It’s time to get your entries in for the 2025 PB Predictions Competition if you haven’t already. All entries must be in by midnight on Friday 31st January!
Not sure is this has been raised before but I'm not entirely sure Donald Trump is the full shilling?
Do you think Nigel Farage/Reform will take a hit in the polls here if Trump is bad as we all fear?
Define "bad". From the perspective of "we need to shake things up", what some people could describe as "bad" may be seen as not going far enough...
I think that is where we see some admiration of Trump. He certainly has stamped his agenda on his first week in power. Compare and contrast with the indolence and drift of the first months of the Starmer administration.
Most of Trump's actions are either stupid, petty or self-defeating, but there is certainly a lot going on.
The main bbc news is delayed 30mins because of some bollocks called 'traitors'?
The rest of my family are watching it on i-player while I'm festering on here.
I yearn for the honest simplicity of It's a Knockout.
I keep thinking, in an alternate timeline, Nigel Farage could have made a great "It's A Knockout" presenter. Would have made all our lives simpler.
Farage has not succeeded in convincing everyone that the Tories and Labour are crap because he is some absurd hybrid of the pied piper and Michael Barrymore. The Tories and Labour are crap. What they have done is crap. If it wasn't him it would be someone else - in many ways we're lucky it's him.
He's a kind of establishment anti establishment figure.
It’s always struck me as a very logical tax (possibly to fund local cultural activities - a “tourist tax”) but the hospitality industry has always fought hard against it (unsurprisingly). It will be nice to have some facts.
Been on the cards for a very long time. The DT is just doing its usual SNPBaaad and LabourBaad but the Edinburgh council is a Labour minority (very minor) with Tory (and LD) support, though (as is halfheartedly admitted by the piece) the Tories are trying to pretend it's nothing to do with them.
Housing is indeed an issue here. The uncontrolled rise of Airbnb in Edinburgh has been at the expense of the locals - space lost and increase in general shittiness. Having it taxable imposes an additional control function and an ability to prosecute deviant landlords, besides the licensing system, I suppose.
I would argue the tax should go on short term rentals, at a relatively high rate, and not on hotels, which are already taxed and are relatively efficient users of space. Or the visitor tax can be offset by other business taxes already paid.
It’s always struck me as a very logical tax (possibly to fund local cultural activities - a “tourist tax”) but the hospitality industry has always fought hard against it (unsurprisingly). It will be nice to have some facts.
Been on the cards for a very long time. The DT is just doing its usual SNPBaaad and LabourBaad but the Edinburgh council is a Labour minority (very minor) with Tory (and LD) support, though (as is halfheartedly admitted by the piece) the Tories are trying to pretend it's nothing to do with them.
Housing is indeed an issue here. The uncontrolled rise of Airbnb in Edinburgh has been at the expense of the locals - space lost and increase in general shittiness. Having it taxable imposes an additional control function and an ability to prosecute deviant landlords, besides the licensing system, I suppose.
5% does seem a lot though. In the US it’s typically around £2-3 a night
Quick FPT - all worth consideration, but a bit late now. The Tories and their allies in industry shouldn't have spent so long denying that any such tax was permissible.
Point taken re hotels, but they also profit from imposing the wider costs of tourism in the economy for the rest of us to pay for.
Of course also the tourist industry sensu lato should perhaps not have shat the bed so conspicuously for years (and I'm not thinking of the Golden Turd) quite apart from the AirBNB problem. Cramming so many tourists into Edinburgh at peak times and overcharging everyone and giving crap service (especailly the restaurants, with their reduced and m uch more expensive menus; Arts Festival incl Fringe which in the view of very many locals is grossly bloated; Xmas/New Year). And so arrogantly (cutting down trees in Princes Street Gardens just to get some more "Christmas bazaar" booths for hot dogs and mulled wine FFS, though walling the Gardens off from Princes St and blocking the view etc. didn't get repeated when they realised the public reaction) The peak costs of crowd control, cxleaning up the litter, policing, etc. need to be covered. It's not accidental that Paul Johnston's detective stories set in a future Edinburgh satirise this.
£2-3 a night woiuld imply £40-£60 per person at 5% so seems commensurate?
PS: central Edinburgh is very discernibly heading this way, so something needs to be done. THere is also an AirBNB control system coming in, so it's not just equating hotels with the rest (or at least it's levelling things somewhat).
Trump has had 4 years to think up all of this craziness.
Perhaps it would have been better for the world if he had just beaten Biden in 2020, and carried on in his "not do a lot" mode of operation?
Probably much better. He would have taken the blame for the high inflation, Dems might have got behind a decent presidential candidate, with MAGA hopefully discredited.
On the minus side he'd probably have abandoned Ukraine to Putin, and done plenty of damage elsewhere.
So if we're allowed to have different people winning close elections I'd rather have Clinton beating Trump in 2016. Or Clinton beating Obama in 2008. Or Gore beating Bush in 2000
Not sure is this has been raised before but I'm not entirely sure Donald Trump is the full shilling?
Do you think Nigel Farage/Reform will take a hit in the polls here if Trump is bad as we all fear?
It will be interesting if he tries to defend Trump. Perhaps he'll argue those aggressive Danes are encircling the US and so they had it coming.
I believe Reform supporters are the only ones in the UK where a majority like Trump? And if you do like him seeing him in full flow causing horror among opponents is probably thrilling.
So can he afford to not defend Trump? Its not like he literally does whatever Trump says, but could he manage a move from mild critique to criticism?
Trump has had 4 years to think up all of this craziness.
Perhaps it would have been better for the world if he had just beaten Biden in 2020, and carried on in his "not do a lot" mode of operation?
It’s not so much his craziness as he is enabling the craziness of Project 2025 types.
Who are Working Towards The Trump, sure. But are also pursuing their agendas as well.
Trump is happy to enable others in return for support. See the ongoing abortion stuff - he is, as far as anyone can tell, not an abortion ideologue. But by supporting the anti-abortion fundies he has acquired a phalanx of devoted voters - “He delivered us the judges he promised, unlike decades of RINOs”.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Tulsi Gabbard growing less likely to be confirmed. I'd forgotten this one.
As we remember Japan’s aggression in the Pacific, we need to ask ourselves this question: is the remilitarization of Japan, which is presently underway, truly a good idea? We need to be careful that shortsighted, self-serving leaders do not end up bringing us again face-to-face with a remilitarized Japan. #PearlHarbor82.. https://x.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1732690475482755422
You know, I can think of positive things to say about almost every human being: yes, even Trump, kle4 and RFK Jr.
Hatd to pick out which of the trio hard done by with that comparison.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Isn’t this just the tail end of deportations ordered by the last administration ? Would be quite a feat of efficiency to have things going in just a few days.
Not sure is this has been raised before but I'm not entirely sure Donald Trump is the full shilling?
Do you think Nigel Farage/Reform will take a hit in the polls here if Trump is bad as we all fear?
Yes, I think so. Farage's "popularity" is like a cult, and like all cults it could very easily turn sour.
He might be public enemy number one and effectively be run out of the country by 2029.
More likely he and his party will just fade away into obscurity...
I think you're deluding yourself.
Self destruction seems like the biggest threat to Reform - securing a decent number of MPs gives a sense of 'properness' to them, and with Labour in office and Tories likely rebuilding or infighting in their first term in opposition, i don't think the drivers for Reform support are disappearing in the short term.
Tulsi Gabbard growing less likely to be confirmed. I'd forgotten this one.
As we remember Japan’s aggression in the Pacific, we need to ask ourselves this question: is the remilitarization of Japan, which is presently underway, truly a good idea? We need to be careful that shortsighted, self-serving leaders do not end up bringing us again face-to-face with a remilitarized Japan. #PearlHarbor82.. https://x.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1732690475482755422
You know, I can think of positive things to say about almost every human being: yes, even Trump, kle4 and RFK Jr.
Hatd to pick out which of the trio hard done by with that comparison.
Trump lost because he was rubbish. He couldn’t sustain an effective team and use data to make decisions, so he lost once people got bored of the hype and felt the cost of poorly implemented, badly researched policies in their pocket.
