostrophe correctly, or don't use it.
They can develop an EV industry but on the timescales proposed theyre screwed.
The Net Zero timescale is of far less importance than market forces. It was the luddites in the industry who are responsible for the position of their auto industry.
The debate is about how they might mitigate that. The Net Zero argument is a separate one.
If the market forces were driving this, why is the government stiffing car markers £15k a car if they sell more than 80% ICE?
The reality is that the buying public is not yet convinced about EVs and so the government is forcing their adoption.
Had the fools in government not done this (having less than 10 years previously forced car makers to go diesel for environmental reasons!), there would still be an EV transition, but not quite as fast. Also Europe would still have a car industry.
Or would it be even closer to extinction by foreign EV makers ?
The point is that with a very few years, EVs will be superior to ICE vehicles in almost every respect, and be cheaper. And that's entirely independent of anything the EU (or we) do.
Fining car makers and banning ICEs does seem an odd way to go about it though. Surely it would have been better to have gradually increased taxation on ICE vehicles and used the revenue to subsidise EV purchases or infrastructure. I think Norway has taken an approach more like this and now sells very few ICE vehicles.
I'm not defending specific government policies, which no doubt could have been better managed (along with most government policy of the last decade and a half). I'm just noting that the luddite argument is a self-destructive one. We should have been better incentivising the switch to EVs, not engaged in a futile attempt to delay it.
Not only that but rejoining terms would be fairly dtaconian and then the constant interference in day to day life which we have all forgotten would be back and start to grate again.
It's why I maintain that the polls on rejoining will shift massively when the costs are placed in front of the electorate.
My favourite example of this was that detailed polling by the Blair think tank which showed that people generally wanted a closer relationship with the EU, but also showed that even Remainers wanted restrictions on free movement*, which of course the EU has already ruled out as the four freedoms are considered to be inviolable.
I suspect that this is at the heart of why Labour do not want to get into such debate, as they already know that what people might stomach isn't deliverable.
* This would even make a halfway house like EFTA a real challenge to achieve.
The reality is that free movement, by making it easy to come and go and come back again and go again, provided labour markets with needed people while leading to lower long-term migration to the UK than the Conservatives' post-Brexit approach, where anyone who got a visa to come into the country then very much wants to make that permanent.
Yep. I'm afraid as time passes Brexit looks more and more like not so much a mistake as an act of vandalism against our own property. I've moved on, you have to, but it still irks. WTF were we thinking? What on earth was going on in that little head of ours?
What were europhiles and Remainers thinking when they kept denying the British people a referendum on EU integration at every single stage of it, despite so many promises? Maastricht, the Constitution, Lisbon, on and on, "cast iron guarantees", it was endless, and every time they reneged on those promises our democracy died a little bit more
I am afraid it was you lot that guaranteed Brexit, in the end, with these decades of cowardice and mendacity. Own it. Brexit is yours
The excellent H.I.Sutton has a video out on China's build-up for an invasion of Taiwan. They are building a fleet of barges whose only purpose is amphibious landing.
The sound quality is poor, but it's a case where the content matters far more than the presentation. I am changing my view to a *likelihood* that China tries to take Taiwan by force within the next four years.
I wonder if they see Trump as a good opportunity, or as a dangerous variable
I saw an article the other day which argued that a successful Chinese invasion of Taiwan would give china such an advantage in chips, tech, AI, robotics, that it could overtake America and rule the world
I am not at all sure it is true, but even if it is only potentially true, America could not risk that. So America would either have to fight China mano a mano, or demand that Taiwan destroy its own tech industry before the Chinese seize it
Interesting times, etc
Scuttlebutt is that Taiwan will destroy the valuables at TSMC and elsewhere if China tries to invade. That'll hurt us (but so would TSMC under Chinese control...)
As for Trump: my view was that he would have been seen as a dangerous variable. But his talk about annexing Panama, Greenland and even Canada will be music to Xi's ears. How can America complain if China takes (what it sees as) its own territory back, if the USA claims areas that are not its own?
Putin will also be liking the talk, for the same reasons.
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
It’s hardly Natural England that is a bar to growth. It’s the laws which it is their duty to regulate. Which they didn’t put on the statute.
And in any case we’ve seen where light touch regulation takes us. Rivers full of shit.
At a time of biodiversity and climate crisis, we need to do more for nature not less, but the farming lobby stands in the way of every single atrempt to create the conditions for nature recovery.
I suggest you stop looking for simple solutions and scapegoats and look at the bigger picture. Or at least substantiate your arguments better than whatever simplistic drivel is presented in the popular media.
How do other nations deal with their bats and great crested newts ?
Do you mean that other countries don’t build £120m bat tunnels and spend millions more relocating species that are found all over the country?
That’s formally designating a park as a park, still no £120m bat tunnels.
I didn’t say it was exactly the same.
On the bat tunnel.
The thing that struck me, in all the reporting was the claim that "Not a single bat could be allowed to die"
This requirement is insane - we don't design projects to prevent all human deaths. Otherwise there would be zero infrastructure projects.
So either the requirement was misreported everywhere, or we have another classic.
People who don't actually know or understand regulations trying to implement them and coming up with absurd results.
See also the fish protection requirements for the new nuclear plants' cooling systems. Absurdly stringent, and costly (and risks the lives of those who will be required to maintain them).
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
There does seem to be a resentment among some on the left that ordinary private sector workers can build up a financial asset worth hundreds of thousands.
Perhaps Torsten Bell could comment on whether this law should be repealed:
The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013
Tax relief on pensions should serve a public good otherwise tax them like other income.
Imo, it is fairly clear that there is a significant public good in allowing people to generate a tax pot of about £500k - that plus the state pension would put someone on an average income.
I really don't understand at all what the the public good is for waiving tax on pension pots £1m+, perhaps pb can explain it?
Not jealousy as personally I like and use my ISA and pension tax breaks.
It gets taxed on the way out and so in the end they government gets more from it due to growth over the term. There are so many economic donkeys around it is hard to believe they actually get to positions where they can cause so much damage due to ignorance and stupidity. It only encourages saving and so limits government handouts to people impoverished when they stop working. It costs nothing and in fact earns the government money from all the future taxes.
Buying a factory would allow China to build influence in Germany's prized auto industry, home to some of the oldest and most prestigious car brands, the person said.
Chinese companies have invested across a range of industries in Germany, Europe's biggest economy, from telecommunications to robotics but have yet to set up traditional car manufacturing there, despite Mercedes-Benz having two large Chinese shareholders.
Any such move could mark China's most politically sensitive investment yet. VW has long been a symbol of Germany's industrial prowess, now threatened by a global economic slowdown hitting demand and a creaking transition to green technologies.
Building cars in Germany for sale in Europe would allow China's EV makers to avoid paying EU tariffs on electric cars imported from China and could pose a further threat to European manufacturers' competitiveness.
While bids could come from private firms, state-owned firms or joint ventures with foreign companies, Chinese authorities reserve the right to approve certain investments abroad and would likely be involved in any offer from early on.
Investment decisions would hinge on the new German government's stance towards China following an election in February, the person said...
It's simply Europe screwing it's own businesses. The Net Zero plans benefit China.
That ship sailed long ago. The fact is that is Germany doesn't develop a domestic EV industry, it won't have a car industry. The Chinese simply beat them to the new market.
This was predictable a decade ago, and has nothing to do with Net Zero. Climate change certainly incentivised the development of EVs, but now it's just about market forces.
And learn to use the apostrophe correctly, or don't use it.
BYD have just moved in to sharing the dealership premises for Cardiff and Newport Mercedes Benz. Anecdotally I would guess the fastest growing dealership group in South Wales is Nathaniel MG. Omoda have moved into Bassett's Nissan in Bridgend and Fordthorne in Cardiff. Jaecoo will open soon at Fordthorne.
I fear the ship might already have sailed (from Shanghai) for the European automotive industry.
I've been arguing for some time that we need to JV with foreign (Korean or Chinese) manufacturers to build in the UK. Use tariffs to incentivise if necessary.
The excellent H.I.Sutton has a video out on China's build-up for an invasion of Taiwan. They are building a fleet of barges whose only purpose is amphibious landing.
The sound quality is poor, but it's a case where the content matters far more than the presentation. I am changing my view to a *likelihood* that China tries to take Taiwan by force within the next four years.
I wonder if they see Trump as a good opportunity, or as a dangerous variable
I saw an article the other day which argued that a successful Chinese invasion of Taiwan would give china such an advantage in chips, tech, AI, robotics, that it could overtake America and rule the world
I am not at all sure it is true, but even if it is only potentially true, America could not risk that. So America would either have to fight China mano a mano, or demand that Taiwan destroy its own tech industry before the Chinese seize it
Interesting times, etc
'Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of state has said he anticipates the US "will have to deal with" China invading Taiwan before the end of this decade.
Marco Rubio made the comment as he appeared in front of a bipartisan Senate committee ahead of a vote on whether he is suitable for the role.
He told the committee he believes China is America's "biggest threat" and blamed the growing risk on America's shift to globalism.
