I have conducted a quick review of Facebook and the narrative developing is that we should not be cutting incapacity benefits while we spend billions on asylum seeker hotels. I would guess that a very large proportion of the "middle-aged man on disability benefits" cohort are Reform voters (or soon to be so).
Also links being made to the assisted suicide bill, and waiting lists for operations. Former scaffolders with long-term injuries etc. This is going to be toxic.
Watch the numbers on asylum seeker hotels, which are due out this month.
They are about 40% down from peak, but tbf they also came down under the Conservatives.
But the riposte will be "why are the ANY hotels".
That they are not 4 star hotels as claimed does not matter, because the narrative is about emotion not truth.
So why are there any hotels?
Because we are insisting that they can't work until they are processed, and we're not processing them fast enough.
The interests of the local population seem to come last in either case. Either we put them up in hotels at great expense or let them compete against locals in the job and housing markets.
The best and cheapest and most humane solution is immediate processing. About 30% will be returned and 70% will be accepted as genuine asylum seekers.
These will enter the jobs and housing markets, paying taxes and doing useful work, including, in some cases, helping to build houses.
What do you suggest?
Why would about 70% be accepted? In France those percentages are reversed.
The fact remains that this is against the interests of the local population and if you believe in democracy then you can't ignore that.
So what do you suggest?
Do you think we should refuse to help people who are in danger in their own country?
The local population around me is generally welcoming of people seeking asylum. Some aren't. But there are always some who are uncharitable. Low on empathy.
PS I've checked the figures. It is about 50% in the UK and France who are accepted.
I have conducted a quick review of Facebook and the narrative developing is that we should not be cutting incapacity benefits while we spend billions on asylum seeker hotels. I would guess that a very large proportion of the "middle-aged man on disability benefits" cohort are Reform voters (or soon to be so).
Also links being made to the assisted suicide bill, and waiting lists for operations. Former scaffolders with long-term injuries etc. This is going to be toxic.
Watch the numbers on asylum seeker hotels, which are due out this month.
They are about 40% down from peak, but tbf they also came down under the Conservatives.
But the riposte will be "why are the ANY hotels".
That they are not 4 star hotels as claimed does not matter, because the narrative is about emotion not truth.
So why are there any hotels?
Because we are insisting that they can't work until they are processed, and we're not processing them fast enough.
The interests of the local population seem to come last in either case. Either we put them up in hotels at great expense or let them compete against locals in the job and housing markets.
The best and cheapest and most humane solution is immediate processing. About 30% will be returned and 70% will be accepted as genuine asylum seekers.
These will enter the jobs and housing markets, paying taxes and doing useful work, including, in some cases, helping to build houses.
What do you suggest?
I strongly doubt whether 70% are asylum seekers, and if they are, then the bar is set far too low. Finger in the air: about 2% should genuinely be offered asylum.
My best recommendation for listening today, a Foreign Affairs interview with Fiona Hill (not Theresa May's Fiona Hill -the other one),
She's a Bishop Auckland lass (from a mining family) who was a senior adviser to the first Trump Administration as Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs. She is now working as a key adviser to the British Government, and has been Chancellor of Durham Uni.
Very candid, and a lovely accent. @Taz will enjoy.
"Fiona Hill: What Does Trump See in Putin? | Foreign Affairs Interview"
I've listened to the full interview now, and yes - well worth it. Very pithy, and distils things our conversations have touched on.
Two interesting points to mention, from many others:
1 - The irony that the USA thought Russia would move towards the way the West does things in the 1990s, and now the USA is moving towards the way Russia does things.
2 - There is a parallel between the rapid collapse of State process Russia went through, and the process of rapid destruction of the State Trump & his backers are putting the USA through now.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
I can't say I've seen much evidence of Vance's intelligence myself. Are we sure that this isn't one of those things that everyone says without stopping to think why it's the case?
Read this article by Vance which could easily be in an academic journal or broadsheet paper.
My best recommendation for listening today, a Foreign Affairs interview with Fiona Hill (not Theresa May's Fiona Hill -the other one),
She's a Bishop Auckland lass (from a mining family) who was a senior adviser to the first Trump Administration as Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs. She is now working as a key adviser to the British Government, and has been Chancellor of Durham Uni.
Very candid, and a lovely accent. @Taz will enjoy.
"Fiona Hill: What Does Trump See in Putin? | Foreign Affairs Interview"
I've listened to the full interview now, and yes - well worth it. Very pithy, and distils things our conversations have touched on.
Two interesting points to mention, from many others:
1 - The irony that the USA thought Russia would move towards the way the West does things in the 1990s, and now the USA is moving towards the way Russia does things.
2 - There is a parallel between the rapid collapse of State process Russia went through, and the process of rapid destruction of the State Trump & his backers are putting the USA through now.
And the link between the two is 1990's disaster capitalism, as mentioned earlier. Russia was a laboratory for all this, and the tech-heads love Rees-Mogg's book of the same era, as mentioned earliet.
There is that Hillbilly Elegy book, which is generally considered to be not pulp.
Also, Thiel rates him, and Thiel.is bright
And interesting 2009 "how I got here" essay by Thiel (quite short):
"The Education of a Libertarian"
But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
Slightly surprised to see in recent weeks people stressing the need for the UK to build up an independent nuclear armoury who previously campaigned to get nuclear weapons out of Faslane
Circumstances alter cases.
One of the more interesting ones was the pivot by previous Peace Pledge Union people in the run up to WW2.
We are living in the middle of one, as some groups understand what Trump is really doing, in addition to the threat posed by Russia.
It will be very interesting to find who is left. There are all sorts of reasons, of course - some of them quite good reasons in the previous set of circumstances. And some of us (I hope my view, for one) will be too pessimistic on the other side - for all we know the legal system in the USA may get Musk and Trump under control.
Perhaps the USA will allow their weapons to be putchased for Ukraine on commercial terms for Ukraine, rather than go all out to neuter the possibility of any European help getting to Ukraine by refusing to sell us Himars, which is not even made in Europe.
We built the Florence Nightingale hospitals (I think that was the name) during Covid and did not need them. Was that an unnecessary insurance policy or a wise contingency we did not need?
The Nightingale hospitals were really hospices - very little in the way of facilities. Staff would have been whoever they could scrounge up with a little bit of medical knowledge. Even airline staff.
Their purpose was to prevent people dying in the street if hospitals got overrun (see Greece and Spain). Pretty much an indoor bed with an oxygen supply.
What was interesting was the ravening resistance to them being built, from within the permanent system of government - I knew someone whose career was destroyed because she pushed through completion of the one she was working on.
They were pointless without a plan for staffing them.
One of the lessons of Covid should be more resilience in the NHS, and that should include not operating at 100% occupation at all times. Planned surgery is cancelled every day at my Trust for lack of beds/ITU beds. Apart from the individual misery, it is very inefficient of surgical productivity.
As to the staffing for the Nightingales - there was a plan. Whoever they could find to hold the hands of the sick. And dying…
For the NHS - What about creating more staff? We’ve tried this one round the world - the NHS knows it’s future size and it’s demented that we don’t train staff to match.
I thought the idea of the Nightingales was to move the non serious and routine cases out of the hospitals into the Nightingales and then use the reglar hospitals for the serious covid cases?
There were several plans, actually. One was to move non-critical COVID cases there. Another was to (as you say) empty the hospitals of those who didn’t need complex medical care.
The whole thing was pretty stupid really.
They should have used the money to re-open old hospitals, nursing homes etc., and made them into respiratory hospitals, taking Covid out of the existing NHS. Care there would have been at a more specialised but lower expertise (in other areas) level. It would also have fufilled Boris's manifesto pledge to open new hospitals and most could have been retained as additional nursing homes (the absence of which is a huge bed blocker for the NHS), or indeed hospitals.
At the very very beginning of Covid (the post is on PB) I did a bit of historical research and found that during the Spanish flu epidemic, the best outcomes were for those in 'fresh air hospitals' - where they were kept warm under blankets but windows were wide open - they were even outside sometimes. Nobody learns from the past - it was only at the end of Covid that ventilation became a buzzword.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
If Hanratty was innocent, as I suspect, he was probably framed. France, with whom Hanratty was lodging at the time, would in that case be implicated. The murder weapon was found soon after Hanratty became a suspect. It was wrapped in one of his handkerchiefs and found stuffed down the back seat of a local bus. France wrote a number of letters concerning the crime in the wake of Hanratty’s conviction. Some of these have never been made public. He committed suicide shortly before Hanratty was hanged. I am sure nobody will now ever know for certain who killed Michael Gregston. The DNA evidence does not, in my opinion, give a definitive answer on that one. It does however pretty much eliminate the possibility of enquiries ever being reopened. One the whole, I believe that is probably a good thing.
This must be my longest ever post on PB. Hope you enjoyed it.
That is an excellent detailed summary Peter. I read Foot's book whilst still at school. Hanratty was a bad 'un but the case against Alphon is quite compelling. Dodgy DNA evidence seems to have definitively killed Foot's narrative, but I too believe Foot had it right.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
I can't say I've seen much evidence of Vance's intelligence myself. Are we sure that this isn't one of those things that everyone says without stopping to think why it's the case?