Nothing indicates that this has changed.
Closer to home, we have to defeat our right wing populists. Badenoch telling Truss to shut up was a good thing.
Trump has had 4 years to think up all of this craziness.
Perhaps it would have been better for the world if he had just beaten Biden in 2020, and carried on in his "not do a lot" mode of operation?
*If* he'd beaten Biden in 2020? C'mon get with the programme.
There is a weird trend post for some post election to act as though because he won anyone who criticised him was wrong to do so and must make up for it by acknowledging they were wrong.
Politicians and business leaders might need to roll back position because of the change but media and regular people dont. So long as they are not in denial about why a majority of americans did pick Trump, or just wallow in performative hatred.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Trump lost because he was rubbish. He couldn’t sustain an effective team and use data to make decisions, so he lost once people got bored of the hype and felt the cost of poorly implemented, badly researched policies in their pocket.
Nothing indicates that this has changed.
Closer to home, we have to defeat our right wing populists. Badenoch telling Truss to shut up was a good thing.
The disadvantage for Badenoch is that this means that more people might become aware of the nonsense she is spouting.
Trump lost because he was rubbish. He couldn’t sustain an effective team and use data to make decisions, so he lost once people got bored of the hype and felt the cost of poorly implemented, badly researched policies in their pocket.
Nothing indicates that this has changed.
Closer to home, we have to defeat our right wing populists. Badenoch telling Truss to shut up was a good thing.
The disadvantage for Badenoch is that this means that more people might become aware of the nonsense she is spouting.
Trump lost because he was rubbish. He couldn’t sustain an effective team and use data to make decisions, so he lost once people got bored of the hype and felt the cost of poorly implemented, badly researched policies in their pocket.
Nothing indicates that this has changed.
Closer to home, we have to defeat our right wing populists. Badenoch telling Truss to shut up was a good thing.
The disadvantage for Badenoch is that this means that more people might become aware of the nonsense she is spouting.
I take Badenoch over Truss. It’s a start
I feel like Truss would have a reasonably large groundswell of support in a 'she wasnt given a chance' sense had she not decided to go full Trump fangirl. There were surely plenty of people in the party who regretted her ousting and initially she kept pretty quiet about it.
But whilst there's some Trump support in this country her enthusiasm level is a bit beyond most Tories.
Prompts the question "how many divisions does the EU have?"
(none, yet...)
Just make sure they’re not Hungarian troops
Well, quite.
There's not going to be an EU army, but a semi-permanent European "coalition of the willing" to back up European interests when the US isn't willing to seems needed now.
Trump lost because he was rubbish. He couldn’t sustain an effective team and use data to make decisions, so he lost once people got bored of the hype and felt the cost of poorly implemented, badly researched policies in their pocket.
Nothing indicates that this has changed.
Closer to home, we have to defeat our right wing populists. Badenoch telling Truss to shut up was a good thing.
The disadvantage for Badenoch is that this means that more people might become aware of the nonsense she is spouting.
I take Badenoch over Truss. It’s a start
I feel like Truss would have a reasonably large groundswell of support in a 'she wasnt given a chance' sense had she not decided to go full Trump fangirl. There were surely plenty of people in the party who regretted her ousting and initially she kept pretty quiet about it.
But whilst there's some Trump support in this country her enthusiasm level is a bit beyond most Tories.
Boris is the one Badenoch has to watch. His ego and track record of stabbing people in the back represents a clear and present danger to the Tory leader.
I went to an interesting talk on the failure of the Norse settlements in Greenland and Newfoundland. The speaker made the case that the Norse made the mistake of trying to live as they had in Scandanavia, with a sheep based pastoral colony poorly suited to the local environment, so was very dependent on supplies from further east, rather than copy the native people's agricultural and hunting practices.
I think the same was true of some of the early attempts at colonisation by English settlers in North America too, hence the failure at Roanoke and near failure at Jamestown.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Talking about tax rises isn’t talking the economy down.
Talking the economy down is talking the economy down.
The government would have been less unpopular if they had, say, merged Income Tax and NI, simplified the rates, and put up the combined tax a bit.
Between pulling people into NI and higher rates, this would have raised a fair bit.
This would have caused a tidal wave of returns from the alt-left parties - Starmer being Proper Labour.
The markets would have taken this as a sign of *funded* increased expenditure. Government borrowing costs would have fallen.
Sold as “Needed to save public services, expand defence spending, tough times etc” - it could have been sold as a positive message of taking tough decisions to deliver results.
Similarly, WFA could have been dealt with as part of a wholesale rebuild of pensioner benefits - “We need to concentrate on the poorest”
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Question: would the UK economy be better off if the Sunak/Hunt team had been supervising the economy these past six months with their supposed "biased towards politics" schtick versus the Starmer/Reeves "bias towards government"?
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
You’re not wrong, my friend.
The “party” ended on July 5th though most of us knew the bill was on the table and we needed to pay up and leave. The Governments who were at the fag end of the party were broken politically and economically and their successors have come in and having told everyone the truth are also suffering.
Only those who claim they can either keep the party going or re-start it are being heard but as is always the case many refuse to listen to things they don’t want to hear whether it’s the economy, the environment or whatever or rail against it.
Labour has a big majority - it can and could ride out unpopularity in the short term but the 104 Labour MPs whose seats are vulnerable on a 5% swing or less will begin to worry in a couple of years if there is no improvement.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Question: would the UK economy be better off if the Sunak/Hunt team had been supervising the economy these past six months with their supposed "biased towards politics" schtick versus the Starmer/Reeves "bias towards government"?
Wouldn’t have made much difference. Possibly worse. Hunt would have faced reality too and would have had to rolled back policies designed to engineer an election bounce. I guess the right wing press might have been less hysterical.
I went to an interesting talk on the failure of the Norse settlements in Greenland and Newfoundland. The speaker made the case that the Norse made the mistake of trying to live as they had in Scandanavia, with a sheep based pastoral colony poorly suited to the local environment, so was very dependent on supplies from further east, rather than copy the native people's agricultural and hunting practices.
I think the same was true of some of the early attempts at colonisation by English settlers in North America too, hence the failure at Roanoke and near failure at Jamestown.
IIRC that was the conclusion in the 'Fall of Civilizations' episode on it as well. What is slightly surprising is how early they were there (before the current 'native' Greenlanders in that part of the island apparently) and how many centuries they managed to survive.
Are the current population similarly vulnerable now?
Prompts the question "how many divisions does the EU have?"
(none, yet...)
Just make sure they’re not Hungarian troops
Well, quite.
There's not going to be an EU army, but a semi-permanent European "coalition of the willing" to back up European interests when the US isn't willing to seems needed now.
Trouble is, once that nascent European Army starts being constructed, the American military will wave Europe "cheerio...." because we can do it ourselves.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Question: would the UK economy be better off if the Sunak/Hunt team had been supervising the economy these past six months with their supposed "biased towards politics" schtick versus the Starmer/Reeves "bias towards government"?
I have no idea and i dont think Sunak, Hunt, Starmer, or Reeves really know either.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Talking about tax rises isn’t talking the economy down.
Talking the economy down is talking the economy down.
The government would have been less unpopular if they had, say, merged Income Tax and NI, simplified the rates, and put up the combined tax a bit.
Between pulling people into NI and higher rates, this would have raised a fair bit.
This would have caused a tidal wave of returns from the alt-left parties - Starmer being Proper Labour.
The markets would have taken this as a sign of *funded* increased expenditure. Government borrowing costs would have fallen.
Sold as “Needed to save public services, expand defence spending, tough times etc” - it could have been sold as a positive message of taking tough decisions to deliver results.
Similarly, WFA could have been dealt with as part of a wholesale rebuild of pensioner benefits - “We need to concentrate on the poorest”
Yes, but that all comes back to the promise not to increase rates of income tax, employee NI or VAT, and continue the Triple lock.