Laying out how he will implement Mr Trump's "America First" vision, he said the United States must begin placing its "core national interests above all else".
He argued Washington must step up to compete with Beijing and slammed the Chinese government's human rights record.'
The excellent H.I.Sutton has a video out on China's build-up for an invasion of Taiwan. They are building a fleet of barges whose only purpose is amphibious landing.
The sound quality is poor, but it's a case where the content matters far more than the presentation. I am changing my view to a *likelihood* that China tries to take Taiwan by force within the next four years.
I wonder if they see Trump as a good opportunity, or as a dangerous variable
I saw an article the other day which argued that a successful Chinese invasion of Taiwan would give china such an advantage in chips, tech, AI, robotics, that it could overtake America and rule the world
I am not at all sure it is true, but even if it is only potentially true, America could not risk that. So America would either have to fight China mano a mano, or demand that Taiwan destroy its own tech industry before the Chinese seize it
Interesting times, etc
Scuttlebutt is that Taiwan will destroy the valuables at TSMC and elsewhere if China tries to invade. That'll hurt us (but so would TSMC under Chinese control...)
As for Trump: my view was that he would have been seen as a dangerous variable. But his talk about annexing Panama, Greenland and even Canada will be music to Xi's ears. How can America complain if China takes (what it sees as) its own territory back, if the USA claims areas that are not its own?
Putin will also be liking the talk, for the same reasons.
Agree on all points
I also agree with you that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by 2030 is now more likely than not. Which is pretty fucking scary, and pretty fucking grim if you are Taiwanese
Remainers constantly ignore the other side of the equation which is whether the EU would want us back. There is no appetite for it
Bollocks
There are a number of countries lining up to join
No evidence the UK couldn't be one of them
We could certainly line up.
But that doesn't mean anything. Turkey has been in line since 1987 and some Balkan countries since the 90s and 00s.
And none of those has delivered the EU by far the greatest humiliation in its history, nor were a recalcitrant member when they did join.
Do you really think the EU would want us back if, as is likely, the inevitable referendum were 51:49 in favour or similar? Just to want to leave again a few years later?
This is a really stupid argument by Brexit supporters. The EU would have us back in a flash - they want the money. Nobody turns down cash due to a fit of pique. We shouldn't rejoin because it was a massive drain on the exchequer and a source of economy-undermining laws that are *still* stopping houses and infrastructure being built, and bought full membership of a club that we had a huge deficit in goods with, and that never offered a free market in services. It was a shit deal, and saying 'they wouldn't have us back' is a counsel of despair where none is needed. We have our pro-EU party in, and they're soon to be soundly walloped back to the stone age by the successor to UKIP. Rejoin is as dead as it gets.
Labour - Mike Amesbury - 22,358 Reform UK - Jason Moorcroft - 7,662 Conservative - Jade Marsden - 6,756 Green - Chris Copeman - 2,715 Liberal Democrats - Chris Rowe - 2,149
Farage certainly wants a by election in Runcorn then
It would be interesting to see if Reform receive tactical voting to keep out labour
From Tories yes, or vice versa if Labour got tactical votes from the LDs and Greens to keep out Reform
Not only that but rejoining terms would be fairly dtaconian and then the constant interference in day to day life which we have all forgotten would be back and start to grate again.
It's why I maintain that the polls on rejoining will shift massively when the costs are placed in front of the electorate.
My favourite example of this was that detailed polling by the Blair think tank which showed that people generally wanted a closer relationship with the EU, but also showed that even Remainers wanted restrictions on free movement*, which of course the EU has already ruled out as the four freedoms are considered to be inviolable.
I suspect that this is at the heart of why Labour do not want to get into such debate, as they already know that what people might stomach isn't deliverable.
* This would even make a halfway house like EFTA a real challenge to achieve.
The reality is that free movement, by making it easy to come and go and come back again and go again, provided labour markets with needed people while leading to lower long-term migration to the UK than the Conservatives' post-Brexit approach, where anyone who got a visa to come into the country then very much wants to make that permanent.
Yep. I'm afraid as time passes Brexit looks more and more like not so much a mistake as an act of vandalism against our own property. I've moved on, you have to, but it still irks. WTF were we thinking? What on earth was going on in that little head of ours?
Free movement depressed wages. Granted, it's a better solution than bringing in half the Middle East. But the fact that the Tory response to Brexit was terrible and protected capital over labour AS WELL AS filling the country up with more people than we can handle doesn't mean that the previous solution was a good one.
I'll finish with a periodic confirmation that my wavering should-we-shouldn't-we-probably-we-should has become much more ironclad certain over time. Brexit was, for me, the right decision, and I would vote for it again.
Surely. Isn't that a criminal offence, so they have to? I forget the deets of electoral law
The bad news for Labour is relentless. It feels like a weary government facing defeat after 13 years in power. Yet they won a landslide six months ago. V odd
The recall process gets triggered if he receives a custodial sentence (including suspended ones).
Illuminating, ta
It will be an interesting test, in that case, if he gets away with a large fine or community service, to see if he can continue as an MP. Would Labour even want that? It's terrible optics. An MP with a criminal conviction for assault?
It's not a speeding fine, or even drunk driving. It's way worse than that
I think politics would be better in this country if politicians could punch constituents.
It would certainly reduce the abuse MPs get and allow us to get a better MPs.
Rachel from Accounts hits the back of the net. She is Alexander Isak
With a per capita decline?
Population is growing more than 0.1% so per capita that is recessionary.
Well said. That so many pundits and hacks ignore that hugely important point is quite depressing, in itself
Who gives a fuck if we have 0.000038% growth if we are actually getting POORER
What's mad is that Labour will likely achieve GDP per capita growth simply because the Conservatives suppressed it so much with their politically mad 1,000,000 per year immigration strategy.
And if Sainsbos, Tesco, Amazon and the rest AI/robotic away most of the low-wage jobs getting smashed by the secondary threshold on employer NICs (and a lack of immigration) , they'll also achieve substantial productivity growth.
Meanwhile total economic output could flatline. Economic stats are hard work.
you miss the point re all the benefits that we will be paying out to those immigrants and non workers.
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
There does seem to be a resentment among some on the left that ordinary private sector workers can build up a financial asset worth hundreds of thousands.
Perhaps Torsten Bell could comment on whether this law should be repealed:
The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013
Tax relief on pensions should serve a public good otherwise tax them like other income.
Imo, it is fairly clear that there is a significant public good in allowing people to generate a tax pot of about £500k - that plus the state pension would put someone on an average income.
I really don't understand at all what the the public good is for waiving tax on pension pots £1m+, perhaps pb can explain it?
Not jealousy as personally I like and use my ISA and pension tax breaks.
It gets taxed on the way out and so in the end they government gets more from it due to growth over the term. There are so many economic donkeys around it is hard to believe they actually get to positions where they can cause so much damage due to ignorance and stupidity. It only encourages saving and so limits government handouts to people impoverished when they stop working. It costs nothing and in fact earns the government money from all the future taxes.
The excellent H.I.Sutton has a video out on China's build-up for an invasion of Taiwan. They are building a fleet of barges whose only purpose is amphibious landing.
The sound quality is poor, but it's a case where the content matters far more than the presentation. I am changing my view to a *likelihood* that China tries to take Taiwan by force within the next four years.
I wonder if they see Trump as a good opportunity, or as a dangerous variable
I saw an article the other day which argued that a successful Chinese invasion of Taiwan would give china such an advantage in chips, tech, AI, robotics, that it could overtake America and rule the world
I am not at all sure it is true, but even if it is only potentially true, America could not risk that. So America would either have to fight China mano a mano, or demand that Taiwan destroy its own tech industry before the Chinese seize it
Interesting times, etc
Scuttlebutt is that Taiwan will destroy the valuables at TSMC and elsewhere if China tries to invade. That'll hurt us (but so would TSMC under Chinese control...)
As for Trump: my view was that he would have been seen as a dangerous variable. But his talk about annexing Panama, Greenland and even Canada will be music to Xi's ears. How can America complain if China takes (what it sees as) its own territory back, if the USA claims areas that are not its own?
Putin will also be liking the talk, for the same reasons.
The NEO Imperalist age. Turkey would like the Kurdish areas of Syria.
Surely. Isn't that a criminal offence, so they have to? I forget the deets of electoral law
The bad news for Labour is relentless. It feels like a weary government facing defeat after 13 years in power. Yet they won a landslide six months ago. V odd
The recall process gets triggered if he receives a custodial sentence (including suspended ones).
Illuminating, ta
It will be an interesting test, in that case, if he gets away with a large fine or community service, to see if he can continue as an MP. Would Labour even want that? It's terrible optics. An MP with a criminal conviction for assault?
It's not a speeding fine, or even drunk driving. It's way worse than that
He can and certainly will if he avoids a custodial sentence. If Farage complains Sir Keir can also point to the Reform MP for Basildon who even served prison time for assaulting a former partner (though Kemi and Sir Ed might I suspect Farage will keep quiet for that reason).