He's intelligent, regardless of what we think of him. A summa cum laude from Yale; summa cum laude is usually top 2% or 5%.
In 2007, Vance left the military and used the G.I. Bill to study political science and philosophy at Ohio State University. He graduated in 2009 with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude. Vance then attended Yale Law School, where he was a member of The Yale Law Journal. (Wiki)
So call it the equivalent of an Oxford PPE 1st - like Ed Davey .
There is that Hillbilly Elegy book, which is generally considered to be not pulp.
Also, Thiel rates him, and Thiel.is bright
And interesting 2009 "how I got here" essay by Thiel (quite short):
"The Education of a Libertarian"
But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today.
Extraordinary, really. The last paragraph there, after all the warm words, is absolutely a clear manifesto for techno-supremacism over democracy, and a clear megalomaniacal undertow that he, himself, is that future.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
I can't say I've seen much evidence of Vance's intelligence myself. Are we sure that this isn't one of those things that everyone says without stopping to think why it's the case?
Intelligent or not, he should read up on how the Ukraine war started.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
I can't say I've seen much evidence of Vance's intelligence myself. Are we sure that this isn't one of those things that everyone says without stopping to think why it's the case?
He's intelligent, regardless of what we think of him. A summa cum laude from Yale; summa cum laude is usually top 2% or 5%.
In 2007, Vance left the military and used the G.I. Bill to study political science and philosophy at Ohio State University. He graduated in 2009 with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude. Vance then attended Yale Law School, where he was a member of The Yale Law Journal. (Wiki)
So call it the equivalent of an Oxford PPE 1st - like Ed Davey .
Several sandwiches short of a picnic, though.
JD Vance says the ideas that led to the founding of America were formed in Europe, “the cradle of Western Civilization” and that he is trying to help save them from “suicide.” https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1900708053051445349
Slightly surprised to see in recent weeks people stressing the need for the UK to build up an independent nuclear armoury who previously campaigned to get nuclear weapons out of Faslane
Circumstances alter cases.
One of the more interesting ones was the pivot by previous Peace Pledge Union people in the run up to WW2.
We are living in the middle of one, as some groups understand what Trump is really doing, in addition to the threat posed by Russia.
It will be very interesting to find who is left. There are all sorts of reasons, of course - some of them quite good reasons in the previous set of circumstances. And some of us (I hope my view, for one) will be too pessimistic on the other side - for all we know the legal system in the USA may get Musk and Trump under control.
Perhaps the USA will allow their weapons to be putchased for Ukraine on commercial terms for Ukraine, rather than go all out to neuter the possibility of any European help getting to Ukraine by refusing to sell us Himars, which is not even made in Europe.
We built the Florence Nightingale hospitals (I think that was the name) during Covid and did not need them. Was that an unnecessary insurance policy or a wise contingency we did not need?
The Nightingale hospitals were really hospices - very little in the way of facilities. Staff would have been whoever they could scrounge up with a little bit of medical knowledge. Even airline staff.
Their purpose was to prevent people dying in the street if hospitals got overrun (see Greece and Spain). Pretty much an indoor bed with an oxygen supply.
What was interesting was the ravening resistance to them being built, from within the permanent system of government - I knew someone whose career was destroyed because she pushed through completion of the one she was working on.
They were pointless without a plan for staffing them.
One of the lessons of Covid should be more resilience in the NHS, and that should include not operating at 100% occupation at all times. Planned surgery is cancelled every day at my Trust for lack of beds/ITU beds. Apart from the individual misery, it is very inefficient of surgical productivity.
As to the staffing for the Nightingales - there was a plan. Whoever they could find to hold the hands of the sick. And dying…
For the NHS - What about creating more staff? We’ve tried this one round the world - the NHS knows it’s future size and it’s demented that we don’t train staff to match.
I thought the idea of the Nightingales was to move the non serious and routine cases out of the hospitals into the Nightingales and then use the reglar hospitals for the serious covid cases?
There were several plans, actually. One was to move non-critical COVID cases there. Another was to (as you say) empty the hospitals of those who didn’t need complex medical care.
The whole thing was pretty stupid really.
They should have used the money to re-open old hospitals, nursing homes etc., and made them into respiratory hospitals, taking Covid out of the existing NHS. Care there would have been at a more specialised but lower expertise (in other areas) level. It would also have fufilled Boris's manifesto pledge to open new hospitals and most could have been retained as additional nursing homes (the absence of which is a huge bed blocker for the NHS), or indeed hospitals.
At the very very beginning of Covid (the post is on PB) I did a bit of historical research and found that during the Spanish flu epidemic, the best outcomes were for those in 'fresh air hospitals' - where they were kept warm under blankets but windows were wide open - they were even outside sometimes. Nobody learns from the past - it was only at the end of Covid that ventilation became a buzzword.
Still the problem of staffing though, for these "respiratory hospitals".
The reason other activity slowed was internal staff redeployment. Both Mrs Foxy and I were redeployed to ICU, away from our regular work.
It takes time to expand capacity, and staff capacity is the limiting factor rather than buildings or machines.
We couldn't double the size of our Navy or Air Force in a few weeks either, it takes years. Other health systems generally had more capacity than an NHS that always runs Hot.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
I sometimes wonder if people are deliberately looking for ways to stoke the housing market.....
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
I can't say I've seen much evidence of Vance's intelligence myself. Are we sure that this isn't one of those things that everyone says without stopping to think why it's the case?
He's intelligent, regardless of what we think of him. A summa cum laude from Yale; summa cum laude is usually top 2% or 5%.
In 2007, Vance left the military and used the G.I. Bill to study political science and philosophy at Ohio State University. He graduated in 2009 with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude. Vance then attended Yale Law School, where he was a member of The Yale Law Journal. (Wiki)
So call it the equivalent of an Oxford PPE 1st - like Ed Davey .
Several sandwiches short of a picnic, though.
JD Vance says the ideas that led to the founding of America were formed in Europe, “the cradle of Western Civilization” and that he is trying to help save them from “suicide.” https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1900708053051445349
Very little understanding of The Enlightenment in his head.
I think he is intelligent, but knows that he needs to play to his base. He is a human chameleon, and the worst sort of cynic.
There is that Hillbilly Elegy book, which is generally considered to be not pulp.
Also, Thiel rates him, and Thiel.is bright
And interesting 2009 "how I got here" essay by Thiel (quite short):
"The Education of a Libertarian"
But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today.
Proposing that Canada "Join the EU". Well, Australia joined Eurovision so why not...
In practice the only one that has any obvious value is "Sign mutual defence treaties with the UK and France". Indeed - both countries have obvious historical centuries-old ties to Canada. Hi America, please don't mess with our friend, our SSBNs don't have to target Russia, they can target you...
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
I sometimes wonder if people are deliberately looking for ways to stoke the housing market.....
If you want to include primary property within a wealth taxation programme, fill your boots.😁
F1: a few things interesting but I've gone for 2.25 on under 17.5 classified finishers. This has happened at the last three races and there's half a dozen rookies on the grid plus a forecast of heavy rain.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
I sometimes wonder if people are deliberately looking for ways to stoke the housing market.....
If you want to include primary property within a wealth taxation programme, fill your boots.😁
Probably the only thing that would start a revolution in this country.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
I can't say I've seen much evidence of Vance's intelligence myself. Are we sure that this isn't one of those things that everyone says without stopping to think why it's the case?
He's intelligent, regardless of what we think of him. A summa cum laude from Yale; summa cum laude is usually top 2% or 5%.
In 2007, Vance left the military and used the G.I. Bill to study political science and philosophy at Ohio State University. He graduated in 2009 with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude. Vance then attended Yale Law School, where he was a member of The Yale Law Journal. (Wiki)
So call it the equivalent of an Oxford PPE 1st - like Ed Davey .
Several sandwiches short of a picnic, though.
JD Vance says the ideas that led to the founding of America were formed in Europe, “the cradle of Western Civilization” and that he is trying to help save them from “suicide.” https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1900708053051445349
Very little understanding of The Enlightenment in his head.
I think he is intelligent, but knows that he needs to play to his base. He is a human chameleon, and the worst sort of cynic.
The replies below that post need to be seen to be believed, though. I spent a good ten minutes adding to my blocked list.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Wealth taxes at least hot mansions and shares, the family farm tax hits crops and farmland. Though I oppose both
Refugees are being abandoned in the North East with no support and without council knowledge, an investigation by The Northern Echo can reveal.
Many of the refugees being shipped to County Durham speak little English and are being put in homes which are not suitable for use – one family had no gas or electricity when they arrived in a house that had not been occupied for years.
The practice has been slammed as “absolutely abhorrent” and “immoral” as the North East struggles with a housing crisis of its own with 75,000 families stuck for months waiting for social housing, more than 300 homeless children and County Durham rent rising 7 per cent in the last year alone.
I can't stress the point enough - nobody out there in the real world gives a toss about the Westminster bubble story which is Rupert Lowe.
70 Fukers to take a large majority on Durham Council. As a multiple-times losing candidate at borough council, county council and general election levels I salute anyone who puts themself forward for any party. But I do wonder who these 70 would be, and if any of them are able to actually run a county council.