No incoming Chancellor should tie their hands like that. It leaves them with no room for financial manoeuvre. Dumb of Starmer/Reeves, particularly so for the whole term. Promising it for the first year or two like Blair did would have been better.
Not sure is this has been raised before but I'm not entirely sure Donald Trump is the full shilling?
Do you think Nigel Farage/Reform will take a hit in the polls here if Trump is bad as we all fear?
Certainly one to watch. Here'sa suggestion. There are two Trumpisms;
(1) Nationalist populism + the USA version of the state being on the side of ordinary people + bigging itself up around the world and generally showing that it is a big cheese.
(2) A plutocratic gangster oligarchy.
The first, as amended for UK, is very popular with a large proportion of the UK population.
We are not yet ready for the second. Not even most Reform voters.
How Reform get on will have some relation to how it is seen to be attached to Trumpism in its two forms. It could gain, it could lose. It will have to steer carefully.
I don't think Trump expects to take Greenland by force; he expects Denmark to roll over. Which is why this is a crisis for Denmark. Do they roll over or do they resist, when they absolutely don't want to do either?
Prompts the question "how many divisions does the EU have?"
(none, yet...)
Just make sure they’re not Hungarian troops
Well, quite.
There's not going to be an EU army, but a semi-permanent European "coalition of the willing" to back up European interests when the US isn't willing to seems needed now.
Trouble is, once that nascent European Army starts being constructed, the American military will wave Europe "cheerio...." because we can do it ourselves.
I'd have thought its to their benefit they provide the backbone for Europe, even if they think (correctly) the continent needs to do more.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
You’re not wrong, my friend.
The “party” ended on July 5th though most of us knew the bill was on the table and we needed to pay up and leave. The Governments who were at the fag end of the party were broken politically and economically and their successors have come in and having told everyone the truth are also suffering.
Only those who claim they can either keep the party going or re-start it are being heard but as is always the case many refuse to listen to things they don’t want to hear whether it’s the economy, the environment or whatever or rail against it.
Labour has a big majority - it can and could ride out unpopularity in the short term but the 104 Labour MPs whose seats are vulnerable on a 5% swing or less will begin to worry in a couple of years if there is no improvement.
Those MPs should assume they are one term posts. Their loss doesn't mean necessarily that Labour will be out of power.
I don't think Trump expects to take Greenland by force; he expects Denmark to roll over. Which is why this is a crisis for Denmark. Do they roll over or do they resist, when they absolutely don't want to do either?
The obvious move would be to facilitate a transparent and fair referendum in Greenland asap to discern the will of the people, though we all know how reluctant sovereign states are to do that.
I don't think Trump expects to take Greenland by force; he expects Denmark to roll over. Which is why this is a crisis for Denmark. Do they roll over or do they resist, when they absolutely don't want to do either?
Hong Kong style lease with the Greenlanders in agreement by stating they get a choice to go with either or independent at the end.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Question: would the UK economy be better off if the Sunak/Hunt team had been supervising the economy these past six months with their supposed "biased towards politics" schtick versus the Starmer/Reeves "bias towards government"?
I have no idea and i dont think Sunak, Hunt, Starmer, or Reeves really know either.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
You’re not wrong, my friend.
The “party” ended on July 5th though most of us knew the bill was on the table and we needed to pay up and leave. The Governments who were at the fag end of the party were broken politically and economically and their successors have come in and having told everyone the truth are also suffering.
Only those who claim they can either keep the party going or re-start it are being heard but as is always the case many refuse to listen to things they don’t want to hear whether it’s the economy, the environment or whatever or rail against it.
Labour has a big majority - it can and could ride out unpopularity in the short term but the 104 Labour MPs whose seats are vulnerable on a 5% swing or less will begin to worry in a couple of years if there is no improvement.
Those MPs should assume they are one term posts. Their loss doesn't mean necessarily that Labour will be out of power.
I don't think Trump expects to take Greenland by force; he expects Denmark to roll over. Which is why this is a crisis for Denmark. Do they roll over or do they resist, when they absolutely don't want to do either?
The obvious move would be to facilitate a transparent and fair referendum in Greenland asap to discern the will of the people, though we all know how reluctant sovereign states are to do that.
A referendum you say? Just means Putin will spend ten million bucks - and end up with Greenland in Russia.
Prompts the question "how many divisions does the EU have?"
(none, yet...)
Just make sure they’re not Hungarian troops
Well, quite.
There's not going to be an EU army, but a semi-permanent European "coalition of the willing" to back up European interests when the US isn't willing to seems needed now.
Trouble is, once that nascent European Army starts being constructed, the American military will wave Europe "cheerio...." because we can do it ourselves.
I'd have thought its to their benefit they provide the backbone for Europe, even if they think (correctly) the continent needs to do more.
Good luck making that case to the current US administration!
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Question: would the UK economy be better off if the Sunak/Hunt team had been supervising the economy these past six months with their supposed "biased towards politics" schtick versus the Starmer/Reeves "bias towards government"?
Wouldn’t have made much difference. Possibly worse. Hunt would have faced reality too and would have had to rolled back policies designed to engineer an election bounce. I guess the right wing press might have been less hysterical.
Which is precisely why we had an early election.
In theory the last day for a GE was 28/1/25 so we could still have a Tory government if they had wanted to go as long as they could, but having salted the earth and a giveaway budget they knew that it would be better to skip town than face reality.
I don't think Trump expects to take Greenland by force; he expects Denmark to roll over. Which is why this is a crisis for Denmark. Do they roll over or do they resist, when they absolutely don't want to do either?
The current line is very good.
Greenland is not for sale (“f*** off Mr T). It’s up to the Greenlanders (“it’s not Denmark being difficult”)
Then work behind the scenes to make sure that the Greenlanders don’t do anything silly
I don't think Trump expects to take Greenland by force; he expects Denmark to roll over. Which is why this is a crisis for Denmark. Do they roll over or do they resist, when they absolutely don't want to do either?
They don't need to really do either. They can refuse to sell, and indeed have.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Talking about tax rises isn’t talking the economy down.
Talking the economy down is talking the economy down.
The government would have been less unpopular if they had, say, merged Income Tax and NI, simplified the rates, and put up the combined tax a bit.
Between pulling people into NI and higher rates, this would have raised a fair bit.
This would have caused a tidal wave of returns from the alt-left parties - Starmer being Proper Labour.
The markets would have taken this as a sign of *funded* increased expenditure. Government borrowing costs would have fallen.
Sold as “Needed to save public services, expand defence spending, tough times etc” - it could have been sold as a positive message of taking tough decisions to deliver results.
Similarly, WFA could have been dealt with as part of a wholesale rebuild of pensioner benefits - “We need to concentrate on the poorest”
Yes, but that all comes back to the promise not to increase rates of income tax, employee NI or VAT, and continue the Triple lock.
No incoming Chancellor should tie their hands like that. It leaves them with no room for financial manoeuvre. Dumb of Starmer/Reeves, particularly so for the whole term. Promising it for the first year or two like Blair did would have been better.
The “Ming Vase” strategy was fine for Blair and Brown with the finances in surplus and the economy growing. Indeed, it effectively neutered the Conservatives until 1999 as Brown was only doing what Clarke would have done had he still been at No.11.
Starmer and Reeves lacked confidence and while failing to rule out income tax and VAT rises would have given the Tories some room for attack and the first debate showed the potential, there was so much else against the Conservatives it wouldn’t have made much difference to the outcome.
I think Reeves could have done as some on here have suggested and while there’d have been plenty of complaints (aren’t there always?) at a fundamental level it would have been accepted as necessary.
Cleared up the devastation in the back garden, luckily mostly the contents of wheelie bins, our own and neighbouring. Filled the bird feeders and almost immediately a squadron of small birds descended. Strangely uplifting, though I'm sure it won't last.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
There's a difference between: not pretending that government finances are OK; and presenting the problems with wall to wall gloom without any hint of how you're going to tackle them with a bit of hope at the end of X years.
Prompts the question "how many divisions does the EU have?"
(none, yet...)
Just make sure they’re not Hungarian troops
Well, quite.