Even if Labour removed the whip if no recall he could stay as an Independent MP until the next GE anyway
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
It’s hardly Natural England that is a bar to growth. It’s the laws which it is their duty to regulate. Which they didn’t put on the statute.
And in any case we’ve seen where light touch regulation takes us. Rivers full of shit.
At a time of biodiversity and climate crisis, we need to do more for nature not less, but the farming lobby stands in the way of every single atrempt to create the conditions for nature recovery.
I suggest you stop looking for simple solutions and scapegoats and look at the bigger picture. Or at least substantiate your arguments better than whatever simplistic drivel is presented in the popular media.
How do other nations deal with their bats and great crested newts ?
Do you mean that other countries don’t build £120m bat tunnels and spend millions more relocating species that are found all over the country?
That’s formally designating a park as a park, still no £120m bat tunnels.
I didn’t say it was exactly the same.
On the bat tunnel.
The thing that struck me, in all the reporting was the claim that "Not a single bat could be allowed to die"
This requirement is insane - we don't design projects to prevent all human deaths. Otherwise there would be zero infrastructure projects.
So either the requirement was misreported everywhere, or we have another classic.
People who don't actually know or understand regulations trying to implement them and coming up with absurd results.
Bugger the bats. There are millions of the fuckers.
There aren't, at least not of certain species.
Obviously this bat tunnel is insane (and I'm not sure it would even work) but I for one don't want to live in a concrete country with no ecological value.
Growth of 0.1% could easily be a contraction of 0.1% or worse after revisions.
Or growth of 0.2%. GDP estimates go all over the place when they’re revised but in recent years they’ve tended to go up.
I think that that you are missing the important PB herd consensus:
Under Tory chancellors revisions are always upwards under Labour ones always downwards.
Similarly rich people need bumper payrises to motivate them, poor people getting payrises are a drag on productivity.
I've taken to scrolling past the "Reeves is shit" posters, the Tory/Reform/ Trump/Musk rampers and when they are on, the race baiters. There not much left to read. I note with sadness the non-RefCon post count has diminished considerably.
Pity she really is shit though.
Quite. The "Reeves is shit" comments might be less annoying for PB lefties if Reeves wasn't so painfully and obviously, well, shit
Mathhew Parris demolishes her here, showing that the old coot still has a bit of kick in him
"Where was the evidence of capability, or of any plan? There was never good reason to believe that Labour knew what to do. The Chancellor has not changed: she is now, as she was in opposition, an empty vessel. The Prime Minister has not changed: he is still today, as he was when opposition leader, bereft of ideas. Commentators were too credulous.The emperor never did have any clothes."
Remainers constantly ignore the other side of the equation which is whether the EU would want us back. There is no appetite for it
Bollocks
There are a number of countries lining up to join
No evidence the UK couldn't be one of them
We could certainly line up.
But that doesn't mean anything. Turkey has been in line since 1987 and some Balkan countries since the 90s and 00s.
And none of those has delivered the EU by far the greatest humiliation in its history, nor were a recalcitrant member when they did join.
Do you really think the EU would want us back if, as is likely, the inevitable referendum were 51:49 in favour or similar? Just to want to leave again a few years later?
This is a really stupid argument by Brexit supporters. The EU would have us back in a flash - they want the money. Nobody turns down cash due to a fit of pique. We shouldn't rejoin because it was a massive drain on the exchequer and a source of economy-undermining laws that are *still* stopping houses and infrastructure being built, and bought full membership of a club that we had a huge deficit in goods with, and that never offered a free market in services. It was a shit deal, and saying 'they wouldn't have us back' is a counsel of despair where none is needed. We have our pro-EU party in, and they're soon to be soundly walloped back to the stone age by the successor to UKIP. Rejoin is as dead as it gets.
Exports of goods and services to the EU are at tan all time high. Why rejoin?
The excellent H.I.Sutton has a video out on China's build-up for an invasion of Taiwan. They are building a fleet of barges whose only purpose is amphibious landing.
The sound quality is poor, but it's a case where the content matters far more than the presentation. I am changing my view to a *likelihood* that China tries to take Taiwan by force within the next four years.
I wonder if they see Trump as a good opportunity, or as a dangerous variable
I saw an article the other day which argued that a successful Chinese invasion of Taiwan would give china such an advantage in chips, tech, AI, robotics, that it could overtake America and rule the world
I am not at all sure it is true, but even if it is only potentially true, America could not risk that. So America would either have to fight China mano a mano, or demand that Taiwan destroy its own tech industry before the Chinese seize it
Interesting times, etc
Scuttlebutt is that Taiwan will destroy the valuables at TSMC and elsewhere if China tries to invade. That'll hurt us (but so would TSMC under Chinese control...)
As for Trump: my view was that he would have been seen as a dangerous variable. But his talk about annexing Panama, Greenland and even Canada will be music to Xi's ears. How can America complain if China takes (what it sees as) its own territory back, if the USA claims areas that are not its own?
Putin will also be liking the talk, for the same reasons.
Agree on all points
I also agree with you that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by 2030 is now more likely than not. Which is pretty fucking scary, and pretty fucking grim if you are Taiwanese
Rather than China, Rachel from Accounts should have been in Taiwan love bombing them and offering passports, state subsidies etc for all the Taiwanese chip manufacturers and their families to shift in advance to the UK.
Remainers constantly ignore the other side of the equation which is whether the EU would want us back. There is no appetite for it
Bollocks
There are a number of countries lining up to join
No evidence the UK couldn't be one of them
We could certainly line up.
But that doesn't mean anything. Turkey has been in line since 1987 and some Balkan countries since the 90s and 00s.
And none of those has delivered the EU by far the greatest humiliation in its history, nor were a recalcitrant member when they did join.
Do you really think the EU would want us back if, as is likely, the inevitable referendum were 51:49 in favour or similar? Just to want to leave again a few years later?
This is a really stupid argument by Brexit supporters. The EU would have us back in a flash - they want the money. Nobody turns down cash due to a fit of pique. We shouldn't rejoin because it was a massive drain on the exchequer and a source of economy-undermining laws that are *still* stopping houses and infrastructure being built, and bought full membership of a club that we had a huge deficit in goods with, and that never offered a free market in services. It was a shit deal, and saying 'they wouldn't have us back' is a counsel of despair where none is needed. We have our pro-EU party in, and they're soon to be soundly walloped back to the stone age by the successor to UKIP. Rejoin is as dead as it gets.
It's really not a stupid argument
Remember, for the UK to successfully Rejoin every single EU member would have to say Yes. Just one single veto would nix it
I can see multiple countries that might enjoy the chance to do that. Pretty sure the French would veto us. Possibly Spain (Gibraltar), Germany (unless we join the euro immediately), maybe a maverick East European country for the hell of it
On top of this, a comparatively very large economy like the UK Rejoining the EU would entail many years of painful negotiation, before Accession was agreed
No UK government is ever going to waste a decade of political capital on this (and also risk a losing referendum)
Surely. Isn't that a criminal offence, so they have to? I forget the deets of electoral law
The bad news for Labour is relentless. It feels like a weary government facing defeat after 13 years in power. Yet they won a landslide six months ago. V odd
The recall process gets triggered if he receives a custodial sentence (including suspended ones).
Illuminating, ta
It will be an interesting test, in that case, if he gets away with a large fine or community service, to see if he can continue as an MP. Would Labour even want that? It's terrible optics. An MP with a criminal conviction for assault?
It's not a speeding fine, or even drunk driving. It's way worse than that
He can and certainly will if he avoids a custodial sentence. If Farage complains Sir Keir can also point to the Reform MP for Basildon who even served prison time for assaulting a former partner (though Kemi and Sir Ed might I suspect Farage will keep quiet for that reason)
Explanation of possible outcome
While assault by beating is a summary only offence, meaning it can only be tried in the magistrates’ court, it can result in a custodial sentence of up to six months. When deciding the sentence, however, the fact that you are a first-time offender will be taken into account.
Therefore, if it is a first-time offence without any aggravating features, it is possible that you could receive an alternative outcome other than a custodial sentence, although this will still depend on the circumstances of your case.
When considering an appropriate sentence for assault by beating, the magistrates or district judge will take into account a number of factors, both mitigating and aggravating.
Aggravating factors include an abuse of power, commission of the offence while under the influence of alcohol and drugs or attempts to prevent the complainant from reporting the incident.
Mitigating factors may include an offender’s remorse, their cooperation with the police and the fact that they are a first-time offender.
These mitigating circumstances, including being a first-time offender, may help to bring the sentence down from a custodial sentence to an alternative outcome, ranging from a discharge to a suspended sentence:
The excellent H.I.Sutton has a video out on China's build-up for an invasion of Taiwan. They are building a fleet of barges whose only purpose is amphibious landing.
The sound quality is poor, but it's a case where the content matters far more than the presentation. I am changing my view to a *likelihood* that China tries to take Taiwan by force within the next four years.