In any election you get what you vote for (and usually that isn't me...). And so often in council elections you are voting for low information low skills people to be dictated to by the council officers. Reform rightly point out that things are broken, but they need to have a policy agenda which is legal and viable and deliverable by the 70 people they have rounded up off the street to win these seats...
There is that Hillbilly Elegy book, which is generally considered to be not pulp.
Also, Thiel rates him, and Thiel.is bright
And interesting 2009 "how I got here" essay by Thiel (quite short):
"The Education of a Libertarian"
But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today.
F1: also, keep an eye on the start time. Apparently the FIA are looking at altering when the race starts due to the chance of a thunderstorm. I'm sure it'll change if I get up on time, and stay the same if I oversleep.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
I sometimes wonder if people are deliberately looking for ways to stoke the housing market.....
If you want to include primary property within a wealth taxation programme, fill your boots.😁
Probably the only thing that would start a revolution in this country.
@ydoethur can probably judge how accurate that article is better than I can. But it seems to have been part of what set them on the road to irrelevance.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
I sometimes wonder if people are deliberately looking for ways to stoke the housing market.....
If you want to include primary property within a wealth taxation programme, fill your boots.😁
Probably the only thing that would start a revolution in this country.
Not if it offsets reductions in income tax. The idea behind a comprehensive land value tax is that it would first replace council tax, business rates and SDLT, then over time could be ramped up in synch with reducing first NI then income tax.
In any case those with property wealth are generally a bit old and frail to get involved in a revolution.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
I can't say I've seen much evidence of Vance's intelligence myself. Are we sure that this isn't one of those things that everyone says without stopping to think why it's the case?
He's intelligent, regardless of what we think of him. A summa cum laude from Yale; summa cum laude is usually top 2% or 5%.
In 2007, Vance left the military and used the G.I. Bill to study political science and philosophy at Ohio State University. He graduated in 2009 with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude. Vance then attended Yale Law School, where he was a member of The Yale Law Journal. (Wiki)
So call it the equivalent of an Oxford PPE 1st - like Ed Davey .
Several sandwiches short of a picnic, though.
JD Vance says the ideas that led to the founding of America were formed in Europe, “the cradle of Western Civilization” and that he is trying to help save them from “suicide.” https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1900708053051445349
Yes. Top universities have quite a segment of population who are highly intelligent and very stupid at the same time.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove them and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
My best recommendation for listening today, a Foreign Affairs interview with Fiona Hill (not Theresa May's Fiona Hill -the other one),
She's a Bishop Auckland lass (from a mining family) who was a senior adviser to the first Trump Administration as Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs. She is now working as a key adviser to the British Government, and has been Chancellor of Durham Uni.
Very candid, and a lovely accent. @Taz will enjoy.
"Fiona Hill: What Does Trump See in Putin? | Foreign Affairs Interview"
I have conducted a quick review of Facebook and the narrative developing is that we should not be cutting incapacity benefits while we spend billions on asylum seeker hotels. I would guess that a very large proportion of the "middle-aged man on disability benefits" cohort are Reform voters (or soon to be so).
Also links being made to the assisted suicide bill, and waiting lists for operations. Former scaffolders with long-term injuries etc. This is going to be toxic.
Watch the numbers on asylum seeker hotels, which are due out this month.
They are about 40% down from peak, but tbf they also came down under the Conservatives.
But the riposte will be "why are the ANY hotels".
That they are not 4 star hotels as claimed does not matter, because the narrative is about emotion not truth.
So why are there any hotels?
Because we are insisting that they can't work until they are processed, and we're not processing them fast enough.
The interests of the local population seem to come last in either case. Either we put them up in hotels at great expense or let them compete against locals in the job and housing markets.
The best and cheapest and most humane solution is immediate processing. About 30% will be returned and 70% will be accepted as genuine asylum seekers.
These will enter the jobs and housing markets, paying taxes and doing useful work, including, in some cases, helping to build houses.
What do you suggest?
Why would about 70% be accepted? In France those percentages are reversed.
The fact remains that this is against the interests of the local population and if you believe in democracy then you can't ignore that.
So what do you suggest?
Do you think we should refuse to help people who are in danger in their own country?
The local population around me is generally welcoming of people seeking asylum. Some aren't. But there are always some who are uncharitable. Low on empathy.
PS I've checked the figures. It is about 50% in the UK and France who are accepted.
This is one of the least self aware, low on empathy posts I have seen on PB for a while.
Classing that those who don't want to see their neighbourhoods changed, their local hotels transformed into asylum hostels, their competition for public services grow etc as uncharitable is just bafflingly out of touch.
I can't stress the point enough - nobody out there in the real world gives a toss about the Westminster bubble story which is Rupert Lowe.
70 Fukers to take a large majority on Durham Council. As a multiple-times losing candidate at borough council, county council and general election levels I salute anyone who puts themself forward for any party. But I do wonder who these 70 would be, and if any of them are able to actually run a county council.
In any election you get what you vote for (and usually that isn't me...). And so often in council elections you are voting for low information low skills people to be dictated to by the council officers. Reform rightly point out that things are broken, but they need to have a policy agenda which is legal and viable and deliverable by the 70 people they have rounded up off the street to win these seats...
If the party is defined by a certain pugnacious attitude then personality breakdown is highly likely.
The most Trumpy and Refomy of my acquaintances was aware of the Lowe business and on Farages side as better able to have mass appeal.
But in general i think the impact of the fallout may be more on candidates standing than voteshare. Could have an effect, but if they get nominations in should still do ok.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove both and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
Lots of people take an oath to the constitution, Trump is demanding personal loyalty and he is getting it even if it means clearing out those with wider loyalties.
Proposing that Canada "Join the EU". Well, Australia joined Eurovision so why not...
In practice the only one that has any obvious value is "Sign mutual defence treaties with the UK and France". Indeed - both countries have obvious historical centuries-old ties to Canada. Hi America, please don't mess with our friend, our SSBNs don't have to target Russia, they can target you...
Which ironically Rishi tightened the visa requirements for more than Boris, yet it was the former who leaked to Reform once Brexit had got done and Boris been replaced
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove them and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
Most countries have constitutions. Here's the first line of Russia's:
Russia is a democratic federal law-bound state with a republican form of government.
I have conducted a quick review of Facebook and the narrative developing is that we should not be cutting incapacity benefits while we spend billions on asylum seeker hotels. I would guess that a very large proportion of the "middle-aged man on disability benefits" cohort are Reform voters (or soon to be so).
Also links being made to the assisted suicide bill, and waiting lists for operations. Former scaffolders with long-term injuries etc. This is going to be toxic.
Watch the numbers on asylum seeker hotels, which are due out this month.
They are about 40% down from peak, but tbf they also came down under the Conservatives.
But the riposte will be "why are the ANY hotels".
That they are not 4 star hotels as claimed does not matter, because the narrative is about emotion not truth.
So why are there any hotels?
Because we are insisting that they can't work until they are processed, and we're not processing them fast enough.
The interests of the local population seem to come last in either case. Either we put them up in hotels at great expense or let them compete against locals in the job and housing markets.
The best and cheapest and most humane solution is immediate processing. About 30% will be returned and 70% will be accepted as genuine asylum seekers.
These will enter the jobs and housing markets, paying taxes and doing useful work, including, in some cases, helping to build houses.
What do you suggest?
Why would about 70% be accepted? In France those percentages are reversed.
The fact remains that this is against the interests of the local population and if you believe in democracy then you can't ignore that.
So what do you suggest?
Do you think we should refuse to help people who are in danger in their own country?
The local population around me is generally welcoming of people seeking asylum. Some aren't. But there are always some who are uncharitable. Low on empathy.
PS I've checked the figures. It is about 50% in the UK and France who are accepted.
This is one of the least self aware, low on empathy posts I have seen on PB for a while.
Classing that those who don't want to see their neighbourhoods changed, their local hotels transformed into asylum hostels, their competition for public services grow etc as uncharitable is just bafflingly out of touch.
And if they destroy their passports, how can we tell if they truly are "in danger in their own country"?
Refugees are being abandoned in the North East with no support and without council knowledge, an investigation by The Northern Echo can reveal.
Many of the refugees being shipped to County Durham speak little English and are being put in homes which are not suitable for use – one family had no gas or electricity when they arrived in a house that had not been occupied for years.
The practice has been slammed as “absolutely abhorrent” and “immoral” as the North East struggles with a housing crisis of its own with 75,000 families stuck for months waiting for social housing, more than 300 homeless children and County Durham rent rising 7 per cent in the last year alone.
You'd expose them because (a) Durham Council doesn't set this policy and can't change it, (b) Durham Council doesn't own the rathole houses these poor sods are dumped into, and (c) Reform's policy will almost certainly be that the asylum seekers shouldn't be there to start with.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove them and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
Most countries have constitutions. Here's the first line of Russia's:
Russia is a democratic federal law-bound state with a republican form of government.
Yes, worth remembering any time people oversell the benefits of codifying our constitution. Its not a magic wand to solve problems of political culture.
Slightly surprised to see in recent weeks people stressing the need for the UK to build up an independent nuclear armoury who previously campaigned to get nuclear weapons out of Faslane
Circumstances alter cases.