There's not going to be an EU army, but a semi-permanent European "coalition of the willing" to back up European interests when the US isn't willing to seems needed now.
Trouble is, once that nascent European Army starts being constructed, the American military will wave Europe "cheerio...." because we can do it ourselves.
I'd have thought its to their benefit they provide the backbone for Europe, even if they think (correctly) the continent needs to do more.
Good luck making that case to the current US administration!
"Sir, they may not be obvious about it, but they have to pay us homage at present. They fear and need our power. YOUR power, sir. We can make them buy our stuff and thank us for it"
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Talking about tax rises isn’t talking the economy down.
Talking the economy down is talking the economy down.
The government would have been less unpopular if they had, say, merged Income Tax and NI, simplified the rates, and put up the combined tax a bit.
Between pulling people into NI and higher rates, this would have raised a fair bit.
This would have caused a tidal wave of returns from the alt-left parties - Starmer being Proper Labour.
The markets would have taken this as a sign of *funded* increased expenditure. Government borrowing costs would have fallen.
Sold as “Needed to save public services, expand defence spending, tough times etc” - it could have been sold as a positive message of taking tough decisions to deliver results.
Similarly, WFA could have been dealt with as part of a wholesale rebuild of pensioner benefits - “We need to concentrate on the poorest”
Yes, but that all comes back to the promise not to increase rates of income tax, employee NI or VAT, and continue the Triple lock.
No incoming Chancellor should tie their hands like that. It leaves them with no room for financial manoeuvre. Dumb of Starmer/Reeves, particularly so for the whole term. Promising it for the first year or two like Blair did would have been better.
There is plenty of room for financial manoeuvre, the problem is it just requires making decisions which are not covered by that which may be unpopular with vested interests.
The problem is they're not willing to do that.
It also won't be necessary to increase tax rates if we get decent economic growth which would be easily achievable if we take that handbrake off the economy by implementing credible and serious reforms, which would be unpopular with vested interests.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Question: would the UK economy be better off if the Sunak/Hunt team had been supervising the economy these past six months with their supposed "biased towards politics" schtick versus the Starmer/Reeves "bias towards government"?
Wouldn’t have made much difference. Possibly worse. Hunt would have faced reality too and would have had to rolled back policies designed to engineer an election bounce. I guess the right wing press might have been less hysterical.
Which is precisely why we had an early election.
In theory the last day for a GE was 28/1/25 so we could still have a Tory government if they had wanted to go as long as they could, but having salted the earth and a giveaway budget they knew that it would be better to skip town than face reality.
And that is why, as an old-school conservative, I can't admire Sunak and Hunt, for all they started by clearing some of the mess their predecessors gave them.
Politically, they were doomed from day one. They were perfectly placed to do government-not-politics and fix some of the politically impossible problems the nation has. Not only did they flunk that, they made things worse with their NI cuts and joke spending plans.
I don't think Trump expects to take Greenland by force; he expects Denmark to roll over. Which is why this is a crisis for Denmark. Do they roll over or do they resist, when they absolutely don't want to do either?
The obvious move would be to facilitate a transparent and fair referendum in Greenland asap to discern the will of the people, though we all know how reluctant sovereign states are to do that.
AFAIK the Greenlandic government has the power to call that referendum. I assume the issue of the ending of Danish subsidies amounting to 40% of GDP and 60% of government income are complicating the decision to go ahead by the pro independence PM. However if Trump offered to substitute those subsidies from the US I would guess the calculation might change.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
You cannot be allowed to get away with such nonsense on PB. For your punishment, write this out 100 times; "Starmer and Reeves have squandered the golden legacy they inherited after 14 years of inch-perfect Conservative Governments".
I don't think Trump expects to take Greenland by force; he expects Denmark to roll over. Which is why this is a crisis for Denmark. Do they roll over or do they resist, when they absolutely don't want to do either?
The obvious move would be to facilitate a transparent and fair referendum in Greenland asap to discern the will of the people, though we all know how reluctant sovereign states are to do that.
AFAIK the Greenlandic government has the power to call that referendum. I assume the issue of the ending of Danish subsidies amounting to 40% of GDP and 60% of government income are complicating the decision to go ahead by the pro independence PM. However if Trump offered to substitute those subsidies from the US I would guess the calculation might change.
Assuming the Danish government isn't as petulant and minatory as governments tend to be in these situations (a dangerous assumption I know), it would be a great opportunity to guarantee a smooth transition with gradually reducing subsidies as Greenland comes into its own as an independent nation.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Question: would the UK economy be better off if the Sunak/Hunt team had been supervising the economy these past six months with their supposed "biased towards politics" schtick versus the Starmer/Reeves "bias towards government"?
Wouldn’t have made much difference. Possibly worse. Hunt would have faced reality too and would have had to rolled back policies designed to engineer an election bounce. I guess the right wing press might have been less hysterical.
Which is precisely why we had an early election.
In theory the last day for a GE was 28/1/25 so we could still have a Tory government if they had wanted to go as long as they could, but having salted the earth and a giveaway budget they knew that it would be better to skip town than face reality.
And that is why, as an old-school conservative, I can't admire Sunak and Hunt, for all they started by clearing some of the mess their predecessors gave them.
Politically, they were doomed from day one. They were perfectly placed to do government-not-politics and fix some of the politically impossible problems the nation has. Not only did they flunk that, they made things worse with their NI cuts and joke spending plans.
Again with this bullshit about "NI cuts" that you know is not true.
They put taxes up not down by freezing the thresholds and raising NI which cushions the impact of the threshold cut on those working for a living, while being a pure tax rise for those not working for their income. Overall, net, it was a tax rise.
Why do you repeat this bollocks about a "tax cut" as salting the earth when income tax was put up (that is the effect of a threshold freeze) by enough to more than counter the NI cut?
As we have ever higher proportions of people getting their income through means that don't require paying NI, but do require paying Income Tax, merging NI and Income Tax together is both good for the Exchequer and the right and fair thing to do - and that small step to doing so was fully funded!
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Question: would the UK economy be better off if the Sunak/Hunt team had been supervising the economy these past six months with their supposed "biased towards politics" schtick versus the Starmer/Reeves "bias towards government"?
Wouldn’t have made much difference. Possibly worse. Hunt would have faced reality too and would have had to rolled back policies designed to engineer an election bounce. I guess the right wing press might have been less hysterical.
Which is precisely why we had an early election.
In theory the last day for a GE was 28/1/25 so we could still have a Tory government if they had wanted to go as long as they could, but having salted the earth and a giveaway budget they knew that it would be better to skip town than face reality.
And that is why, as an old-school conservative, I can't admire Sunak and Hunt, for all they started by clearing some of the mess their predecessors gave them.
Politically, they were doomed from day one. They were perfectly placed to do government-not-politics and fix some of the politically impossible problems the nation has. Not only did they flunk that, they made things worse with their NI cuts and joke spending plans.
1.Highest share of the vote in 2025 with a BPC registered pollster in a GB wide poll for each of Lab, Con, LD, Reform: LAB – 35%, Con – 30%, LD 15%, Reform 30%
2.Lowest share of the vote in 2025 with a BPC registered pollster in a GB wide poll for each of Lab, Con, LD, Reform: LAB – 22%, Con – 18%, LD 9%, Reform 20%
3.Number of Reform MPs on 31/12/2025: 6
4.Number of Tory MP defectors to Reform in 2025: 0
5.Number of Westminster by-elections held in 2025: 2
6.Number of ministers to leave the Westminster cabinet during 2025: 2
7.Number of seats won by the AfD in the 2025 German Federal Election: 150
8.UK CPI figure for November 2025: 2.8%
9.UK borrowing in the financial year-to-November 2025: £127bn
10. UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2025: 1.6%
11.US growth annualised rate in Q3 2025: 2.9%
12.EU growth Q3 2024 to Q3 2025: 1.1%
13.USD/Ruble exchange rate at London FOREX close on 31/12/2025: 125 USD/RUB
14.The result of the 2025-2026 Ashes series: Australia 3-1 England
Trump has had 4 years to think up all of this craziness.