I wonder if they see Trump as a good opportunity, or as a dangerous variable
I saw an article the other day which argued that a successful Chinese invasion of Taiwan would give china such an advantage in chips, tech, AI, robotics, that it could overtake America and rule the world
I am not at all sure it is true, but even if it is only potentially true, America could not risk that. So America would either have to fight China mano a mano, or demand that Taiwan destroy its own tech industry before the Chinese seize it
Interesting times, etc
Scuttlebutt is that Taiwan will destroy the valuables at TSMC and elsewhere if China tries to invade. That'll hurt us (but so would TSMC under Chinese control...)
As for Trump: my view was that he would have been seen as a dangerous variable. But his talk about annexing Panama, Greenland and even Canada will be music to Xi's ears. How can America complain if China takes (what it sees as) its own territory back, if the USA claims areas that are not its own?
Putin will also be liking the talk, for the same reasons.
Agree on all points
I also agree with you that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by 2030 is now more likely than not. Which is pretty fucking scary, and pretty fucking grim if you are Taiwanese
Growth of 0.1% could easily be a contraction of 0.1% or worse after revisions.
Or growth of 0.2%. GDP estimates go all over the place when they’re revised but in recent years they’ve tended to go up.
I think that that you are missing the important PB herd consensus:
Under Tory chancellors revisions are always upwards under Labour ones always downwards.
Similarly rich people need bumper payrises to motivate them, poor people getting payrises are a drag on productivity.
I've taken to scrolling past the "Reeves is shit" posters, the Tory/Reform/ Trump/Musk rampers and when they are on, the race baiters. There not much left to read. I note with sadness the non-RefCon post count has diminished considerably.
Pity she really is shit though.
Quite. The "Reeves is shit" comments might be less annoying for PB lefties if Reeves wasn't so painfully and obviously, well, shit
Mathhew Parris demolishes her here, showing that the old coot still has a bit of kick in him
"Where was the evidence of capability, or of any plan? There was never good reason to believe that Labour knew what to do. The Chancellor has not changed: she is now, as she was in opposition, an empty vessel. The Prime Minister has not changed: he is still today, as he was when opposition leader, bereft of ideas. Commentators were too credulous. The emperor never did have any clothes."
He's just paying the rent. In his final Times column he said people should stop expecting big plans from politicians.
Even if you're not generally into the podcast I'd suggest checking the transcript quickly if you want to see (in one of the large graphics) a fairly amusing illustration of who has the worst odds for the driver's title.
I can report that China totally dominates the new car market here in junta-ruled south central Myanmar. Probably not a massive market, in the wider scheme, but interesting
20, 40 , 60 years ago it must have been very different, they might even have driven new British cars, at one point
No 2nd hand jags ?!
Older cars are all Japanese, new cars are all Chinese
Bit disappointed not to see vintage Austin Allegros, etc
I saw a picture of the Vandenplas on Twitter the other day. Gorgeous it was. Sadly they only made those bad boys for about a year. So not many about now. We should be protecting them not newts.
Austin Allegro, a cracking car, a square steering wheel on the early models.
Growth of 0.1% could easily be a contraction of 0.1% or worse after revisions.
Or growth of 0.2%. GDP estimates go all over the place when they’re revised but in recent years they’ve tended to go up.
I think that that you are missing the important PB herd consensus:
Under Tory chancellors revisions are always upwards under Labour ones always downwards.
Similarly rich people need bumper payrises to motivate them, poor people getting payrises are a drag on productivity.
I've taken to scrolling past the "Reeves is shit" posters, the Tory/Reform/ Trump/Musk rampers and when they are on, the race baiters. There not much left to read. I note with sadness the non-RefCon post count has diminished considerably.
Pity she really is shit though.
Quite. The "Reeves is shit" comments might be less annoying for PB lefties if Reeves wasn't so painfully and obviously, well, shit
Mathhew Parris demolishes her here, showing that the old coot still has a bit of kick in him
"Where was the evidence of capability, or of any plan? There was never good reason to believe that Labour knew what to do. The Chancellor has not changed: she is now, as she was in opposition, an empty vessel. The Prime Minister has not changed: he is still today, as he was when opposition leader, bereft of ideas. Commentators were too credulous. The emperor never did have any clothes."
He's just paying the rent. In his final Times column he said people should stop expecting big plans from politicians.
Has he retired from the Times? Didn't know that
I rather liked him, it's a shame he went quite mad after Brexit (like others)
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
It’s hardly Natural England that is a bar to growth. It’s the laws which it is their duty to regulate. Which they didn’t put on the statute.
And in any case we’ve seen where light touch regulation takes us. Rivers full of shit.
At a time of biodiversity and climate crisis, we need to do more for nature not less, but the farming lobby stands in the way of every single atrempt to create the conditions for nature recovery.
I suggest you stop looking for simple solutions and scapegoats and look at the bigger picture. Or at least substantiate your arguments better than whatever simplistic drivel is presented in the popular media.
How do other nations deal with their bats and great crested newts ?
Do you mean that other countries don’t build £120m bat tunnels and spend millions more relocating species that are found all over the country?
That’s formally designating a park as a park, still no £120m bat tunnels.
I didn’t say it was exactly the same.
On the bat tunnel.
The thing that struck me, in all the reporting was the claim that "Not a single bat could be allowed to die"
This requirement is insane - we don't design projects to prevent all human deaths. Otherwise there would be zero infrastructure projects.
So either the requirement was misreported everywhere, or we have another classic.
People who don't actually know or understand regulations trying to implement them and coming up with absurd results.
Bugger the bats. There are millions of the fuckers.
I remember the old Woodrow Wyatt "Voice of Reason" column, he would rage against bats and bat protection stopping people working on lofts and outhouses.
This NIcholas Coleridge one from 2013 is my favourite. The Telegraph have a rant of some sort on this every year or so.
Growth of 0.1% could easily be a contraction of 0.1% or worse after revisions.
Or growth of 0.2%. GDP estimates go all over the place when they’re revised but in recent years they’ve tended to go up.
I think that that you are missing the important PB herd consensus:
Under Tory chancellors revisions are always upwards under Labour ones always downwards.
Similarly rich people need bumper payrises to motivate them, poor people getting payrises are a drag on productivity.
I've taken to scrolling past the "Reeves is shit" posters, the Tory/Reform/ Trump/Musk rampers and when they are on, the race baiters. There not much left to read. I note with sadness the non-RefCon post count has diminished considerably.
Pity she really is shit though.
Quite. The "Reeves is shit" comments might be less annoying for PB lefties if Reeves wasn't so painfully and obviously, well, shit
Mathhew Parris demolishes her here, showing that the old coot still has a bit of kick in him
"Where was the evidence of capability, or of any plan? There was never good reason to believe that Labour knew what to do. The Chancellor has not changed: she is now, as she was in opposition, an empty vessel. The Prime Minister has not changed: he is still today, as he was when opposition leader, bereft of ideas. Commentators were too credulous. The emperor never did have any clothes."
He isn't the world's most authoritative commentator. I never met anyone who didn't think this goverment would be deluded and incompetent but then I don't mix with people who vote Labour I guess. However, we didn't realise they would be evil. Did talk with a Socialist yesterday, incomprehending as to why all the farmers objected to the budget. He genuinely hadn't realised there was no-one in the room of about 100 who would not be damaged by the proposals. Then he wondered why he wasn't getting any work out of family businesses.
Good "don't mention the war" moment on Farming Today when the Beeboid told the Farmer's Guardian editor to talk about LAMMA and what was the confidence like for new machinery purchases but not to mention the Budget. More of less turned round and said well what is the point of interviewing me, this government is a disaster for the industry, end of. To be fair there were quite a few interviews, I don't think there was one that didn't comment as to what a catastrophe the election of this government was.
Off thread: An opportunity: It's a beautiful day which is forecast to be cloudless all day. The moon - still almost full - will rise just before 19:30, by which time it will be properly dark but not inconveniently late. Get yourself somewhere with a view and watch one of the world's most satisfying sights: a full moon on the horizon. Obviously this works best somewhere already beautiful like the top of your nearest hill, but anywhere with sufficiently clear views to the horizon will do - I am planning on going to the footbridge over the M60 near my house. Even in a large field it should be spectacular. Very hard to photograph unless you have some sort of major zoom lens (I have a £10 clip on one I am going to try out) but if you are content simply to enjoy, rather than record, the event your eyes will be fine. If you have some binoculars what you see will be genuinely breathtaking.
We don't really note the moonrise/set in the same way that we do for say, a lunar eclipse, because full-ish moons rising happen frequently. But how often do they happen when it's genuinely dark but you're not in bed when the skies are clear? Actually fairly seldom. Grasp the opportunity, friends.
Oh, and don't forget to give me a bell if you want adding the PB regulars Twitter list, just in case the Online Censorship Act leads to things getting rough for the site and it needs reconstituting somehow.
Not only that but rejoining terms would be fairly dtaconian and then the constant interference in day to day life which we have all forgotten would be back and start to grate again.
It's why I maintain that the polls on rejoining will shift massively when the costs are placed in front of the electorate.