One of the more interesting ones was the pivot by previous Peace Pledge Union people in the run up to WW2.
We are living in the middle of one, as some groups understand what Trump is really doing, in addition to the threat posed by Russia.
It will be very interesting to find who is left. There are all sorts of reasons, of course - some of them quite good reasons in the previous set of circumstances. And some of us (I hope my view, for one) will be too pessimistic on the other side - for all we know the legal system in the USA may get Musk and Trump under control.
Perhaps the USA will allow their weapons to be putchased for Ukraine on commercial terms for Ukraine, rather than go all out to neuter the possibility of any European help getting to Ukraine by refusing to sell us Himars, which is not even made in Europe.
We built the Florence Nightingale hospitals (I think that was the name) during Covid and did not need them. Was that an unnecessary insurance policy or a wise contingency we did not need?
The Nightingale hospitals were really hospices - very little in the way of facilities. Staff would have been whoever they could scrounge up with a little bit of medical knowledge. Even airline staff.
Their purpose was to prevent people dying in the street if hospitals got overrun (see Greece and Spain). Pretty much an indoor bed with an oxygen supply.
What was interesting was the ravening resistance to them being built, from within the permanent system of government - I knew someone whose career was destroyed because she pushed through completion of the one she was working on.
They were pointless without a plan for staffing them.
One of the lessons of Covid should be more resilience in the NHS, and that should include not operating at 100% occupation at all times. Planned surgery is cancelled every day at my Trust for lack of beds/ITU beds. Apart from the individual misery, it is very inefficient of surgical productivity.
As to the staffing for the Nightingales - there was a plan. Whoever they could find to hold the hands of the sick. And dying…
For the NHS - What about creating more staff? We’ve tried this one round the world - the NHS knows it’s future size and it’s demented that we don’t train staff to match.
I thought the idea of the Nightingales was to move the non serious and routine cases out of the hospitals into the Nightingales and then use the reglar hospitals for the serious covid cases?
There were several plans, actually. One was to move non-critical COVID cases there. Another was to (as you say) empty the hospitals of those who didn’t need complex medical care.
The whole thing was pretty stupid really.
They should have used the money to re-open old hospitals, nursing homes etc., and made them into respiratory hospitals, taking Covid out of the existing NHS. Care there would have been at a more specialised but lower expertise (in other areas) level. It would also have fufilled Boris's manifesto pledge to open new hospitals and most could have been retained as additional nursing homes (the absence of which is a huge bed blocker for the NHS), or indeed hospitals.
At the very very beginning of Covid (the post is on PB) I did a bit of historical research and found that during the Spanish flu epidemic, the best outcomes were for those in 'fresh air hospitals' - where they were kept warm under blankets but windows were wide open - they were even outside sometimes. Nobody learns from the past - it was only at the end of Covid that ventilation became a buzzword.
It was a relatively small amount of money.
There aren’t huge numbers of empty hospitals waiting to be returned to service. A few are derelict buildings awaiting demolition, but they would take epic amounts of money and time to do anything with - that’s why they are being developed.
On ventilation - you are flat wrong. It was clear, right from the start that capacity to provide breathing assistance was critical. The changes from emphasis on full ventilation to breathing assistance. And that was fairly early on - which was why plans to mass produce ventilators were discarded in favour of less invasive techniques.
No way Scots will vote to leave UK in this new uncertain world.
A world where regions seeking independence referendums get them blocked ie Spain and Catalonia or nations having broken away from their union with their big neighbour find that big neighbour later invading them ie Russia and Ukraine
I dont think rUK would do the latter in fairness, but then again we're doing the former instead.
No, we’re really not.
A majority of voters in the Indy Ref voted to stay part of the UK. Their democratically expressed views need to be respected. After a period of time - say a generation - it will be fair to ask again, but the revote campaign started about a week after the last referendum
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove them and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
Most countries have constitutions. Here's the first line of Russia's:
Russia is a democratic federal law-bound state with a republican form of government.
Well Russia does still have multi party elections, judges and a President
I have conducted a quick review of Facebook and the narrative developing is that we should not be cutting incapacity benefits while we spend billions on asylum seeker hotels. I would guess that a very large proportion of the "middle-aged man on disability benefits" cohort are Reform voters (or soon to be so).
Also links being made to the assisted suicide bill, and waiting lists for operations. Former scaffolders with long-term injuries etc. This is going to be toxic.
Watch the numbers on asylum seeker hotels, which are due out this month.
They are about 40% down from peak, but tbf they also came down under the Conservatives.
But the riposte will be "why are the ANY hotels".
That they are not 4 star hotels as claimed does not matter, because the narrative is about emotion not truth.
So why are there any hotels?
Because we are insisting that they can't work until they are processed, and we're not processing them fast enough.
The interests of the local population seem to come last in either case. Either we put them up in hotels at great expense or let them compete against locals in the job and housing markets.
What a bizarre view. You seem to think that more people is inherently a problem. Yet the most economically active parts of the country are those with the highest population density.
No way Scots will vote to leave UK in this new uncertain world.
A world where regions seeking independence referendums get them blocked ie Spain and Catalonia or nations having broken away from their union with their big neighbour find that big neighbour later invading them ie Russia and Ukraine
I dont think rUK would do the latter in fairness, but then again we're doing the former instead.
No, we’re really not.
A majority of voters in the Indy Ref voted to stay part of the UK. Their democratically expressed views need to be respected. After a period of time - say a generation - it will be fair to ask again, but the revote campaign started about a week after the last referendum
If thats what Scotland wants to do thats on them. If they keep voting in the SNP the debate wont go away. The UK doesnt have to grant another one but if they have a parliament id give it a lot of weight. Unfortunately with Labours swift decline a pro indy majority still looks favourable.
Refugees are being abandoned in the North East with no support and without council knowledge, an investigation by The Northern Echo can reveal.
Many of the refugees being shipped to County Durham speak little English and are being put in homes which are not suitable for use – one family had no gas or electricity when they arrived in a house that had not been occupied for years.
The practice has been slammed as “absolutely abhorrent” and “immoral” as the North East struggles with a housing crisis of its own with 75,000 families stuck for months waiting for social housing, more than 300 homeless children and County Durham rent rising 7 per cent in the last year alone.
You'd expose them because (a) Durham Council doesn't set this policy and can't change it, (b) Durham Council doesn't own the rathole houses these poor sods are dumped into, and (c) Reform's policy will almost certainly be that the asylum seekers shouldn't be there to start with.
If their policy is (c), how would it 'expose them' to override their wishes and continue to dump asylum seekers on them? All that would do is highlight the need to elect a national government willing to change the policy at the national level.
I can't stress the point enough - nobody out there in the real world gives a toss about the Westminster bubble story which is Rupert Lowe.
70 Fukers to take a large majority on Durham Council. As a multiple-times losing candidate at borough council, county council and general election levels I salute anyone who puts themself forward for any party. But I do wonder who these 70 would be, and if any of them are able to actually run a county council.
In any election you get what you vote for (and usually that isn't me...). And so often in council elections you are voting for low information low skills people to be dictated to by the council officers. Reform rightly point out that things are broken, but they need to have a policy agenda which is legal and viable and deliverable by the 70 people they have rounded up off the street to win these seats...
If the party is defined by a certain pugnacious attitude then personality breakdown is highly likely.
The most Trumpy and Refomy of my acquaintances was aware of the Lowe business and on Farages side as better able to have mass appeal.
But in general i think the impact of the fallout may be more on candidates standing than voteshare. Could have an effect, but if they get nominations in should still do ok.
Sure! People are aware. But unless Reform fracture into pieces the party will still be there, still fielding candidates, and will still attract votes.
The Farage/Lowe spat may not be very nice. But go find me someone who thinks the country is broken, likes Farage, wants someone to fix their lives and then decides "well the Farage/Lowe spat wasn't very nice, so instead of voting for my own interests I'll vote Tory or Labour again even though they've done nothing."
Nobody cares. When push comes to shove if Reform are there they will hoover up the votes. We can't combat them by trying to turn a spat into a Westminster bubble crisis. We need to listen to people like Reform do, empathise with them like Reform do, and then offer them simple policies like Reform do - but actually make them effective.
I can't stress the point enough - nobody out there in the real world gives a toss about the Westminster bubble story which is Rupert Lowe.
70 Fukers to take a large majority on Durham Council. As a multiple-times losing candidate at borough council, county council and general election levels I salute anyone who puts themself forward for any party. But I do wonder who these 70 would be, and if any of them are able to actually run a county council.
In any election you get what you vote for (and usually that isn't me...). And so often in council elections you are voting for low information low skills people to be dictated to by the council officers. Reform rightly point out that things are broken, but they need to have a policy agenda which is legal and viable and deliverable by the 70 people they have rounded up off the street to win these seats...
How to they predict that? Is it just by total % numbers?
My claim that Reform will not do very well on the Ashfield County Seats is because they pretty much all have majorities of 30-50% of the vote for the Ashfield Independents. They will make progress, but I don't see that toppling in one bite.
I have conducted a quick review of Facebook and the narrative developing is that we should not be cutting incapacity benefits while we spend billions on asylum seeker hotels. I would guess that a very large proportion of the "middle-aged man on disability benefits" cohort are Reform voters (or soon to be so).