Perhaps it would have been better for the world if he had just beaten Biden in 2020, and carried on in his "not do a lot" mode of operation?
*If* he'd beaten Biden in 2020? C'mon get with the programme.
There is a weird trend post for some post election to act as though because he won anyone who criticised him was wrong to do so and must make up for it by acknowledging they were wrong.
Politicians and business leaders might need to roll back position because of the change but media and regular people dont. So long as they are not in denial about why a majority of americans did pick Trump, or just wallow in performative hatred.
We don't really know why he won. It's in the eye of the beholder. Of course it would have been many many things (eg inflation has to be right up there) but if we want just the one I think it's because he tapped with an almost freakish intuition into people's baser instincts. This is the black magic of Donald Trump the politician and for me it best explains what happened on Nov 5th.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Question: would the UK economy be better off if the Sunak/Hunt team had been supervising the economy these past six months with their supposed "biased towards politics" schtick versus the Starmer/Reeves "bias towards government"?
Wouldn’t have made much difference. Possibly worse. Hunt would have faced reality too and would have had to rolled back policies designed to engineer an election bounce. I guess the right wing press might have been less hysterical.
Which is precisely why we had an early election.
In theory the last day for a GE was 28/1/25 so we could still have a Tory government if they had wanted to go as long as they could, but having salted the earth and a giveaway budget they knew that it would be better to skip town than face reality.
And that is why, as an old-school conservative, I can't admire Sunak and Hunt, for all they started by clearing some of the mess their predecessors gave them.
Politically, they were doomed from day one. They were perfectly placed to do government-not-politics and fix some of the politically impossible problems the nation has. Not only did they flunk that, they made things worse with their NI cuts and joke spending plans.
Again with this bullshit about "NI cuts" that you know is not true.
They put taxes up not down by freezing the thresholds and raising NI which cushions the impact of the threshold cut on those working for a living, while being a pure tax rise for those not working for their income. Overall, net, it was a tax rise.
Why do you repeat this bollocks about a "tax cut" as salting the earth when income tax was put up (that is the effect of a threshold freeze) by enough to more than counter the NI cut?
As we have ever higher proportions of people getting their income through means that don't require paying NI, but do require paying Income Tax, merging NI and Income Tax together is both good for the Exchequer and the right and fair thing to do - and that small step to doing so was fully funded!
Because you're looking at the mix of taxes, I'm looking at the total. Government spending is still massively greater than government income.
And nobody has a politically acceptable and realistic way of cutting government spending.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Question: would the UK economy be better off if the Sunak/Hunt team had been supervising the economy these past six months with their supposed "biased towards politics" schtick versus the Starmer/Reeves "bias towards government"?
Wouldn’t have made much difference. Possibly worse. Hunt would have faced reality too and would have had to rolled back policies designed to engineer an election bounce. I guess the right wing press might have been less hysterical.
Which is precisely why we had an early election.
In theory the last day for a GE was 28/1/25 so we could still have a Tory government if they had wanted to go as long as they could, but having salted the earth and a giveaway budget they knew that it would be better to skip town than face reality.
And that is why, as an old-school conservative, I can't admire Sunak and Hunt, for all they started by clearing some of the mess their predecessors gave them.
Politically, they were doomed from day one. They were perfectly placed to do government-not-politics and fix some of the politically impossible problems the nation has. Not only did they flunk that, they made things worse with their NI cuts and joke spending plans.
Again with this bullshit about "NI cuts" that you know is not true.
They put taxes up not down by freezing the thresholds and raising NI which cushions the impact of the threshold cut on those working for a living, while being a pure tax rise for those not working for their income. Overall, net, it was a tax rise.
Why do you repeat this bollocks about a "tax cut" as salting the earth when income tax was put up (that is the effect of a threshold freeze) by enough to more than counter the NI cut?
As we have ever higher proportions of people getting their income through means that don't require paying NI, but do require paying Income Tax, merging NI and Income Tax together is both good for the Exchequer and the right and fair thing to do - and that small step to doing so was fully funded!
Because you're looking at the mix of taxes, I'm looking at the total. Government spending is still massively greater than government income.
And nobody has a politically acceptable and realistic way of cutting government spending.
Yes but a net tax rise (which is what Hunt did by freezing the thresholds and cutting NI) helps that total government spend/tax situation, it doesn't hurt it.
Yet you repeat patent bollocks about an "NI cut" while disregarding that it was part of a package that was a net tax rise.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Talking about tax rises isn’t talking the economy down.
Talking the economy down is talking the economy down.
The government would have been less unpopular if they had, say, merged Income Tax and NI, simplified the rates, and put up the combined tax a bit.
Between pulling people into NI and higher rates, this would have raised a fair bit.
This would have caused a tidal wave of returns from the alt-left parties - Starmer being Proper Labour.
The markets would have taken this as a sign of *funded* increased expenditure. Government borrowing costs would have fallen.
Sold as “Needed to save public services, expand defence spending, tough times etc” - it could have been sold as a positive message of taking tough decisions to deliver results.
Similarly, WFA could have been dealt with as part of a wholesale rebuild of pensioner benefits - “We need to concentrate on the poorest”
Yes, but that all comes back to the promise not to increase rates of income tax, employee NI or VAT, and continue the Triple lock.
No incoming Chancellor should tie their hands like that. It leaves them with no room for financial manoeuvre. Dumb of Starmer/Reeves, particularly so for the whole term. Promising it for the first year or two like Blair did would have been better.
Leaving income tax and NI alone were sensible policies. The milking of wages is already severe; fiddling the pledge by hiking employer NI (which will obviously be passed straight onto workers through redundancy and wage suppression) was bloody stupid.
VAT can be argued either way. I suppose there would've been room to create a new rate of VAT applicable to spending on luxury goods, but that wouldn't have raised an enormous amount. Hiking the rate across the board is a sub-optimal measure in the midst of a cost of living crisis. Crossing the Rubicon and applying VAT to all food purchases would raise a lot of money but wreck the finances of households across the bottom half of the income distribution.
The triple lock should've been binned. It's a massive and destructive wealth transfer mechanism, the net effect of which will be, over time, to progressively impoverish the young and poor by handing what little they have to the old and rich. Labour committed a fatal error by failing to explain that it was unaffordable and would have to be replaced by something less generous, and now they are stuck with it - something made all the more astonishing by the fact that the elderly are the only age group that still backed the Tories at the GE. Starmer has fucked over his own supporters to pay for Kemi Badenoch's core voters to be insulated from the endless austerity applied to everyone else. Lunacy.
I don't think Trump expects to take Greenland by force; he expects Denmark to roll over. Which is why this is a crisis for Denmark. Do they roll over or do they resist, when they absolutely don't want to do either?
Keep talking for two years till the mid-terms then reassess. There is a reason they were quick off the starting block.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Question: would the UK economy be better off if the Sunak/Hunt team had been supervising the economy these past six months with their supposed "biased towards politics" schtick versus the Starmer/Reeves "bias towards government"?
Wouldn’t have made much difference. Possibly worse. Hunt would have faced reality too and would have had to rolled back policies designed to engineer an election bounce. I guess the right wing press might have been less hysterical.
Which is precisely why we had an early election.
In theory the last day for a GE was 28/1/25 so we could still have a Tory government if they had wanted to go as long as they could, but having salted the earth and a giveaway budget they knew that it would be better to skip town than face reality.
And that is why, as an old-school conservative, I can't admire Sunak and Hunt, for all they started by clearing some of the mess their predecessors gave them.
Politically, they were doomed from day one. They were perfectly placed to do government-not-politics and fix some of the politically impossible problems the nation has. Not only did they flunk that, they made things worse with their NI cuts and joke spending plans.
Again with this bullshit about "NI cuts" that you know is not true.
They put taxes up not down by freezing the thresholds and raising NI which cushions the impact of the threshold cut on those working for a living, while being a pure tax rise for those not working for their income. Overall, net, it was a tax rise.
Why do you repeat this bollocks about a "tax cut" as salting the earth when income tax was put up (that is the effect of a threshold freeze) by enough to more than counter the NI cut?