My favourite example of this was that detailed polling by the Blair think tank which showed that people generally wanted a closer relationship with the EU, but also showed that even Remainers wanted restrictions on free movement*, which of course the EU has already ruled out as the four freedoms are considered to be inviolable.
I suspect that this is at the heart of why Labour do not want to get into such debate, as they already know that what people might stomach isn't deliverable.
* This would even make a halfway house like EFTA a real challenge to achieve.
The reality is that free movement, by making it easy to come and go and come back again and go again, provided labour markets with needed people while leading to lower long-term migration to the UK than the Conservatives' post-Brexit approach, where anyone who got a visa to come into the country then very much wants to make that permanent.
Yep. I'm afraid as time passes Brexit looks more and more like not so much a mistake as an act of vandalism against our own property. I've moved on, you have to, but it still irks. WTF were we thinking? What on earth was going on in that little head of ours?
What were europhiles and Remainers thinking when they kept denying the British people a referendum on EU integration at every single stage of it, despite so many promises? Maastricht, the Constitution, Lisbon, on and on, "cast iron guarantees", it was endless, and every time they reneged on those promises our democracy died a little bit more
I am afraid it was you lot that guaranteed Brexit, in the end, with these decades of cowardice and mendacity. Own it. Brexit is yours
Growth of 0.1% could easily be a contraction of 0.1% or worse after revisions.
Or growth of 0.2%. GDP estimates go all over the place when they’re revised but in recent years they’ve tended to go up.
I think that that you are missing the important PB herd consensus:
Under Tory chancellors revisions are always upwards under Labour ones always downwards.
Similarly rich people need bumper payrises to motivate them, poor people getting payrises are a drag on productivity.
I've taken to scrolling past the "Reeves is shit" posters, the Tory/Reform/ Trump/Musk rampers and when they are on, the race baiters. There not much left to read. I note with sadness the non-RefCon post count has diminished considerably.
Pity she really is shit though.
Quite. The "Reeves is shit" comments might be less annoying for PB lefties if Reeves wasn't so painfully and obviously, well, shit
Mathhew Parris demolishes her here, showing that the old coot still has a bit of kick in him
"Where was the evidence of capability, or of any plan? There was never good reason to believe that Labour knew what to do. The Chancellor has not changed: she is now, as she was in opposition, an empty vessel. The Prime Minister has not changed: he is still today, as he was when opposition leader, bereft of ideas. Commentators were too credulous. The emperor never did have any clothes."
He isn't the world's most authoritative commentator. I never met anyone who didn't think this goverment would be deluded and incompetent but then I don't mix with people who vote Labour I guess. However, we didn't realise they would be evil. Did talk with a Socialist yesterday, incomprehending as to why all the farmers objected to the budget. He genuinely hadn't realised there was no-one in the room of about 100 who would not be damaged by the proposals. Then he wondered why he wasn't getting any work out of family businesses.
Good "don't mention the war" moment on Farming Today when the Beeboid told the Farmer's Guardian editor to talk about LAMMA and what was the confidence like for new machinery purchases but not to mention the Budget. More of less turned round and said well what is the point of interviewing me, this government is a disaster for the industry, end of. To be fair there were quite a few interviews, I don't think there was one that didn't comment as to what a catastrophe the election of this government was.
Yes, they aren't just inept, bungling, stupid, craven, and all the rest
They are actively evil. This government is actively evil, and treacherous. Evidence A, M'Lud
"The Attorney General will not say whether he stands to gain financially if the government pay out to Gerry Adams.
Nor has he said whether he was involved in decisions which benefit his former client.
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
It’s hardly Natural England that is a bar to growth. It’s the laws which it is their duty to regulate. Which they didn’t put on the statute.
And in any case we’ve seen where light touch regulation takes us. Rivers full of shit.
At a time of biodiversity and climate crisis, we need to do more for nature not less, but the farming lobby stands in the way of every single atrempt to create the conditions for nature recovery.
I suggest you stop looking for simple solutions and scapegoats and look at the bigger picture. Or at least substantiate your arguments better than whatever simplistic drivel is presented in the popular media.
How do other nations deal with their bats and great crested newts ?
Do you mean that other countries don’t build £120m bat tunnels and spend millions more relocating species that are found all over the country?
That’s formally designating a park as a park, still no £120m bat tunnels.
I didn’t say it was exactly the same.
On the bat tunnel.
The thing that struck me, in all the reporting was the claim that "Not a single bat could be allowed to die"
This requirement is insane - we don't design projects to prevent all human deaths. Otherwise there would be zero infrastructure projects.
So either the requirement was misreported everywhere, or we have another classic.
People who don't actually know or understand regulations trying to implement them and coming up with absurd results.
Bugger the bats. There are millions of the fuckers.
These are Bechstein's Bats, of which there are only ~20k in the UK.
A good example of something happening often. Bechstein bats are rare in Britain, but in general among the 'least threatened' species.
IANAE but I think this is common because of planetary geography. We are, by our position + being an island, right of the edge of the complete range of lots of species, there being nowhere further to go than the British isles.
Which means we are of marginal importance for Bechsteins and corncrakes and loads of other things.
But by the same reasoning of our position we are critically important for loads of seabirds. We should concentrate on them.
But all the others, bats and all, are nice to have, though not at stupid cost.
Not only that but rejoining terms would be fairly dtaconian and then the constant interference in day to day life which we have all forgotten would be back and start to grate again.
It's why I maintain that the polls on rejoining will shift massively when the costs are placed in front of the electorate.
My favourite example of this was that detailed polling by the Blair think tank which showed that people generally wanted a closer relationship with the EU, but also showed that even Remainers wanted restrictions on free movement*, which of course the EU has already ruled out as the four freedoms are considered to be inviolable.
I suspect that this is at the heart of why Labour do not want to get into such debate, as they already know that what people might stomach isn't deliverable.
* This would even make a halfway house like EFTA a real challenge to achieve.
The reality is that free movement, by making it easy to come and go and come back again and go again, provided labour markets with needed people while leading to lower long-term migration to the UK than the Conservatives' post-Brexit approach, where anyone who got a visa to come into the country then very much wants to make that permanent.
Yep. I'm afraid as time passes Brexit looks more and more like not so much a mistake as an act of vandalism against our own property. I've moved on, you have to, but it still irks. WTF were we thinking? What on earth was going on in that little head of ours?
What were europhiles and Remainers thinking when they kept denying the British people a referendum on EU integration at every single stage of it, despite so many promises? Maastricht, the Constitution, Lisbon, on and on, "cast iron guarantees", it was endless, and every time they reneged on those promises our democracy died a little bit more
I am afraid it was you lot that guaranteed Brexit, in the end, with these decades of cowardice and mendacity. Own it. Brexit is yours
Them referendum deniers are just awful.
You had yours, but you lost
We had ours - eventually - 40 years after the first - and we won
You'll get another around 2054, on that basis, but you could win it if the same pattern applies
Not only that but rejoining terms would be fairly dtaconian and then the constant interference in day to day life which we have all forgotten would be back and start to grate again.
It's why I maintain that the polls on rejoining will shift massively when the costs are placed in front of the electorate.
My favourite example of this was that detailed polling by the Blair think tank which showed that people generally wanted a closer relationship with the EU, but also showed that even Remainers wanted restrictions on free movement*, which of course the EU has already ruled out as the four freedoms are considered to be inviolable.
I suspect that this is at the heart of why Labour do not want to get into such debate, as they already know that what people might stomach isn't deliverable.
* This would even make a halfway house like EFTA a real challenge to achieve.
The reality is that free movement, by making it easy to come and go and come back again and go again, provided labour markets with needed people while leading to lower long-term migration to the UK than the Conservatives' post-Brexit approach, where anyone who got a visa to come into the country then very much wants to make that permanent.
Yep. I'm afraid as time passes Brexit looks more and more like not so much a mistake as an act of vandalism against our own property. I've moved on, you have to, but it still irks. WTF were we thinking? What on earth was going on in that little head of ours?
Free movement depressed wages. Granted, it's a better solution than bringing in half the Middle East. But the fact that the Tory response to Brexit was terrible and protected capital over labour AS WELL AS filling the country up with more people than we can handle doesn't mean that the previous solution was a good one.
I'll finish with a periodic confirmation that my wavering should-we-shouldn't-we-probably-we-should has become much more ironclad certain over time. Brexit was, for me, the right decision, and I would vote for it again.
Like my granddad you are. The more you argued with him the more he would dig in. You can always tell a Yorkshireman - but you can't tell him much.
"I dare say" ... this was his catchphrase when under the rhetorical cosh.
Off thread: An opportunity: It's a beautiful day which is forecast to be cloudless all day. The moon - still almost full - will rise just before 19:30, by which time it will be properly dark but not inconveniently late. Get yourself somewhere with a view and watch one of the world's most satisfying sights: a full moon on the horizon. Obviously this works best somewhere already beautiful like the top of your nearest hill, but anywhere with sufficiently clear views to the horizon will do - I am planning on going to the footbridge over the M60 near my house. Even in a large field it should be spectacular. Very hard to photograph unless you have some sort of major zoom lens (I have a £10 clip on one I am going to try out) but if you are content simply to enjoy, rather than record, the event your eyes will be fine. If you have some binoculars what you see will be genuinely breathtaking.