Also links being made to the assisted suicide bill, and waiting lists for operations. Former scaffolders with long-term injuries etc. This is going to be toxic.
Watch the numbers on asylum seeker hotels, which are due out this month.
They are about 40% down from peak, but tbf they also came down under the Conservatives.
But the riposte will be "why are the ANY hotels".
That they are not 4 star hotels as claimed does not matter, because the narrative is about emotion not truth.
So why are there any hotels?
Because we are insisting that they can't work until they are processed, and we're not processing them fast enough.
The interests of the local population seem to come last in either case. Either we put them up in hotels at great expense or let them compete against locals in the job and housing markets.
What a bizarre view. You seem to think that more people is inherently a problem. Yet the most economically active parts of the country are those with the highest population density.
You're not thinking about the interests of the individuals affected. Whether it's better for GDP overall or better for the Treasury isn't the point.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove them and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
Most countries have constitutions. Here's the first line of Russia's:
Russia is a democratic federal law-bound state with a republican form of government.
Well Russia does still have multi party elections, judges and a President
You've always seemed to place great weight on the trappings of democratic structures rather than the reality. I'll never forget the argument the Long Parliament being purged made no real difference to 'Parliament' deciding things afterwards.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
Trump never has to face the voters again as he’s term-limited. Vance would want a second term. Thus Vance might pay more attention to his shrinking polling than Trump.
I can't stress the point enough - nobody out there in the real world gives a toss about the Westminster bubble story which is Rupert Lowe.
70 Fukers to take a large majority on Durham Council. As a multiple-times losing candidate at borough council, county council and general election levels I salute anyone who puts themself forward for any party. But I do wonder who these 70 would be, and if any of them are able to actually run a county council.
In any election you get what you vote for (and usually that isn't me...). And so often in council elections you are voting for low information low skills people to be dictated to by the council officers. Reform rightly point out that things are broken, but they need to have a policy agenda which is legal and viable and deliverable by the 70 people they have rounded up off the street to win these seats...
How to they predict that? Is it just by total % numbers?
My claim that Reform will not do very well on the Ashfield County Seats is because they pretty much all have majorities of 30-50% of the vote for the Ashfield Independents. They will make progress, but I don't see that toppling in one bite.
Reform seem to go for a tipping point strategy, but it does mean they could again get little.
No way Scots will vote to leave UK in this new uncertain world.
A world where regions seeking independence referendums get them blocked ie Spain and Catalonia or nations having broken away from their union with their big neighbour find that big neighbour later invading them ie Russia and Ukraine
I dont think rUK would do the latter in fairness, but then again we're doing the former instead.
No, we’re really not.
A majority of voters in the Indy Ref voted to stay part of the UK. Their democratically expressed views need to be respected. After a period of time - say a generation - it will be fair to ask again, but the revote campaign started about a week after the last referendum
If thats what Scotland wants to do thats on them. If they keep voting in the SNP the debate wont go away. The UK doesnt have to grant another one but if they have a parliament id give it a lot of weight. Unfortunately with Labours swift decline a pro indy majority still looks favourable.
Most Labour leakage in Scotland has been to Reform and the LDs not the SNP
I can't stress the point enough - nobody out there in the real world gives a toss about the Westminster bubble story which is Rupert Lowe.
70 Fukers to take a large majority on Durham Council. As a multiple-times losing candidate at borough council, county council and general election levels I salute anyone who puts themself forward for any party. But I do wonder who these 70 would be, and if any of them are able to actually run a county council.
In any election you get what you vote for (and usually that isn't me...). And so often in council elections you are voting for low information low skills people to be dictated to by the council officers. Reform rightly point out that things are broken, but they need to have a policy agenda which is legal and viable and deliverable by the 70 people they have rounded up off the street to win these seats...
If the party is defined by a certain pugnacious attitude then personality breakdown is highly likely.
The most Trumpy and Refomy of my acquaintances was aware of the Lowe business and on Farages side as better able to have mass appeal.
But in general i think the impact of the fallout may be more on candidates standing than voteshare. Could have an effect, but if they get nominations in should still do ok.
Sure! People are aware. But unless Reform fracture into pieces the party will still be there, still fielding candidates, and will still attract votes.
The Farage/Lowe spat may not be very nice. But go find me someone who thinks the country is broken, likes Farage, wants someone to fix their lives and then decides "well the Farage/Lowe spat wasn't very nice, so instead of voting for my own interests I'll vote Tory or Labour again even though they've done nothing."
Nobody cares. When push comes to shove if Reform are there they will hoover up the votes. We can't combat them by trying to turn a spat into a Westminster bubble crisis. We need to listen to people like Reform do, empathise with them like Reform do, and then offer them simple policies like Reform do - but actually make them effective.
I agree, my point was merely whether party squabbling (which most pay littke attention to) could mess up nominations. If not, theyll do fine.
Labour and the Conservatives need to be painting Reform in general and Farage in particular as agents of MAGA and hence the enemy within.
Nah, let them win Durham and be exposed. The sooner that happens the better.
If Durham wants the Face Eating Leopards Party, who are we to argue?
Totally agree. Also I suspect they will be fighting like the rats that they are before the first year is out. There will likely be a few independent offshoots. I also suspect there social media will be dripping in sewage for all to see.
I have conducted a quick review of Facebook and the narrative developing is that we should not be cutting incapacity benefits while we spend billions on asylum seeker hotels. I would guess that a very large proportion of the "middle-aged man on disability benefits" cohort are Reform voters (or soon to be so).
Also links being made to the assisted suicide bill, and waiting lists for operations. Former scaffolders with long-term injuries etc. This is going to be toxic.
Watch the numbers on asylum seeker hotels, which are due out this month.
They are about 40% down from peak, but tbf they also came down under the Conservatives.
But the riposte will be "why are the ANY hotels".
That they are not 4 star hotels as claimed does not matter, because the narrative is about emotion not truth.
So why are there any hotels?
Because we are insisting that they can't work until they are processed, and we're not processing them fast enough.
The interests of the local population seem to come last in either case. Either we put them up in hotels at great expense or let them compete against locals in the job and housing markets.
The best and cheapest and most humane solution is immediate processing. About 30% will be returned and 70% will be accepted as genuine asylum seekers.
These will enter the jobs and housing markets, paying taxes and doing useful work, including, in some cases, helping to build houses.
What do you suggest?
I strongly doubt whether 70% are asylum seekers, and if they are, then the bar is set far too low. Finger in the air: about 2% should genuinely be offered asylum.
Based on what? Three of the top 5 countries for asylum seekers are Syria, Iran and Afghanistan. Do you doubt that people have good reasons to flee those countries?
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove them and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
Most countries have constitutions. Here's the first line of Russia's:
Russia is a democratic federal law-bound state with a republican form of government.
Well Russia does still have multi party elections, judges and a President
Refugees are being abandoned in the North East with no support and without council knowledge, an investigation by The Northern Echo can reveal.
Many of the refugees being shipped to County Durham speak little English and are being put in homes which are not suitable for use – one family had no gas or electricity when they arrived in a house that had not been occupied for years.
The practice has been slammed as “absolutely abhorrent” and “immoral” as the North East struggles with a housing crisis of its own with 75,000 families stuck for months waiting for social housing, more than 300 homeless children and County Durham rent rising 7 per cent in the last year alone.
You'd expose them because (a) Durham Council doesn't set this policy and can't change it, (b) Durham Council doesn't own the rathole houses these poor sods are dumped into, and (c) Reform's policy will almost certainly be that the asylum seekers shouldn't be there to start with.
If their policy is (c), how would it 'expose them' to override their wishes and continue to dump asylum seekers on them? All that would do is highlight the need to elect a national government willing to change the policy at the national level.
What policy / law do you change to stop desperate landlords unable to find local tenants solving a problem that London councils want solved
If Hanratty was innocent, as I suspect, he was probably framed. France, with whom Hanratty was lodging at the time, would in that case be implicated. The murder weapon was found soon after Hanratty became a suspect. It was wrapped in one of his handkerchiefs and found stuffed down the back seat of a local bus. France wrote a number of letters concerning the crime in the wake of Hanratty’s conviction. Some of these have never been made public. He committed suicide shortly before Hanratty was hanged. I am sure nobody will now ever know for certain who killed Michael Gregston. The DNA evidence does not, in my opinion, give a definitive answer on that one. It does however pretty much eliminate the possibility of enquiries ever being reopened. One the whole, I believe that is probably a good thing.
This must be my longest ever post on PB. Hope you enjoyed it.
That is an excellent detailed summary Peter. I read Foot's book whilst still at school. Hanratty was a bad 'un but the case against Alphon is quite compelling. Dodgy DNA evidence seems to have definitively killed Foot's narrative, but I too believe Foot had it right.
Thanks Pete.
I suspect Foot knew more than he was able to say publicly.
The problem with dissing the DNA evidence is that it kind of implies an establishment cover up, and I'm always reluctant to go down that route without evidence. On the other hand, there are so many unexplained anomolies in the case against Hanratty.