As we have ever higher proportions of people getting their income through means that don't require paying NI, but do require paying Income Tax, merging NI and Income Tax together is both good for the Exchequer and the right and fair thing to do - and that small step to doing so was fully funded!
In my opinion a big part of why the Tories lost so heavily is because of stunts like this. People can see when their taxes go up and down. Saying "WE HAVE CUT YOUR TAXES" so loudly as people's taxes go up? Makes people think you are lying to them. Keep saying it? Makes people think you must think they are stupid...
We still get Tories on PB and elsewhere saying the demonstrably obviously laughably incorrect things. Stuff that so obviously isn't true that even they must know they are repeating a lie. Yet repeat it they do. I don't get it. I know it worked for Trump, but that's Murica. As I've said so many times, our voters aren't stupid.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Talking about tax rises isn’t talking the economy down.
Talking the economy down is talking the economy down.
The government would have been less unpopular if they had, say, merged Income Tax and NI, simplified the rates, and put up the combined tax a bit.
Between pulling people into NI and higher rates, this would have raised a fair bit.
This would have caused a tidal wave of returns from the alt-left parties - Starmer being Proper Labour.
The markets would have taken this as a sign of *funded* increased expenditure. Government borrowing costs would have fallen.
Sold as “Needed to save public services, expand defence spending, tough times etc” - it could have been sold as a positive message of taking tough decisions to deliver results.
Similarly, WFA could have been dealt with as part of a wholesale rebuild of pensioner benefits - “We need to concentrate on the poorest”
Yes, but that all comes back to the promise not to increase rates of income tax, employee NI or VAT, and continue the Triple lock.
No incoming Chancellor should tie their hands like that. It leaves them with no room for financial manoeuvre. Dumb of Starmer/Reeves, particularly so for the whole term. Promising it for the first year or two like Blair did would have been better.
Leaving income tax and NI alone were sensible policies. The milking of wages is already severe; fiddling the pledge by hiking employer NI (which will obviously be passed straight onto workers through redundancy and wage suppression) was bloody stupid.
VAT can be argued either way. I suppose there would've been room to create a new rate of VAT applicable to spending on luxury goods, but that wouldn't have raised an enormous amount. Hiking the rate across the board is a sub-optimal measure in the midst of a cost of living crisis. Crossing the Rubicon and applying VAT to all food purchases would raise a lot of money but wreck the finances of households across the bottom half of the income distribution.
The triple lock should've been binned. It's a massive and destructive wealth transfer mechanism, the net effect of which will be, over time, to progressively impoverish the young and poor by handing what little they have to the old and rich. Labour committed a fatal error by failing to explain that it was unaffordable and would have to be replaced by something less generous, and now they are stuck with it - something made all the more astonishing by the fact that the elderly are the only age group that still backed the Tories at the GE. Starmer has fucked over his own supporters to pay for Kemi Badenoch's core voters to be insulated from the endless austerity applied to everyone else. Lunacy.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
Ultimately, government and poltics are different things that have to happen in the same space. Boosterism is excellent politics- it gets you into power. But it's lousy government; you can only really run things sucessfully if you have an utterly realistic understanding of the real situation. If your mental map of the rest of the world is a fantasy, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
Question: would the UK economy be better off if the Sunak/Hunt team had been supervising the economy these past six months with their supposed "biased towards politics" schtick versus the Starmer/Reeves "bias towards government"?
Wouldn’t have made much difference. Possibly worse. Hunt would have faced reality too and would have had to rolled back policies designed to engineer an election bounce. I guess the right wing press might have been less hysterical.
Which is precisely why we had an early election.
In theory the last day for a GE was 28/1/25 so we could still have a Tory government if they had wanted to go as long as they could, but having salted the earth and a giveaway budget they knew that it would be better to skip town than face reality.
And that is why, as an old-school conservative, I can't admire Sunak and Hunt, for all they started by clearing some of the mess their predecessors gave them.
Politically, they were doomed from day one. They were perfectly placed to do government-not-politics and fix some of the politically impossible problems the nation has. Not only did they flunk that, they made things worse with their NI cuts and joke spending plans.
Again with this bullshit about "NI cuts" that you know is not true.
They put taxes up not down by freezing the thresholds and raising NI which cushions the impact of the threshold cut on those working for a living, while being a pure tax rise for those not working for their income. Overall, net, it was a tax rise.
Why do you repeat this bollocks about a "tax cut" as salting the earth when income tax was put up (that is the effect of a threshold freeze) by enough to more than counter the NI cut?
As we have ever higher proportions of people getting their income through means that don't require paying NI, but do require paying Income Tax, merging NI and Income Tax together is both good for the Exchequer and the right and fair thing to do - and that small step to doing so was fully funded!
In my opinion a big part of why the Tories lost so heavily is because of stunts like this. People can see when their taxes go up and down. Saying "WE HAVE CUT YOUR TAXES" so loudly as people's taxes go up? Makes people think you are lying to them. Keep saying it? Makes people think you must think they are stupid...
We still get Tories on PB and elsewhere saying the demonstrably obviously laughably incorrect things. Stuff that so obviously isn't true that even they must know they are repeating a lie. Yet repeat it they do. I don't get it. I know it worked for Trump, but that's Murica. As I've said so many times, our voters aren't stupid.
Yes you're right that it was a tax rise and yet we have people like Stuart pretending it was a salting the earth tax cut.
If Labour want to raise taxes then repeating that would be good economics.
Sadly they probably won't just because it was a Tory policy so they'll do the opposite, even though its the right thing to do.
Taxes should be levelled more on that which you wish to discourage. Taxing work-earned income more than unearned incomes means you wish to discourage work and encourage people to find alternative sources of income that doesn't involve being productive. It is an absurd way to run the country!
As important as the election of Donald Trump this week was the launch of deepseek in China. China has now caught up with the US in AI . Massive implications.
you haven’t used deepseek r1 yet, you’re missing out. watching the model argue with itself, test ideas, & refine its approach feels eerily close to human cognition. it’s not just producing answers—it’s thinking out loud, & the effect is uncanny.
for the first time, it genuinely feels like we’re sharing the planet with another form of intelligence. seeing its thought process unfold makes you realize how close we are to asi—closer than most people are ready to admit.
As important as the election of Donald Trump this week was the launch of deepseek in China. China has now caught up with the US in AI . Massive implications.
you haven’t used deepseek r1 yet, you’re missing out. watching the model argue with itself, test ideas, & refine its approach feels eerily close to human cognition. it’s not just producing answers—it’s thinking out loud, & the effect is uncanny.
for the first time, it genuinely feels like we’re sharing the planet with another form of intelligence. seeing its thought process unfold makes you realize how close we are to asi—closer than most people are ready to admit.
the r1 drop should be setting off alarm bells in the entire western capitalist apparatus.
for the first time in a while, i’m genuinely afraid the u.s. is losing its dominance—its influence, its capacity to innovate, & its ability to outcompete on a global scale. the core issue isn’t just regulatory capture or bureaucratic inertia. the real problem is also the managerial class: a bloated, risk-averse, overpaid, over glorified layer that’s systematically dismantled the mechanisms that once made the u.s. competitive. meta is a great example of this (look at what happened with llama)—that’s with a founder running it, now imagine google where there is a professional manager running it & 5k vp’s underneath.
meanwhile, china is surging ahead. it’s not just drones or now a world-class ai model; it’s the entire ecosystem. robots are building other robots at scale. their tech is cheap, effective, & ubiquitous. the world’s supply chain—its manufacturing core—is de facto chinese.
china isn’t just catching up; it’s scaling the future. if the west continues down this path—short-term thinking, managerial inefficiency, & a refusal to prioritize strategic innovation—it risks becoming irrelevant in the face of a system designed for precision & long-term dominance. this isn’t just a challenge; it’s an existential threat to western economic & technological leadership.
