Local election leaflets. I’ve had two in a seat I expect to return one Indy and one Reform.
Labour full of what the current coalition running Durham is doing wrong and how they would be much better while forgetting they have a poor record of their time in office and did not do a great job. All rather bland.
One from reform who only seem to be putting up one candidate. All stop the boats, net zero, cut my tax, and little as to,what they’d do for Durham. Which is what I care about.
Not a great start really. Also sounds like they are both out campaigning too.
I've had a whole series from the Ashfield Independents, and I think only one from Reform. I think all our County seats are single candidate.
AIs are playing up Reform type themes, and inserting some outright fabrications afaics - such as allegations about rolling Ashfield up with Nottingham City into a unitary, and bring in a Low Emission Zone. Nottingham, never mind Notts, is one of the places with afaik no prospect of that as they have been working on building public transport and similar initiatives since the 1990s.
I've had a Tory one so far. Which is interesting as I can't recall having one around here for locals in years and years.
This intervention fitted in well with Kemi's 'show your workings' theme. She has come out strongly against 'doing things with no plan' and that includes military commitments. The implication being that Iraq wouldn't have been supported by a Kemi-led opposition. She's had a good few days.
Does the person who has come out strongly against 'doing things with no plan' - have a plan? Or have they stated that there is no need for a plan from her as it's too soon.
The latter. I was extremely against this, but if she can keep up the recent tempo and tone (giving a strong indication of where things have gone wrong and the required direction of travel, but announcing a policy review) on the various important issues, it will be OK.
Don't forget that Kemi's Tories will probably be the policy backbone of the next Government, even if they don't get most seats.
If they are the policy backbone, they will have most seats.
Reform's problems will commence when people start considering them as the governing party. The cupboard is bare. They may be good at sucking air through teeth and suggesting "I wouldn't do that". What they won't have is any plan to actually demonstrate a coherent alternative way of governing.
A depressing but entirely unsurprising poll for the opposition parties and the Tories in particular. Where is the narrative about how we start to get out of this mess, however slowly?
We are borrowing £100bn a year. Reeves says she will not borrow for current consumption but is finding it increasingly difficult to make the numbers work for that. Expect more tax increases (hopefully not as economically damaging as those in October) and fudging around what is "investment".
That massive stimulus to demand is not generating growth. It is not generating growth because too much of our consumption is spent on imports. We are bleeding nearly £50bn of demand to imports a year. Obviously we need imports. But we also need to produce as much as we consume.
So, our priorities should be increasing investment, reducing consumption, increasing production and eliminating both the fiscal and trade deficits. Is this really this hard? Obviously the devil is in the details but what is needed is a narrative that both acknowledges the mess we are in and the long, painful journey we need to undertake to get out of it. Where is the shadow Chancellor?
Trouble is, we don't want to consume less. Many people at the bottom can't realistically consume meaningfully less, and those at the top think that they deserve to consume more.
(The finger pointing about why we don't need to get to net zero pretty urgently is another manifestation of roughly the same psychology.)
So we get these silly fantasies that, as long as we stop this or that bit of spending that doesn't really seem to benefit us, everything will be fine.
It's bigger than that, and probably has been since the Lawson years.
The problem is that this is being offset by profligate government spending. Let's face it, Reeves' target of "only" borrowing every pound that is "invested" is an incredibly modest one. No business or household would operate on such a basis. And she is struggling to achieve even that having blown her extra £22bn on wages.
I know your politics leads you to the position it's all about public spending - and you may be right - but there are plenty of countries with a much higher tax burden, higher spending, lower deficits and better investment than the UK.
Cutting current spending is not the only option. What's disappointing to me is that our proportion of spending that is capital (or early intervention) is the same as it was under the Conservatives. Whatever your position on the size of the state, it's that proportion that must change if we're to get out of this mess.
This intervention fitted in well with Kemi's 'show your workings' theme. She has come out strongly against 'doing things with no plan' and that includes military commitments. The implication being that Iraq wouldn't have been supported by a Kemi-led opposition. She's had a good few days.
She was happy to support Liz Truss's 'no plan' premiership.
Truss had a plan. She believed in boosting growth, and she had a way she wanted to try and do it. A lot of us think that way was wildly disastrous in the economic conditions she found herself in, but she did in fact know what she wanted to do.
I have a plan to be a millionaire next week. I have bought a lottery ticket.
I seriously hope you are not trying to queue jump @Foxy. We have been waiting for that million pounds for decades now and it is way past our turn.
The key seems to be to choose the right numbers.
Choosing the right numbers is easy
Choosing them before the draw seems somewhat more difficult...
Yes, that's where my plan didn't work last time.
If I'm honest, getting the numbers on a ticket to match the numbers in the draw seems like a bit of a lottery...