I can't stress the point enough - nobody out there in the real world gives a toss about the Westminster bubble story which is Rupert Lowe.
70 Fukers to take a large majority on Durham Council. As a multiple-times losing candidate at borough council, county council and general election levels I salute anyone who puts themself forward for any party. But I do wonder who these 70 would be, and if any of them are able to actually run a county council.
In any election you get what you vote for (and usually that isn't me...). And so often in council elections you are voting for low information low skills people to be dictated to by the council officers. Reform rightly point out that things are broken, but they need to have a policy agenda which is legal and viable and deliverable by the 70 people they have rounded up off the street to win these seats...
If the party is defined by a certain pugnacious attitude then personality breakdown is highly likely.
The most Trumpy and Refomy of my acquaintances was aware of the Lowe business and on Farages side as better able to have mass appeal.
But in general i think the impact of the fallout may be more on candidates standing than voteshare. Could have an effect, but if they get nominations in should still do ok.
Sure! People are aware. But unless Reform fracture into pieces the party will still be there, still fielding candidates, and will still attract votes.
The Farage/Lowe spat may not be very nice. But go find me someone who thinks the country is broken, likes Farage, wants someone to fix their lives and then decides "well the Farage/Lowe spat wasn't very nice, so instead of voting for my own interests I'll vote Tory or Labour again even though they've done nothing."
Nobody cares. When push comes to shove if Reform are there they will hoover up the votes. We can't combat them by trying to turn a spat into a Westminster bubble crisis. We need to listen to people like Reform do, empathise with them like Reform do, and then offer them simple policies like Reform do - but actually make them effective.
Yes but the policies offered need to be realistic, and Reforms clearly are not, and do not have to be. It's the Brexit issue all over again.
Voters no longer are interested in reality, they are now all postmodernists denying the existence of objective truths. They want to belive the fantasy.
I have conducted a quick review of Facebook and the narrative developing is that we should not be cutting incapacity benefits while we spend billions on asylum seeker hotels. I would guess that a very large proportion of the "middle-aged man on disability benefits" cohort are Reform voters (or soon to be so).
Also links being made to the assisted suicide bill, and waiting lists for operations. Former scaffolders with long-term injuries etc. This is going to be toxic.
Watch the numbers on asylum seeker hotels, which are due out this month.
They are about 40% down from peak, but tbf they also came down under the Conservatives.
But the riposte will be "why are the ANY hotels".
That they are not 4 star hotels as claimed does not matter, because the narrative is about emotion not truth.
So why are there any hotels?
Because we are insisting that they can't work until they are processed, and we're not processing them fast enough.
The interests of the local population seem to come last in either case. Either we put them up in hotels at great expense or let them compete against locals in the job and housing markets.
The best and cheapest and most humane solution is immediate processing. About 30% will be returned and 70% will be accepted as genuine asylum seekers.
These will enter the jobs and housing markets, paying taxes and doing useful work, including, in some cases, helping to build houses.
What do you suggest?
I strongly doubt whether 70% are asylum seekers, and if they are, then the bar is set far too low. Finger in the air: about 2% should genuinely be offered asylum.
Based on what? Three of the top 5 countries for asylum seekers are Syria, Iran and Afghanistan. Do you doubt that people have good reasons to flee those countries?
How much longer will we even be willing to ask that question, instead of "do we have good reasons to admit them" ?
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove them and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
Most countries have constitutions. Here's the first line of Russia's:
Russia is a democratic federal law-bound state with a republican form of government.
Well Russia does still have multi party elections, judges and a President
Exactly. And Russian is not a democracy.
It is, it has multi party parliamentary and presidential elections even if not a perfect one.
For most of the 20th century Russia and indeed Ukraine too were one party communist dictatorships under the USSR and before that under the absolute monarchy of the Tsars
Labour and the Conservatives need to be painting Reform in general and Farage in particular as agents of MAGA and hence the enemy within.
Nah, let them win Durham and be exposed. The sooner that happens the better.
If Durham wants the Face Eating Leopards Party, who are we to argue?
Totally agree. Also I suspect they will be fighting like the rats that they are before the first year is out. There will likely be a few independent offshoots. I also suspect there social media will be dripping in sewage for all to see.
Yes, while Durham would be in chaos that is better than Westminster in 2029 being filled by the same noddies.
Slightly surprised to see in recent weeks people stressing the need for the UK to build up an independent nuclear armoury who previously campaigned to get nuclear weapons out of Faslane
Circumstances alter cases.
One of the more interesting ones was the pivot by previous Peace Pledge Union people in the run up to WW2.
We are living in the middle of one, as some groups understand what Trump is really doing, in addition to the threat posed by Russia.
It will be very interesting to find who is left. There are all sorts of reasons, of course - some of them quite good reasons in the previous set of circumstances. And some of us (I hope my view, for one) will be too pessimistic on the other side - for all we know the legal system in the USA may get Musk and Trump under control.
Perhaps the USA will allow their weapons to be putchased for Ukraine on commercial terms for Ukraine, rather than go all out to neuter the possibility of any European help getting to Ukraine by refusing to sell us Himars, which is not even made in Europe.
We built the Florence Nightingale hospitals (I think that was the name) during Covid and did not need them. Was that an unnecessary insurance policy or a wise contingency we did not need?
The Nightingale hospitals were really hospices - very little in the way of facilities. Staff would have been whoever they could scrounge up with a little bit of medical knowledge. Even airline staff.
Their purpose was to prevent people dying in the street if hospitals got overrun (see Greece and Spain). Pretty much an indoor bed with an oxygen supply.
What was interesting was the ravening resistance to them being built, from within the permanent system of government - I knew someone whose career was destroyed because she pushed through completion of the one she was working on.
They were pointless without a plan for staffing them.
One of the lessons of Covid should be more resilience in the NHS, and that should include not operating at 100% occupation at all times. Planned surgery is cancelled every day at my Trust for lack of beds/ITU beds. Apart from the individual misery, it is very inefficient of surgical productivity.
As to the staffing for the Nightingales - there was a plan. Whoever they could find to hold the hands of the sick. And dying…
For the NHS - What about creating more staff? We’ve tried this one round the world - the NHS knows it’s future size and it’s demented that we don’t train staff to match.
I thought the idea of the Nightingales was to move the non serious and routine cases out of the hospitals into the Nightingales and then use the reglar hospitals for the serious covid cases?
There were several plans, actually. One was to move non-critical COVID cases there. Another was to (as you say) empty the hospitals of those who didn’t need complex medical care.
The whole thing was pretty stupid really.
They should have used the money to re-open old hospitals, nursing homes etc., and made them into respiratory hospitals, taking Covid out of the existing NHS. Care there would have been at a more specialised but lower expertise (in other areas) level. It would also have fufilled Boris's manifesto pledge to open new hospitals and most could have been retained as additional nursing homes (the absence of which is a huge bed blocker for the NHS), or indeed hospitals.
At the very very beginning of Covid (the post is on PB) I did a bit of historical research and found that during the Spanish flu epidemic, the best outcomes were for those in 'fresh air hospitals' - where they were kept warm under blankets but windows were wide open - they were even outside sometimes. Nobody learns from the past - it was only at the end of Covid that ventilation became a buzzword.
Still the problem of staffing though, for these "respiratory hospitals".
The reason other activity slowed was internal staff redeployment. Both Mrs Foxy and I were redeployed to ICU, away from our regular work.
It takes time to expand capacity, and staff capacity is the limiting factor rather than buildings or machines.
We couldn't double the size of our Navy or Air Force in a few weeks either, it takes years. Other health systems generally had more capacity than an NHS that always runs Hot.
Yes, I agree with that. Staffing would have still been the issue. I do think though that more might have been tempted back into the NHS proper, particularly from the retired cohort, if Covid had not been such an all-consuming factor.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove them and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
Most countries have constitutions. Here's the first line of Russia's:
Russia is a democratic federal law-bound state with a republican form of government.
Well Russia does still have multi party elections, judges and a President
Exactly. And Russian is not a democracy.
It is, it has multi party parliamentary and presidential elections even if not a perfect one.
For most of the 20th century Russia and indeed Ukraine too were one party communist dictatorships under the USSR and before that under the absolute monarchy of the Tsars
Presumably you think Iran and North Korea are also democracies.
Labour and the Conservatives need to be painting Reform in general and Farage in particular as agents of MAGA and hence the enemy within.
Nah, let them win Durham and be exposed. The sooner that happens the better.
If Durham wants the Face Eating Leopards Party, who are we to argue?
Totally agree. Also I suspect they will be fighting like the rats that they are before the first year is out. There will likely be a few independent offshoots. I also suspect there social media will be dripping in sewage for all to see.
Yes, while Durham would be in chaos that is better than Westminster in 2029 being filled by the same noddies.
Yes, it also might teach the voters a lesson in critical thinking as well.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove them and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
Most countries have constitutions. Here's the first line of Russia's:
Russia is a democratic federal law-bound state with a republican form of government.
Well Russia does still have multi party elections, judges and a President
Exactly. And Russian is not a democracy.
It is, it has multi party parliamentary and presidential elections even if not a perfect one.
You are falling for the game authoritarians play. "See, we have (unfair) elections, therefore we're basically the same as you".