As my pic of the day could I put up the breakdown of how the government spends its money. Often the discussion here is about how much tax is taken and how it might be changed. All spending is driven by legislation so changing it requires a bit more thought. For example there is much more spent on debt interest than on the benefit scroungers so beloved of the Daily Mail. Perhaps a root and branch analysis of the legislation is needed to see what duties and responsibilities the government must have.
Then there might be a sensible discussion about tax,
Good morning one and all. Bright, with a gentle breeze here today. A little chilly, but after all we are in January.
One of the issues with the triple lock is that while there are quite a few pensioners with adequate pensions and realisable assets there are also quite a few (a similar number?) with neither. Mrs C and I are among the fortunate, but we do know people who are in the other category. Losing the WFP was of little concern to us, but it might have been better to pay it this year and sort out a better scheme..... one which left us out, but allowed for those in difficulties ...... next year. Maybe a 'better' scheme can be devised for this autumn, in which case most, of not all, will be forgotten.
This is a massive threat to the mag 7 in the US which are already very highly valued.
China’s #DeepSeek could represent the biggest threat to US equity markets as the company seems to have built a groundbreaking AI model at an extremely low price and w/o having access to cutting-edge chips, calling into question the utility of the hundreds of billions worth of capex being poured into this industry. https://cnb.cx/3Wtl7he (via @knowledge_vital )
Comments
He might be public enemy number one and effectively be run out of the country by 2029.
More likely he and his party will just fade away into obscurity...
Most of Trump's actions are either stupid, petty or self-defeating, but there is certainly a lot going on.
In the short term though I expect a sugar rush of economic activity in the USA from all the tax cuts and spending, before the bubble pops.
Perhaps it would have been better for the world if he had just beaten Biden in 2020, and carried on in his "not do a lot" mode of operation?
Hmmm.....
Point taken re hotels, but they also profit from imposing the wider costs of tourism in the economy for the rest of us to pay for.
Of course also the tourist industry sensu lato should perhaps not have shat the bed so conspicuously for years (and I'm not thinking of the Golden Turd) quite apart from the AirBNB problem. Cramming so many tourists into Edinburgh at peak times and overcharging everyone and giving crap service (especailly the restaurants, with their reduced and m uch more expensive menus; Arts Festival incl Fringe which in the view of very many locals is grossly bloated; Xmas/New Year). And so arrogantly (cutting down trees in Princes Street Gardens just to get some more "Christmas bazaar" booths for hot dogs and mulled wine FFS, though walling the Gardens off from Princes St and blocking the view etc. didn't get repeated when they realised the public reaction) The peak costs of crowd control, cxleaning up the litter, policing, etc. need to be covered. It's not accidental that Paul Johnston's detective stories set in a future Edinburgh satirise this.
£2-3 a night woiuld imply £40-£60 per person at 5% so seems commensurate?
PS: central Edinburgh is very discernibly heading this way, so something needs to be done. THere is also an AirBNB control system coming in, so it's not just equating hotels with the rest (or at least it's levelling things somewhat).
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/jan/25/no-neighbours-overtourism-residents-spain-portugal-visitor
On the minus side he'd probably have abandoned Ukraine to Putin, and done plenty of damage elsewhere.
So if we're allowed to have different people winning close elections I'd rather have Clinton beating Trump in 2016. Or Clinton beating Obama in 2008. Or Gore beating Bush in 2000
So can he afford to not defend Trump? Its not like he literally does whatever Trump says, but could he manage a move from mild critique to criticism?
Who are Working Towards The Trump, sure. But are also pursuing their agendas as well.
Trump is happy to enable others in return for support. See the ongoing abortion stuff - he is, as far as anyone can tell, not an abortion ideologue. But by supporting the anti-abortion fundies he has acquired a phalanx of devoted voters - “He delivered us the judges he promised, unlike decades of RINOs”.
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The “America First” schtick is nothing new but there’s a difference between self interest and isolationism.
Whether it’s an effective method of handling illegal immigration depends on how the new administration chooses to regulate legal migration. The emphasis in the UK remains far too much on “stop the boats” rather than coming up with a coherent and effective policy for legal migration.
There’s probably a policy out there but it will never satisfy those who see all migrants in a particular way and nor will it satisfy those who view the open door as a mechanism for maintaining economic growth via the import of cheap unskilled labour.
As with so much else, it needs to be part of a proactive and planned series of policies. Immigration tends to be reactive and the response to it even more so.
Trump, pace Reagan and Johnson, is all “glad confident morning” and that works superficially. Indeed, those who believe honesty is the best policy have never tried politics. The electorate doesn’t respond well to the truth after a long period of being told everything was fine. Governments of all stripes and none are struggling to get their economies moving and the economic malaise has social and cultural impacts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_colonization_of_North_America
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c36e41dx425o.amp
Nothing indicates that this has changed.
Closer to home, we have to defeat our right wing populists. Badenoch telling Truss to shut up was a good thing.
Politicians and business leaders might need to roll back position because of the change but media and regular people dont. So long as they are not in denial about why a majority of americans did pick Trump, or just wallow in performative hatred.
Some of the mewling we are seeing in the UK at the moment is because we have gone from a government which was biased towards politics to one with a bias towards government. Not all of it, but some of it. So being told the unpleasant reality (that taxes need to go up, not down) is heard as talking the economy down.
(Note that isn't Starmer's only weakness. But some of the anger is because he isn't pretending that the government finances are tickety-boo.)
https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/druck-von-donald-trump-eu-general-schlaegt-stationierung-von-eu-soldaten-in-groenland-vor-a-d39fd4d1-e59c-4e12-9635-f6ad3690f060
Prompts the question "how many divisions does the EU have?"
(none, yet...)
Either outcome will utterly screw the already-very-unhealthy Russian economy.
But whilst there's some Trump support in this country her enthusiasm level is a bit beyond most Tories.
There's not going to be an EU army, but a semi-permanent European "coalition of the willing" to back up European interests when the US isn't willing to seems needed now.
I think the same was true of some of the early attempts at colonisation by English settlers in North America too, hence the failure at Roanoke and near failure at Jamestown.
Talking the economy down is talking the economy down.
The government would have been less unpopular if they had, say, merged Income Tax and NI, simplified the rates, and put up the combined tax a bit.
Between pulling people into NI and higher rates, this would have raised a fair bit.
This would have caused a tidal wave of returns from the alt-left parties - Starmer being Proper Labour.
The markets would have taken this as a sign of *funded* increased expenditure. Government borrowing costs would have fallen.
Sold as “Needed to save public services, expand defence spending, tough times etc” - it could have been sold as a positive message of taking tough decisions to deliver results.
Similarly, WFA could have been dealt with as part of a wholesale rebuild of pensioner benefits - “We need to concentrate on the poorest”
Interesting to see a faltering start to Trump’s “mass deportations”. Eighty is a start, his supporters might say and I did idly wonder if the plan would be to cajole other Central American countries other than Guatemala to accept the flights. The You’re not wrong, my friend.
The “party” ended on July 5th though most of us knew the bill was on the table and we needed to pay up and leave. The Governments who were at the fag end of the party were broken politically and economically and their successors have come in and having told everyone the truth are also suffering.
Only those who claim they can either keep the party going or re-start it are being heard but as is always the case many refuse to listen to things they don’t want to hear whether it’s the economy, the environment or whatever or rail against it.
Labour has a big majority - it can and could ride out unpopularity in the short term but the 104 Labour MPs whose seats are vulnerable on a 5% swing or less will begin to worry in a couple of years if there is no improvement.
Italy, Spain and Greece - all about 180 ships each.
France lots of submarines, and Germany, but obviously theirs not Nuclear. The Swedes and Finns seem to have quite decent-sized Navies, as well.
Ho-hum.
Are the current population similarly vulnerable now?
No incoming Chancellor should tie their hands like that. It leaves them with no room for financial manoeuvre. Dumb of Starmer/Reeves, particularly so for the whole term. Promising it for the first year or two like Blair did would have been better.
(1) Nationalist populism + the USA version of the state being on the side of ordinary people + bigging itself up around the world and generally showing that it is a big cheese.
(2) A plutocratic gangster oligarchy.