We don't really note the moonrise/set in the same way that we do for say, a lunar eclipse, because full-ish moons rising happen frequently. But how often do they happen when it's genuinely dark but you're not in bed when the skies are clear? Actually fairly seldom. Grasp the opportunity, friends.
The past week has been clear with a full(ish) moon heading towards setting in the west whilst the sun is still low(ish) in the sky after rising in the east. If anyone was out with a 180+ fov camera with clear horizons to the west and east they might have been able to get a fantastic photo.
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
It’s hardly Natural England that is a bar to growth. It’s the laws which it is their duty to regulate. Which they didn’t put on the statute.
And in any case we’ve seen where light touch regulation takes us. Rivers full of shit.
At a time of biodiversity and climate crisis, we need to do more for nature not less, but the farming lobby stands in the way of every single atrempt to create the conditions for nature recovery.
I suggest you stop looking for simple solutions and scapegoats and look at the bigger picture. Or at least substantiate your arguments better than whatever simplistic drivel is presented in the popular media.
How do other nations deal with their bats and great crested newts ?
Do you mean that other countries don’t build £120m bat tunnels and spend millions more relocating species that are found all over the country?
That’s formally designating a park as a park, still no £120m bat tunnels.
I didn’t say it was exactly the same.
On the bat tunnel.
The thing that struck me, in all the reporting was the claim that "Not a single bat could be allowed to die"
This requirement is insane - we don't design projects to prevent all human deaths. Otherwise there would be zero infrastructure projects.
So either the requirement was misreported everywhere, or we have another classic.
People who don't actually know or understand regulations trying to implement them and coming up with absurd results.
Bugger the bats. There are millions of the fuckers.
I remember the old Woodrow Wyatt "Voice of Reason" column, he would rage against bats and bat protection stopping people working on lofts and outhouses.
This NIcholas Coleridge one from 2013 is my favourite. The Telegraph have a rant of some sort on this every year or so.
William Sitwell did last year's in 1/24, so another one is due.
You shouldn't laugh but I couldn't help myself at this
"A second bat consultant (with even more letters after his name) joined the party and announced that, as part of his ongoing bat monitoring programme of Wolverton Hall, he was required by law to visit us regularly for the next nine years, each visit costing hundreds of pounds. I couldn’t understand why I had received more than 100 emails on this seemingly simple project until I realised I was surcharged £25 for each one."
I also wish I had gone into bat protection rather than Engineering. Minted for life
I do like William Sitwell normally. His rants about food being served on shovels and in flower pots by posh cheffy wankers are usually entertaining.
Growth of 0.1% could easily be a contraction of 0.1% or worse after revisions.
Or growth of 0.2%. GDP estimates go all over the place when they’re revised but in recent years they’ve tended to go up.
I think that that you are missing the important PB herd consensus:
Under Tory chancellors revisions are always upwards under Labour ones always downwards.
Similarly rich people need bumper payrises to motivate them, poor people getting payrises are a drag on productivity.
I've taken to scrolling past the "Reeves is shit" posters, the Tory/Reform/ Trump/Musk rampers and when they are on, the race baiters. There not much left to read. I note with sadness the non-RefCon post count has diminished considerably.
Pity she really is shit though.
Quite. The "Reeves is shit" comments might be less annoying for PB lefties if Reeves wasn't so painfully and obviously, well, shit
Mathhew Parris demolishes her here, showing that the old coot still has a bit of kick in him
"Where was the evidence of capability, or of any plan? There was never good reason to believe that Labour knew what to do. The Chancellor has not changed: she is now, as she was in opposition, an empty vessel. The Prime Minister has not changed: he is still today, as he was when opposition leader, bereft of ideas. Commentators were too credulous. The emperor never did have any clothes."
He isn't the world's most authoritative commentator. I never met anyone who didn't think this goverment would be deluded and incompetent but then I don't mix with people who vote Labour I guess. However, we didn't realise they would be evil. Did talk with a Socialist yesterday, incomprehending as to why all the farmers objected to the budget. He genuinely hadn't realised there was no-one in the room of about 100 who would not be damaged by the proposals. Then he wondered why he wasn't getting any work out of family businesses.
Good "don't mention the war" moment on Farming Today when the Beeboid told the Farmer's Guardian editor to talk about LAMMA and what was the confidence like for new machinery purchases but not to mention the Budget. More of less turned round and said well what is the point of interviewing me, this government is a disaster for the industry, end of. To be fair there were quite a few interviews, I don't think there was one that didn't comment as to what a catastrophe the election of this government was.
TBF the BBC farming progs (generally excellent) have given loads of coverage to the budget's effects on farmers - IHT and all that. If anything the BBC farming progs have underplayed how easy it is for farmers, and others, to avoid IHT, and how farmers still have massive IHT relief (and other subsidy) compared with other mortals.
Growth of 0.1% could easily be a contraction of 0.1% or worse after revisions.
Or growth of 0.2%. GDP estimates go all over the place when they’re revised but in recent years they’ve tended to go up.
I think that that you are missing the important PB herd consensus:
Under Tory chancellors revisions are always upwards under Labour ones always downwards.
Similarly rich people need bumper payrises to motivate them, poor people getting payrises are a drag on productivity.
I've taken to scrolling past the "Reeves is shit" posters, the Tory/Reform/ Trump/Musk rampers and when they are on, the race baiters. There not much left to read. I note with sadness the non-RefCon post count has diminished considerably.
Pity she really is shit though.
Quite. The "Reeves is shit" comments might be less annoying for PB lefties if Reeves wasn't so painfully and obviously, well, shit
Mathhew Parris demolishes her here, showing that the old coot still has a bit of kick in him
"Where was the evidence of capability, or of any plan? There was never good reason to believe that Labour knew what to do. The Chancellor has not changed: she is now, as she was in opposition, an empty vessel. The Prime Minister has not changed: he is still today, as he was when opposition leader, bereft of ideas. Commentators were too credulous. The emperor never did have any clothes."
He's just paying the rent. In his final Times column he said people should stop expecting big plans from politicians.
Has he retired from the Times? Didn't know that
I rather liked him, it's a shame he went quite mad after Brexit (like others)
Seems to be partly recovered
He has yes. Replaced by, I'm sorry to report, Fraser Nelson. His debut column last week being a mealy-mouthed offering on Elon Musk's shenanigans.
Rachel Reeves is today urged to tell Britain's regulators and quangos to 'get out of the way' as she asks for their help in reviving Britain's stuttering economic growth.
Ministers asked them to offer suggestions in the wake of last year's Budget, which triggered a sharp fall in business confidence.
However, they are said to be underwhelmed by the proposals so far, which appear to involve the bodies continuing to fulfil existing roles.
No shit
I wish her well but she needs to do more than just tell them. She also needs to focus her fire on Natural England, a bar to growth if ever there was one.
Rachel from accounts belatedly realising that the UK needs a Department of Government Efficiency.
Oh, and that doesn’t mean employing 500 McKinsey staff to produce a 3,000 page report in 2027, it means doing it the American way and getting a couple of maverick business types in to cut out whole swathes of the standing bureaucracy and repealing the legislation that supports them.
Governments of all stripes have been the same since Thatcher, always talking about making efficiencies but overseeing a constant rise in the cost of government.
The problem is that DOGE is bullshit.
Given that it was the Budget which triggered the fall in business confidence perhaps she could look at that.
Meanwhile Torsten Bell is saying interesting things about pensions.
What's he saying.
No more triple lock, reduce the tax free lump sum to £40K and raise the age at which you can take a pension to 57.
Reduce the tax free sum to £40k !?!! Cripes I'm above that now for 25%, in my early 40s and not even a higher rate tax payer. The age raise to 57 is fine though I think.
It seems a sensible proposal, but like applying CGT to private home sales it would go down like a lead balloon though raising the age to 57 plus is good
Reducing the tax free lump sum would impact me but it is a while off, but I plan to take my pension pot ad UFPLS so get the tax free lump sum with every withdrawal.
Is the age to take a pension just limited to accessing a DC pot or will it apply to public sector and the remaining private sector DB schemes too ? That is coming in for DC anyway.
Get rid of the triple lock for sure. They should take the hit now and live with the consequences. Changing the inflation measure applied in the future is going to help.
I think any party committed to the triple lock continuing at the next GE is not serious about tackling the nations financial situation.
That doesn't mean no rise of course, but puts it back to the discretion of the Chancellor.
Similarly statements about no rises in this or that tax. We need honest approaches with governments able to adjust the tiller on the ship of state according to changes in wind direction and sea state.