If its not a free or fair system it hardly matters if they just make up the votes or bulky/kill to merely depress opposition vote share.
I have conducted a quick review of Facebook and the narrative developing is that we should not be cutting incapacity benefits while we spend billions on asylum seeker hotels. I would guess that a very large proportion of the "middle-aged man on disability benefits" cohort are Reform voters (or soon to be so).
Also links being made to the assisted suicide bill, and waiting lists for operations. Former scaffolders with long-term injuries etc. This is going to be toxic.
Watch the numbers on asylum seeker hotels, which are due out this month.
They are about 40% down from peak, but tbf they also came down under the Conservatives.
But the riposte will be "why are the ANY hotels".
That they are not 4 star hotels as claimed does not matter, because the narrative is about emotion not truth.
So why are there any hotels?
Because we are insisting that they can't work until they are processed, and we're not processing them fast enough.
The interests of the local population seem to come last in either case. Either we put them up in hotels at great expense or let them compete against locals in the job and housing markets.
What a bizarre view. You seem to think that more people is inherently a problem. Yet the most economically active parts of the country are those with the highest population density.
You're not thinking about the interests of the individuals affected. Whether it's better for GDP overall or better for the Treasury isn't the point.
People living in London, like me, are affected by London’s population density, and we benefit from it. Elon Musk, who you seem to like, goes on about the importance of a growing population. More people can be a boon for everyone, not a cost.
I can't stress the point enough - nobody out there in the real world gives a toss about the Westminster bubble story which is Rupert Lowe.
70 Fukers to take a large majority on Durham Council. As a multiple-times losing candidate at borough council, county council and general election levels I salute anyone who puts themself forward for any party. But I do wonder who these 70 would be, and if any of them are able to actually run a county council.
In any election you get what you vote for (and usually that isn't me...). And so often in council elections you are voting for low information low skills people to be dictated to by the council officers. Reform rightly point out that things are broken, but they need to have a policy agenda which is legal and viable and deliverable by the 70 people they have rounded up off the street to win these seats...
If the party is defined by a certain pugnacious attitude then personality breakdown is highly likely.
The most Trumpy and Refomy of my acquaintances was aware of the Lowe business and on Farages side as better able to have mass appeal.
But in general i think the impact of the fallout may be more on candidates standing than voteshare. Could have an effect, but if they get nominations in should still do ok.
Sure! People are aware. But unless Reform fracture into pieces the party will still be there, still fielding candidates, and will still attract votes.
The Farage/Lowe spat may not be very nice. But go find me someone who thinks the country is broken, likes Farage, wants someone to fix their lives and then decides "well the Farage/Lowe spat wasn't very nice, so instead of voting for my own interests I'll vote Tory or Labour again even though they've done nothing."
Nobody cares. When push comes to shove if Reform are there they will hoover up the votes. We can't combat them by trying to turn a spat into a Westminster bubble crisis. We need to listen to people like Reform do, empathise with them like Reform do, and then offer them simple policies like Reform do - but actually make them effective.
Yes but the policies offered need to be realistic, and Reforms clearly are not, and do not have to be. It's the Brexit issue all over again.
Voters no longer are interested in reality, they are now all postmodernists denying the existence of objective truths. They want to belive the fantasy.
Most local government choices are a) very constrained by law or available finance, and b) not strictly ideological.
So it does make a difference who voters pick, but not as dramatically as parties pretend.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove them and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
Most countries have constitutions. Here's the first line of Russia's:
Russia is a democratic federal law-bound state with a republican form of government.
Well Russia does still have multi party elections, judges and a President
Exactly. And Russian is not a democracy.
It is, it has multi party parliamentary and presidential elections even if not a perfect one.
For most of the 20th century Russia and indeed Ukraine too were one party communist dictatorships under the USSR and before that under the absolute monarchy of the Tsars
I have conducted a quick review of Facebook and the narrative developing is that we should not be cutting incapacity benefits while we spend billions on asylum seeker hotels. I would guess that a very large proportion of the "middle-aged man on disability benefits" cohort are Reform voters (or soon to be so).
Also links being made to the assisted suicide bill, and waiting lists for operations. Former scaffolders with long-term injuries etc. This is going to be toxic.
Watch the numbers on asylum seeker hotels, which are due out this month.
They are about 40% down from peak, but tbf they also came down under the Conservatives.
But the riposte will be "why are the ANY hotels".
That they are not 4 star hotels as claimed does not matter, because the narrative is about emotion not truth.
So why are there any hotels?
Because we are insisting that they can't work until they are processed, and we're not processing them fast enough.
The interests of the local population seem to come last in either case. Either we put them up in hotels at great expense or let them compete against locals in the job and housing markets.
What a bizarre view. You seem to think that more people is inherently a problem. Yet the most economically active parts of the country are those with the highest population density.
You're not thinking about the interests of the individuals affected. Whether it's better for GDP overall or better for the Treasury isn't the point.
People living in London, like me, are affected by London’s population density, and we benefit from it. Elon Musk, who you seem to like, goes on about the importance of a growing population. More people can be a boon for everyone, not a cost.
How about if we round up all the gammons from the north of England and house them in your district of London instead. Would you see it as a boon?
Just had a conversation with relatives. Starmer is a monster trying to start WW3, our children shouldnt fight wars, Trump was controlling Putin quite well before but not now, and some Russian mystic has very accurate predictions of the future its spookily accurate.
They seem to be talking their way into Trump support 'he's awful and unstable but he doesnt start wars and is for peace'.
My best recommendation for listening today, a Foreign Affairs interview with Fiona Hill (not Theresa May's Fiona Hill -the other one),
She's a Bishop Auckland lass (from a mining family) who was a senior adviser to the first Trump Administration as Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs. She is now working as a key adviser to the British Government, and has been Chancellor of Durham Uni.
Very candid, and a lovely accent. @Taz will enjoy.
"Fiona Hill: What Does Trump See in Putin? | Foreign Affairs Interview"
She’s brilliant. Andrew Neil did an interview with her on The Tortoise. Very good. Bout a year ago.
She’s also not forgot her roots and funds scholarships in Durham.
If this is new from her certainly worth a listen.
This week. I'd put it as probable that she was working alongside Jonathan Powell (I think it was he) and Lord Mandelbrot in giving guidance to UK politicians and Zelenskyy in how to Trump-whisper.
Appointed a Defence Advisor to HMG upon Labour's election to Government in July 2024.
Her background sounds quite reminiscent of Lee Anderson.
Powell in particular seems to have had a very big role. He's got very long experience in negotiations, dating all the way back to Blair and Northern Ireland. Mandelson is also a similarly experienced fixer.
All much more experienced and adept, than Sunak, or Johnson's team.
His brother, Charles, played the same role for Thatcher - so Jonathan has been leveraging a direct experience of the subject spans 50+ years.
Just had a conversation with relatives. Starmer is a monster trying to start WW3, our children shouldnt fight wars, Trump was controlling Putin quite well before but not now, and some Russian mystic has very accurate predictions of the future its spookily accurate.
They seem to be talking their way into Trump support 'he's awful and unstable but he doesnt start wars and is for peace'.
Just had a conversation with relatives. Starmer is a monster trying to start WW3, our children shouldnt fight wars, Trump was controlling Putin quite well before but not now, and some Russian mystic has very accurate predictions of the future its spookily accurate.
They seem to be talking their way into Trump support 'he's awful and unstable but he doesnt start wars and is for peace'.
Used to be (maybe still are) Corbynite.
Sounds a bit more old fashioned Tankie, with added New Age Woo.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove them and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
Most countries have constitutions. Here's the first line of Russia's:
Russia is a democratic federal law-bound state with a republican form of government.
Well Russia does still have multi party elections, judges and a President
Exactly. And Russian is not a democracy.
It is, it has multi party parliamentary and presidential elections even if not a perfect one.
For most of the 20th century Russia and indeed Ukraine too were one party communist dictatorships under the USSR and before that under the absolute monarchy of the Tsars
The Economist Democracy Index rates Russia as an Authoritarian Regime. Out of a choice of Full Democracy, Flawed Democracy, Hybrid Regime and Authoritarian Regime.
Democracy Matrix has Russia as 'Moderate Autocracy'. Out of Working Democracy Deficient Democracy Hybrid Regime Moderate Autocracy Hard Autocracy
I have conducted a quick review of Facebook and the narrative developing is that we should not be cutting incapacity benefits while we spend billions on asylum seeker hotels. I would guess that a very large proportion of the "middle-aged man on disability benefits" cohort are Reform voters (or soon to be so).
Also links being made to the assisted suicide bill, and waiting lists for operations. Former scaffolders with long-term injuries etc. This is going to be toxic.
Watch the numbers on asylum seeker hotels, which are due out this month.
They are about 40% down from peak, but tbf they also came down under the Conservatives.
But the riposte will be "why are the ANY hotels".
That they are not 4 star hotels as claimed does not matter, because the narrative is about emotion not truth.
So why are there any hotels?
Because we are insisting that they can't work until they are processed, and we're not processing them fast enough.
The interests of the local population seem to come last in either case. Either we put them up in hotels at great expense or let them compete against locals in the job and housing markets.