The first, as amended for UK, is very popular with a large proportion of the UK population.
We are not yet ready for the second. Not even most Reform voters.
How Reform get on will have some relation to how it is seen to be attached to Trumpism in its two forms. It could gain, it could lose. It will have to steer carefully.
But MPs are not known to be blasé about that.
In theory the last day for a GE was 28/1/25 so we could still have a Tory government if they had wanted to go as long as they could, but having salted the earth and a giveaway budget they knew that it would be better to skip town than face reality.
Greenland is not for sale (“f*** off Mr T). It’s up to the Greenlanders (“it’s not Denmark being difficult”)
Then work behind the scenes to make sure that the Greenlanders don’t do anything silly
Starmer and Reeves lacked confidence and while failing to rule out income tax and VAT rises would have given the Tories some room for attack and the first debate showed the potential, there was so much else against the Conservatives it wouldn’t have made much difference to the outcome.
I think Reeves could have done as some on here have suggested and while there’d have been plenty of complaints (aren’t there always?) at a fundamental level it would have been accepted as necessary.
Strangely uplifting, though I'm sure it won't last.
Good morning, everyone.
The problem is they're not willing to do that.
It also won't be necessary to increase tax rates if we get decent economic growth which would be easily achievable if we take that handbrake off the economy by implementing credible and serious reforms, which would be unpopular with vested interests.
The problem is they're not willing to do that.
Politically, they were doomed from day one. They were perfectly placed to do government-not-politics and fix some of the politically impossible problems the nation has. Not only did they flunk that, they made things worse with their NI cuts and joke spending plans.
Speculation that Israel's retired Patriot systems are getting acquired by Ukraine.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05/israel-retires-patriot-air-defenses-as-native-air-defense-systems-step-up/
They put taxes up not down by freezing the thresholds and raising NI which cushions the impact of the threshold cut on those working for a living, while being a pure tax rise for those not working for their income. Overall, net, it was a tax rise.
Why do you repeat this bollocks about a "tax cut" as salting the earth when income tax was put up (that is the effect of a threshold freeze) by enough to more than counter the NI cut?
As we have ever higher proportions of people getting their income through means that don't require paying NI, but do require paying Income Tax, merging NI and Income Tax together is both good for the Exchequer and the right and fair thing to do - and that small step to doing so was fully funded!
1.Highest share of the vote in 2025 with a BPC registered pollster in a GB wide poll for each of Lab, Con, LD, Reform: LAB – 35%, Con – 30%, LD 15%, Reform 30%
2.Lowest share of the vote in 2025 with a BPC registered pollster in a GB wide poll for each of Lab, Con, LD, Reform: LAB – 22%, Con – 18%, LD 9%, Reform 20%
3.Number of Reform MPs on 31/12/2025: 6
4.Number of Tory MP defectors to Reform in 2025: 0
5.Number of Westminster by-elections held in 2025: 2
6.Number of ministers to leave the Westminster cabinet during 2025: 2
7.Number of seats won by the AfD in the 2025 German Federal Election: 150
8.UK CPI figure for November 2025: 2.8%
9.UK borrowing in the financial year-to-November 2025: £127bn
10. UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2025: 1.6%
11.US growth annualised rate in Q3 2025: 2.9%
12.EU growth Q3 2024 to Q3 2025: 1.1%
13.USD/Ruble exchange rate at London FOREX close on 31/12/2025: 125 USD/RUB
14.The result of the 2025-2026 Ashes series: Australia 3-1 England
And nobody has a politically acceptable and realistic way of cutting government spending.
Often undertaking hopeless cases they know they will lose which inevitably causes delays.
If SKS can put a stop to this all well and good.
https://x.com/michaeldnes1/status/1883068824578334821?s=61
Yet you repeat patent bollocks about an "NI cut" while disregarding that it was part of a package that was a net tax rise.
VAT can be argued either way. I suppose there would've been room to create a new rate of VAT applicable to spending on luxury goods, but that wouldn't have raised an enormous amount. Hiking the rate across the board is a sub-optimal measure in the midst of a cost of living crisis. Crossing the Rubicon and applying VAT to all food purchases would raise a lot of money but wreck the finances of households across the bottom half of the income distribution.
The triple lock should've been binned. It's a massive and destructive wealth transfer mechanism, the net effect of which will be, over time, to progressively impoverish the young and poor by handing what little they have to the old and rich. Labour committed a fatal error by failing to explain that it was unaffordable and would have to be replaced by something less generous, and now they are stuck with it - something made all the more astonishing by the fact that the elderly are the only age group that still backed the Tories at the GE. Starmer has fucked over his own supporters to pay for Kemi Badenoch's core voters to be insulated from the endless austerity applied to everyone else. Lunacy.
We still get Tories on PB and elsewhere saying the demonstrably obviously laughably incorrect things. Stuff that so obviously isn't true that even they must know they are repeating a lie. Yet repeat it they do. I don't get it. I know it worked for Trump, but that's Murica. As I've said so many times, our voters aren't stupid.
If Labour want to raise taxes then repeating that would be good economics.
Sadly they probably won't just because it was a Tory policy so they'll do the opposite, even though its the right thing to do.
Taxes should be levelled more on that which you wish to discourage. Taxing work-earned income more than unearned incomes means you wish to discourage work and encourage people to find alternative sources of income that doesn't involve being productive. It is an absurd way to run the country!
you haven’t used deepseek r1 yet, you’re missing out. watching the model argue with itself, test ideas, & refine its approach feels eerily close to human cognition. it’s not just producing answers—it’s thinking out loud, & the effect is uncanny.
for the first time, it genuinely feels like we’re sharing the planet with another form of intelligence. seeing its thought process unfold makes you realize how close we are to asi—closer than most people are ready to admit.
i’m excited & genuinely fearful at the same time.
https://x.com/signulll/status/1882786965608894629
Said they focused on data infrastructure and knowledge modeling. Which was a long run win.
Techbros tried to lecture me. Now they're trying to pretend.
https://x.com/pplsartofwar/status/1882533067849707591
for the first time in a while, i’m genuinely afraid the u.s. is losing its dominance—its influence, its capacity to innovate, & its ability to outcompete on a global scale. the core issue isn’t just regulatory capture or bureaucratic inertia. the real problem is also the managerial class: a bloated, risk-averse, overpaid, over glorified layer that’s systematically dismantled the mechanisms that once made the u.s. competitive. meta is a great example of this (look at what happened with llama)—that’s with a founder running it, now imagine google where there is a professional manager running it & 5k vp’s underneath.
meanwhile, china is surging ahead. it’s not just drones or now a world-class ai model; it’s the entire ecosystem. robots are building other robots at scale. their tech is cheap, effective, & ubiquitous. the world’s supply chain—its manufacturing core—is de facto chinese.
china isn’t just catching up; it’s scaling the future. if the west continues down this path—short-term thinking, managerial inefficiency, & a refusal to prioritize strategic innovation—it risks becoming irrelevant in the face of a system designed for precision & long-term dominance. this isn’t just a challenge; it’s an existential threat to western economic & technological leadership.
https://x.com/signulll/status/1882898628525584663
Then there might be a sensible discussion about tax,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/live/c9dpwj4gw9pt
One of the issues with the triple lock is that while there are quite a few pensioners with adequate pensions and realisable assets there are also quite a few (a similar number?) with neither.
Mrs C and I are among the fortunate, but we do know people who are in the other category. Losing the WFP was of little concern to us, but it might have been better to pay it this year and sort out a better scheme..... one which left us out, but allowed for those in difficulties ...... next year. Maybe a 'better' scheme can be devised for this autumn, in which case most, of not all, will be forgotten.
China’s #DeepSeek could represent the biggest threat to US equity markets as the company seems to have built a groundbreaking AI model at an extremely low price and w/o having access to cutting-edge chips, calling into question the utility of the hundreds of billions worth of capex being poured into this industry. https://cnb.cx/3Wtl7he (via
@knowledge_vital
)
https://x.com/Schuldensuehner/status/1882908672952582477