Which is why I suggested that as Labour Chancellor I would have gone for -
1) Merge Income Tax and employee NI. This brings a number of people into paying NI (in effect). 2) As part of this reform, simplify the bands and increase the rates a bit 3) Sell it as "Needed to save the NHS" and "We will bring rates down, later, when we can" - AKA Election Give Away. 4) Put all the pensioner benefits apart from the actual pension in the blender. Roll out new, means tested benefits. So WFP would go away. 5) Sell this as "More for the poor"
The markets would have liked this - tax to spend is OK, borrow to spend is what upsets things. The Labour supporters would have been happier with this, I reckon.
1 and 4 could even have been put in the manifesto without having a significant impact on seat numbers, and 2 (with 3) wouldn't have caused anywhere near so much post-election angst as actually happened with WFP.
Not only that but rejoining terms would be fairly dtaconian and then the constant interference in day to day life which we have all forgotten would be back and start to grate again.
It's why I maintain that the polls on rejoining will shift massively when the costs are placed in front of the electorate.
My favourite example of this was that detailed polling by the Blair think tank which showed that people generally wanted a closer relationship with the EU, but also showed that even Remainers wanted restrictions on free movement*, which of course the EU has already ruled out as the four freedoms are considered to be inviolable.
I suspect that this is at the heart of why Labour do not want to get into such debate, as they already know that what people might stomach isn't deliverable.
* This would even make a halfway house like EFTA a real challenge to achieve.
The reality is that free movement, by making it easy to come and go and come back again and go again, provided labour markets with needed people while leading to lower long-term migration to the UK than the Conservatives' post-Brexit approach, where anyone who got a visa to come into the country then very much wants to make that permanent.
Yep. I'm afraid as time passes Brexit looks more and more like not so much a mistake as an act of vandalism against our own property. I've moved on, you have to, but it still irks. WTF were we thinking? What on earth was going on in that little head of ours?
Free movement depressed wages. Granted, it's a better solution than bringing in half the Middle East. But the fact that the Tory response to Brexit was terrible and protected capital over labour AS WELL AS filling the country up with more people than we can handle doesn't mean that the previous solution was a good one.
I'll finish with a periodic confirmation that my wavering should-we-shouldn't-we-probably-we-should has become much more ironclad certain over time. Brexit was, for me, the right decision, and I would vote for it again.
Like my granddad you are. The more you argued with him the more he would dig in. You can always tell a Yorkshireman - but you can't tell him much.
"I dare say" ... this was his catchphrase when under the rhetorical cosh.
People should say that more often
"I dare say"
I like it. I'd quite forgotten the phrase
I'm going to use it tonight when I have my regular gin and tonic in the bar of the Parkroyal, Rangoon. I do it every night at around 6.45pm. I'm like the colonel in Fawlty Towers. I've been here so long they know who I am and they know my weird but regular habits, they know I'm this old geezer from Britain who is a bit eccentric and works on flint sex toys in his room all day, but leaves decent tips. I'm sometimes the only person in that bar (on some days I might be the only tourist in Burma, I think)
But tonight I'm gonna switch it up. Instead of saying "mingalabar, gin and tonic, Jezuba" I'm going to say "I dare say I could polish off a nice and tonic, ta very much"
I think it will cause widespread amusement in the hotel, and perhaps even in the nation at large, and lift their spirits during a difficult time of Civil War
Not only that but rejoining terms would be fairly dtaconian and then the constant interference in day to day life which we have all forgotten would be back and start to grate again.
It's why I maintain that the polls on rejoining will shift massively when the costs are placed in front of the electorate.
My favourite example of this was that detailed polling by the Blair think tank which showed that people generally wanted a closer relationship with the EU, but also showed that even Remainers wanted restrictions on free movement*, which of course the EU has already ruled out as the four freedoms are considered to be inviolable.
I suspect that this is at the heart of why Labour do not want to get into such debate, as they already know that what people might stomach isn't deliverable.
* This would even make a halfway house like EFTA a real challenge to achieve.
The reality is that free movement, by making it easy to come and go and come back again and go again, provided labour markets with needed people while leading to lower long-term migration to the UK than the Conservatives' post-Brexit approach, where anyone who got a visa to come into the country then very much wants to make that permanent.
Yep. I'm afraid as time passes Brexit looks more and more like not so much a mistake as an act of vandalism against our own property. I've moved on, you have to, but it still irks. WTF were we thinking? What on earth was going on in that little head of ours?
What were europhiles and Remainers thinking when they kept denying the British people a referendum on EU integration at every single stage of it, despite so many promises? Maastricht, the Constitution, Lisbon, on and on, "cast iron guarantees", it was endless, and every time they reneged on those promises our democracy died a little bit more
I am afraid it was you lot that guaranteed Brexit, in the end, with these decades of cowardice and mendacity. Own it. Brexit is yours
Them referendum deniers are just awful.
Yes very good. I was going to do a reply along different lines but I won't bother now. That one will do.
Comments
Perhaps Torsten Bell could comment on whether this law should be repealed:
The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2588/contents/made
I fear the ship might already have sailed (from Shanghai) for the European automotive industry.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/new-york-times-dry-january-is-racist/
That doesn't mean no rise of course, but puts it back to the discretion of the Chancellor.
Similarly statements about no rises in this or that tax. We need honest approaches with governments able to adjust the tiller on the ship of state according to changes in wind direction and sea state.
Imo, it is fairly clear that there is a significant public good in allowing people to generate a tax pot of about £500k - that plus the state pension would put someone on an average income.
I really don't understand at all what the the public good is for waiving tax on pension pots £1m+, perhaps pb can explain it?
Not jealousy as personally I like and use my ISA and pension tax breaks.
I could imagine it being something like: "..obliged to take reasonable steps to minimise harm.."
So then we have to decide what is reasonable, based on how much harm is avoided at what cost.
This is a question of judgement, and that can be hard. It can be tempting to take a simplistic approach, of attempting to reduce harm to zero, whatever the cost, as a way of avoiding making a judgement. Certainly I could see that it might be seen as courageous for someone to conclude that there was nothing reasonable that could be done to reduce harm, and I suppose you wouldn't want that to be the conclusion every time - often there will be relatively simple things that can be done with a beneficial impact.
By election ahoy?
You can find the jigsaw pieces it is built from mainly yanked out of bits of the NT and the book of Revelation. Do they they assert "authority" over the "principalities and powers" somewhere?There's doubtless some questionable stuff in it, as well as some bollocks, but it's also their habitual argot.
Translated, it means he thinks people of his particular view should be in positions in Government. Of course, his faith means that they should act with extra integrity and probity, but once it's been through the Trumpvangelical filter they tend to lose the principles, and the respect for others.
Sensible Evangelicals pray publicly in language (to borrow from the Book of Common Prayer) "understanded of the people".
I think one decent example of not imposing "my values" when in a ministerial position was Mogg on abortion. IIRC he said, even as a down-the-line Roman Catholic, that he drew a clear distinction between his views and the law which should be set by Parliament. Trumpists have imo lost that distinction, and what they have left is victory in a Machiavellian battle.
20, 40 , 60 years ago it must have been very different, they might even have driven new British cars, at one point
1) Merge Income Tax and employee NI. This brings a number of people into paying NI (in effect).
2) As part of this reform, simplify the bands and increase the rates a bit
3) Sell it as "Needed to save the NHS" and "We will bring rates down, later, when we can" - AKA Election Give Away.
4) Put all the pensioner benefits apart from the actual pension in the blender. Roll out new, means tested benefits. So WFP would go away.
5) Sell this as "More for the poor"
The markets would have liked this - tax to spend is OK, borrow to spend is what upsets things. The Labour supporters would have been happier with this, I reckon.
So for example Mitsubishi owned an Australian brand called Lonsdale where a lot of Mitsubishis were sold in Oz under that brand as it was largely recognised.
Obviously MG is being used but brands like Triumph, Rover and Austin could be revived for the UK market maybe.
Labour - Mike Amesbury - 22,358
Reform UK - Jason Moorcroft - 7,662
Conservative - Jade Marsden - 6,756
Green - Chris Copeman - 2,715
Liberal Democrats - Chris Rowe - 2,149
The bad news for Labour is relentless. It feels like a weary government facing defeat after 13 years in power. Yet they won a landslide six months ago. V odd
Bit disappointed not to see vintage Austin Allegros, etc
A recall petition is likely though if he gets a custodial sentence as that is triggered if any custodial sentence is given of any length even if suspended. If he just gets community service or a fine though he may be able to avoid that too
IHT is the best way to deal with primary residence
I also agree with the Welsh government's attitude to second homes including upto 300% council tax uplift
And if Sainsbos, Tesco, Amazon and the rest AI/robotic away most of the low-wage jobs getting smashed by the secondary threshold on employer NICs (and a lack of immigration) , they'll also achieve substantial productivity growth.
Meanwhile total economic output could flatline. Economic stats are hard work.
Mathhew Parris demolishes her here, showing that the old coot still has a bit of kick in him
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-was-everyone-fooled-by-rachel-reeves/
"Where was the evidence of capability, or of any plan? There was never good reason to believe that Labour knew what to do. The Chancellor has not changed: she is now, as she was in opposition, an empty vessel. The Prime Minister has not changed: he is still today, as he was when opposition leader, bereft of ideas. Commentators were too credulous. The emperor never did have any clothes."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klkpk_hO4FQ
The sound quality is poor, but it's a case where the content matters far more than the presentation. I am changing my view to a *likelihood* that China tries to take Taiwan by force within the next four years.