The best and cheapest and most humane solution is immediate processing. About 30% will be returned and 70% will be accepted as genuine asylum seekers.
These will enter the jobs and housing markets, paying taxes and doing useful work, including, in some cases, helping to build houses.
What do you suggest?
I strongly doubt whether 70% are asylum seekers, and if they are, then the bar is set far too low. Finger in the air: about 2% should genuinely be offered asylum.
Based on what? Three of the top 5 countries for asylum seekers are Syria, Iran and Afghanistan. Do you doubt that people have good reasons to flee those countries?
But why should we take them? Most of them will be coming through half a dozen other safe countries. I'd suggest people we should be taking are those from HK or Ukraine, where we have specific reasons for taking them. Granted some Afghanistani asylum seekers would fall into that category. In general, we should probably be trying to avoid people from medeival shitholes like Syria.
Comments
Do you think we should refuse to help people who are in danger in their own country?
The local population around me is generally welcoming of people seeking asylum. Some aren't. But there are always some who are uncharitable. Low on empathy.
PS I've checked the figures. It is about 50% in the UK and France who are accepted.
https://x.com/leftiestats/status/1900862559646818740
Reform projected to win Durham council
🟣 REF 70 (+70)
🔴 LAB 15 (-38)
🟠 LD 9 (-8)
🔵 CON 4 (-20)
Via @ElectCalculus, 1-10 Mar (+/- vs 2021)
Two interesting points to mention, from many others:
1 - The irony that the USA thought Russia would move towards the way the West does things in the 1990s, and now the USA is moving towards the way Russia does things.
2 - There is a parallel between the rapid collapse of State process Russia went through, and the process of rapid destruction of the State Trump & his backers are putting the USA through now.
https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/how-i-joined-the-resistance
You certainly couldn’t imagine Trump writing that, much beyond his usual block capital tweets or tabloid headlines
"The Education of a Libertarian"
But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today.
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/
They should have used the money to re-open old hospitals, nursing homes etc., and made them into respiratory hospitals, taking Covid out of the existing NHS. Care there would have been at a more specialised but lower expertise (in other areas) level. It would also have fufilled Boris's manifesto pledge to open new hospitals and most could have been retained as additional nursing homes (the absence of which is a huge bed blocker for the NHS), or indeed hospitals.
At the very very beginning of Covid (the post is on PB) I did a bit of historical research and found that during the Spanish flu epidemic, the best outcomes were for those in 'fresh air hospitals' - where they were kept warm under blankets but windows were wide open - they were even outside sometimes. Nobody learns from the past - it was only at the end of Covid that ventilation became a buzzword.
In 2007, Vance left the military and used the G.I. Bill to study political science and philosophy at Ohio State University. He graduated in 2009 with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude. Vance then attended Yale Law School, where he was a member of The Yale Law Journal. (Wiki)
So call it the equivalent of an Oxford PPE 1st - like Ed Davey
What a troubled individual he is.
JD Vance says the ideas that led to the founding of America were formed in Europe, “the cradle of Western Civilization” and that he is trying to help save them from “suicide.”
https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1900708053051445349
Someone has coined the term Canschluss.
The reason other activity slowed was internal staff redeployment. Both Mrs Foxy and I were redeployed to ICU, away from our regular work.
It takes time to expand capacity, and staff capacity is the limiting factor rather than buildings or machines.
We couldn't double the size of our Navy or Air Force in a few weeks either, it takes years. Other health systems generally had more capacity than an NHS that always runs Hot.
I think he is intelligent, but knows that he needs to play to his base. He is a human chameleon, and the worst sort of cynic.
https://x.com/jonliedtke/status/1900593945907790189
He seems to think that women are a key reason why democracy can't work.
In practice the only one that has any obvious value is "Sign mutual defence treaties with the UK and France". Indeed - both countries have obvious historical centuries-old ties to Canada. Hi America, please don't mess with our friend, our SSBNs don't have to target Russia, they can target you...
Betting PostF1: a few things interesting but I've gone for 2.25 on under 17.5 classified finishers. This has happened at the last three races and there's half a dozen rookies on the grid plus a forecast of heavy rain.
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/03/australian-grand-prix-2025-pre-race.html
If Durham wants the Face Eating Leopards Party, who are we to argue?
I spent a good ten minutes adding to my blocked list.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24598981.refugees-moved-london-county-durham/
Refugees are being abandoned in the North East with no support and without council knowledge, an investigation by The Northern Echo can reveal.
Many of the refugees being shipped to County Durham speak little English and are being put in homes which are not suitable for use – one family had no gas or electricity when they arrived in a house that had not been occupied for years.
The practice has been slammed as “absolutely abhorrent” and “immoral” as the North East struggles with a housing crisis of its own with 75,000 families stuck for months waiting for social housing, more than 300 homeless children and County Durham rent rising 7 per cent in the last year alone.
70 Fukers to take a large majority on Durham Council. As a multiple-times losing candidate at borough council, county council and general election levels I salute anyone who puts themself forward for any party. But I do wonder who these 70 would be, and if any of them are able to actually run a county council.
In any election you get what you vote for (and usually that isn't me...). And so often in council elections you are voting for low information low skills people to be dictated to by the council officers. Reform rightly point out that things are broken, but they need to have a policy agenda which is legal and viable and deliverable by the 70 people they have rounded up off the street to win these seats...
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-failure-of-the-land-value-tax/
@ydoethur can probably judge how accurate that article is better than I can. But it seems to have been part of what set them on the road to irrelevance.
In any case those with property wealth are generally a bit old and frail to get involved in a revolution.
(Said the Bradford University Graduate.)
Classing that those who don't want to see their neighbourhoods changed, their local hotels transformed into asylum hostels, their competition for public services grow etc as uncharitable is just bafflingly out of touch.
The most Trumpy and Refomy of my acquaintances was aware of the Lowe business and on Farages side as better able to have mass appeal.
But in general i think the impact of the fallout may be more on candidates standing than voteshare. Could have an effect, but if they get nominations in should still do ok.
St Pierre et Miquelon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon
Russia is a democratic federal law-bound state with a republican form of government.
There aren’t huge numbers of empty hospitals waiting to be returned to service. A few are derelict buildings awaiting demolition, but they would take epic amounts of money and time to do anything with - that’s why they are being developed.
On ventilation - you are flat wrong. It was clear, right from the start that capacity to provide breathing assistance was critical. The changes from emphasis on full ventilation to breathing assistance. And that was fairly early on - which was why plans to mass produce ventilators were discarded in favour of less invasive techniques.
A majority of voters in the Indy Ref voted to stay part of the UK. Their democratically expressed views need to be respected. After a period of time - say a generation - it will be fair to ask again, but the revote campaign started about a week after the last referendum
The Farage/Lowe spat may not be very nice. But go find me someone who thinks the country is broken, likes Farage, wants someone to fix their lives and then decides "well the Farage/Lowe spat wasn't very nice, so instead of voting for my own interests I'll vote Tory or Labour again even though they've done nothing."
Nobody cares. When push comes to shove if Reform are there they will hoover up the votes. We can't combat them by trying to turn a spat into a Westminster bubble crisis. We need to listen to people like Reform do, empathise with them like Reform do, and then offer them simple policies like Reform do - but actually make them effective.
My claim that Reform will not do very well on the Ashfield County Seats is because they pretty much all have majorities of 30-50% of the vote for the Ashfield Independents. They will make progress, but I don't see that toppling in one bite.
No one mention Pride's Purge to Trump.
I suspect Foot knew more than he was able to say publicly.
The problem with dissing the DNA evidence is that it kind of implies an establishment cover up, and I'm always reluctant to go down that route without evidence. On the other hand, there are so many unexplained anomolies in the case against Hanratty.
Case not proven, as the Scots might say,
Voters no longer are interested in reality, they are now all postmodernists denying the existence of objective truths. They want to belive the fantasy.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
For most of the 20th century Russia and indeed Ukraine too were one party communist dictatorships under the USSR and before that under the absolute monarchy of the Tsars
If its not a free or fair system it hardly matters if they just make up the votes or bulky/kill to merely depress opposition vote share.
So it does make a difference who voters pick, but not as dramatically as parties pretend.
https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia
They seem to be talking their way into Trump support 'he's awful and unstable but he doesnt start wars and is for peace'.
Used to be (maybe still are) Corbynite.
Democracy Matrix has Russia as 'Moderate Autocracy'. Out of
Working Democracy
Deficient Democracy
Hybrid Regime
Moderate Autocracy
Hard Autocracy
But @HYUFD rates Russia as a 'Democracy'
🌳 CON: 548 (-390)
➡️ RFM: 474 (+470)
🔶 LDM: 270 (+50)
🌹 LAB: 252 (-40)
🌍 GRN: 27 (-10)
🙋 Oth: 77 (-80)
Changes are my own approximate figures due to boundary changes.
Via @ElectCalculus.
https://bsky.app/profile/electionmaps.uk/post/3lkg6jq7isc2o
I'd suggest people we should be taking are those from HK or Ukraine, where we have specific reasons for taking them. Granted some Afghanistani asylum seekers would fall into that category. In general, we should probably be trying to avoid people from medeival shitholes like Syria.