It will be an interesting test, in that case, if he gets away with a large fine or community service, to see if he can continue as an MP. Would Labour even want that? It's terrible optics. An MP with a criminal conviction for assault?
It's not a speeding fine, or even drunk driving. It's way worse than that
It would certainly reduce the abuse MPs get and allow us to get a better MPs.
I saw an article the other day which argued that a successful Chinese invasion of Taiwan would give china such an advantage in chips, tech, AI, robotics, that it could overtake America and rule the world
I am not at all sure it is true, but even if it is only potentially true, America could not risk that. So America would either have to fight China mano a mano, or demand that Taiwan destroy its own tech industry before the Chinese seize it
Interesting times, etc
I'm just noting that the luddite argument is a self-destructive one. We should have been better incentivising the switch to EVs, not engaged in a futile attempt to delay it.
I am afraid it was you lot that guaranteed Brexit, in the end, with these decades of cowardice and mendacity. Own it. Brexit is yours
As for Trump: my view was that he would have been seen as a dangerous variable. But his talk about annexing Panama, Greenland and even Canada will be music to Xi's ears. How can America complain if China takes (what it sees as) its own territory back, if the USA claims areas that are not its own?
Putin will also be liking the talk, for the same reasons.
It costs nothing and in fact earns the government money from all the future taxes.
Marco Rubio made the comment as he appeared in front of a bipartisan Senate committee ahead of a vote on whether he is suitable for the role.
He told the committee he believes China is America's "biggest threat" and blamed the growing risk on America's shift to globalism.
Laying out how he will implement Mr Trump's "America First" vision, he said the United States must begin placing its "core national interests above all else".
He argued Washington must step up to compete with Beijing and slammed the Chinese government's human rights record.'
https://news.sky.com/story/marco-rubio-trumps-pick-for-top-cabinet-job-claims-china-will-invade-taiwan-by-2030-13289576
I also agree with you that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by 2030 is now more likely than not. Which is pretty fucking scary, and pretty fucking grim if you are Taiwanese
Granted, it's a better solution than bringing in half the Middle East. But the fact that the Tory response to Brexit was terrible and protected capital over labour AS WELL AS filling the country up with more people than we can handle doesn't mean that the previous solution was a good one.
I'll finish with a periodic confirmation that my wavering should-we-shouldn't-we-probably-we-should has become much more ironclad certain over time. Brexit was, for me, the right decision, and I would vote for it again.
Even if Labour removed the whip if no recall he could stay as an Independent MP until the next GE anyway
Obviously this bat tunnel is insane (and I'm not sure it would even work) but I for one don't want to live in a concrete country with no ecological value.
It is bad enough already.
Remember, for the UK to successfully Rejoin every single EU member would have to say Yes. Just one single veto would nix it
I can see multiple countries that might enjoy the chance to do that. Pretty sure the French would veto us. Possibly Spain (Gibraltar), Germany (unless we join the euro immediately), maybe a maverick East European country for the hell of it
On top of this, a comparatively very large economy like the UK Rejoining the EU would entail many years of painful negotiation, before Accession was agreed
No UK government is ever going to waste a decade of political capital on this (and also risk a losing referendum)
Rejoin is never going to happen
While assault by beating is a summary only offence, meaning it can only be tried in the magistrates’ court, it can result in a custodial sentence of up to six months. When deciding the sentence, however, the fact that you are a first-time offender will be taken into account.
Therefore, if it is a first-time offence without any aggravating features, it is possible that you could receive an alternative outcome other than a custodial sentence, although this will still depend on the circumstances of your case.
When considering an appropriate sentence for assault by beating, the magistrates or district judge will take into account a number of factors, both mitigating and aggravating.
Aggravating factors include an abuse of power, commission of the offence while under the influence of alcohol and drugs or attempts to prevent the complainant from reporting the incident.
Mitigating factors may include an offender’s remorse, their cooperation with the police and the fact that they are a first-time offender.
These mitigating circumstances, including being a first-time offender, may help to bring the sentence down from a custodial sentence to an alternative outcome, ranging from a discharge to a suspended sentence:
Podbean: https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/f1-2025-betting-odds/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2PEmEA8CVnmRFGDjMZqS3N
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcfe213b-55fb-408a-a823-dc6693ee9f78/episodes/9ac187d3-b23b-48cc-ab51-87fa6c11c55e/undercutters---f1-podcast-f1-2025-betting-odds
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/f1-2025-betting-odds/id1786574257?i=1000684049358
Transcript: https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/01/f1-2025-betting-odds-undercutters-ep5.html
Even if you're not generally into the podcast I'd suggest checking the transcript quickly if you want to see (in one of the large graphics) a fairly amusing illustration of who has the worst odds for the driver's title.
Austin Allegro, a cracking car, a square steering wheel on the early models.
I rather liked him, it's a shame he went quite mad after Brexit (like others)
Seems to be partly recovered
https://archive.is/d1lBz
William Sitwell did last year's in 1/24, so another one is due.
Good "don't mention the war" moment on Farming Today when the Beeboid told the Farmer's Guardian editor to talk about LAMMA and what was the confidence like for new machinery purchases but not to mention the Budget. More of less turned round and said well what is the point of interviewing me, this government is a disaster for the industry, end of. To be fair there were quite a few interviews, I don't think there was one that didn't comment as to what a catastrophe the election of this government was.
It's a beautiful day which is forecast to be cloudless all day. The moon - still almost full - will rise just before 19:30, by which time it will be properly dark but not inconveniently late.
Get yourself somewhere with a view and watch one of the world's most satisfying sights: a full moon on the horizon. Obviously this works best somewhere already beautiful like the top of your nearest hill, but anywhere with sufficiently clear views to the horizon will do - I am planning on going to the footbridge over the M60 near my house. Even in a large field it should be spectacular.
Very hard to photograph unless you have some sort of major zoom lens (I have a £10 clip on one I am going to try out) but if you are content simply to enjoy, rather than record, the event your eyes will be fine. If you have some binoculars what you see will be genuinely breathtaking.
We don't really note the moonrise/set in the same way that we do for say, a lunar eclipse, because full-ish moons rising happen frequently. But how often do they happen when it's genuinely dark but you're not in bed when the skies are clear? Actually fairly seldom. Grasp the opportunity, friends.
Paul Danan has died, former Hollyoaks actor and reality star in such series as "Calum, Fran and Dangerous Danan"
Apparently due to his "excessive vaping"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/live-paul-danan-dead-updates-34492172
They are actively evil. This government is actively evil, and treacherous. Evidence A, M'Lud
"The Attorney General will not say whether he stands to gain financially if the government pay out to Gerry Adams.
Nor has he said whether he was involved in decisions which benefit his former client.
Remarkable."
https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1879522224551657973
IANAE but I think this is common because of planetary geography. We are, by our position + being an island, right of the edge of the complete range of lots of species, there being nowhere further to go than the British isles.
Which means we are of marginal importance for Bechsteins and corncrakes and loads of other things.
But by the same reasoning of our position we are critically important for loads of seabirds. We should concentrate on them.
But all the others, bats and all, are nice to have, though not at stupid cost.
We had ours - eventually - 40 years after the first - and we won
You'll get another around 2054, on that basis, but you could win it if the same pattern applies
"I dare say" ... this was his catchphrase when under the rhetorical cosh.
https://news.sky.com/story/mp-mike-amesbury-expelled-from-labour-party-after-admitting-punching-man-13289992
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14291547/Paul-Danan-dead-Hollyoaks.html
"A second bat consultant (with even more letters after his name) joined the party and announced that, as part of his ongoing bat monitoring programme of Wolverton Hall, he was required by law to visit us regularly for the next nine years, each visit costing hundreds of pounds. I couldn’t understand why I had received more than 100 emails on this seemingly simple project until I realised I was surcharged £25 for each one."
I also wish I had gone into bat protection rather than Engineering. Minted for life
I do like William Sitwell normally. His rants about food being served on shovels and in flower pots by posh cheffy wankers are usually entertaining.
They have handled this well.
"I dare say"
I like it. I'd quite forgotten the phrase
I'm going to use it tonight when I have my regular gin and tonic in the bar of the Parkroyal, Rangoon. I do it every night at around 6.45pm. I'm like the colonel in Fawlty Towers. I've been here so long they know who I am and they know my weird but regular habits, they know I'm this old geezer from Britain who is a bit eccentric and works on flint sex toys in his room all day, but leaves decent tips. I'm sometimes the only person in that bar (on some days I might be the only tourist in Burma, I think)
But tonight I'm gonna switch it up. Instead of saying "mingalabar, gin and tonic, Jezuba" I'm going to say "I dare say I could polish off a nice and tonic, ta very much"
I think it will cause widespread amusement in the hotel, and perhaps even in the nation at large, and lift their spirits during a difficult time of Civil War