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
This intervention fitted in well with Kemi's 'show your workings' theme. She has come out strongly against 'doing things with no plan' and that includes military commitments. The implication being that Iraq wouldn't have been supported by a Kemi-led opposition. She's had a good few days.
Does the person who has come out strongly against 'doing things with no plan' - have a plan? Or have they stated that there is no need for a plan from her as it's too soon.
The latter. I was extremely against this, but if she can keep up the recent tempo and tone (giving a strong indication of where things have gone wrong and the required direction of travel, but announcing a policy review) on the various important issues, it will be OK.
Don't forget that Kemi's Tories will probably be the policy backbone of the next Government, even if they don't get most seats.
If they are the policy backbone, they will have most seats.
Reform's problems will commence when people start considering them as the governing party. The cupboard is bare. They may be good at sucking air through teeth and suggesting "I wouldn't do that". What they won't have is any plan to actually demonstrate a coherent alternative way of governing.
I would agree somewhat. And I think that even if the Tories are the minority party in some form of coalition, if they have very good, workable policies ready to go, they are likely to be implemented, perhaps with some Reformy tarting up here and there.
A depressing but entirely unsurprising poll for the opposition parties and the Tories in particular. Where is the narrative about how we start to get out of this mess, however slowly?
We are borrowing £100bn a year. Reeves says she will not borrow for current consumption but is finding it increasingly difficult to make the numbers work for that. Expect more tax increases (hopefully not as economically damaging as those in October) and fudging around what is "investment".
That massive stimulus to demand is not generating growth. It is not generating growth because too much of our consumption is spent on imports. We are bleeding nearly £50bn of demand to imports a year. Obviously we need imports. But we also need to produce as much as we consume.
So, our priorities should be increasing investment, reducing consumption, increasing production and eliminating both the fiscal and trade deficits. Is this really this hard? Obviously the devil is in the details but what is needed is a narrative that both acknowledges the mess we are in and the long, painful journey we need to undertake to get out of it. Where is the shadow Chancellor?
Trouble is, we don't want to consume less. Many people at the bottom can't realistically consume meaningfully less, and those at the top think that they deserve to consume more.
(The finger pointing about why we don't need to get to net zero pretty urgently is another manifestation of roughly the same psychology.)
So we get these silly fantasies that, as long as we stop this or that bit of spending that doesn't really seem to benefit us, everything will be fine.
It's bigger than that, and probably has been since the Lawson years.
Consuming less is precisely the opposite of what we need to country to do. As I’ve pointed out a few times we have historically low levels of private debt and a growing savings rate.
Businesses aren’t spending money, and not are households. We’ve become a nation of misers, building up our own balance sheets at the expense of growth and investment. So government has ended up having to do our borrowing for us.
We need to be encouraging everyone to spend spend spend. Eat out to help out. Do that kitchen extension. Refurbish that office. Build the new datacentre, or the solar plant. Buy that IT system.
There are things government can do to stimulate this. Planning reform is one, but targeted incentives should be part of it too.
Yes, but it needs to be consumption that stimulates our economy, rather than just sucks in imports or spent on foreign holidays.
Not that simple.
Take a foreign holiday, surely the epitome of the “wasted” spending not benefiting Blighty. The UK economy gets:
- Quite likely the majority of the air fare or ferry ticket income - The taxi to the airport / fuel and car park charge / train ticket - if the accommodation was booked from here, then the agent’s commission (most booking engines contract at the home location of the traveler) - Car rental commission - The cat sitting charges - Travel insurance - Etc
If I take my last couple of foreign trips that’s probably about 50% of the cost.
And that’s the most extreme example of foreign consumption. For imported goods, especially ones we can’t make efficiently here, a large chunk of the income is going to:
- The local UK distributor (even if an LRD) - The principal company or IP owner in the supply chain - that may be say Swiss or German or Dutch but it’s quite common for it to be British. So corporate tax policy is important - The retailer - online or bricks and mortar (if you’re buying on Amazon it’s Amazon UK you’re paying) - The logistics companies holding and shipping it
In many cases that leaves little margin for the poor producer, which is likely a factory in Vietnam or a farm in Andalusia. In many cases they may even be making a loss.
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
A depressing but entirely unsurprising poll for the opposition parties and the Tories in particular. Where is the narrative about how we start to get out of this mess, however slowly?
We are borrowing £100bn a year. Reeves says she will not borrow for current consumption but is finding it increasingly difficult to make the numbers work for that. Expect more tax increases (hopefully not as economically damaging as those in October) and fudging around what is "investment".
That massive stimulus to demand is not generating growth. It is not generating growth because too much of our consumption is spent on imports. We are bleeding nearly £50bn of demand to imports a year. Obviously we need imports. But we also need to produce as much as we consume.
So, our priorities should be increasing investment, reducing consumption, increasing production and eliminating both the fiscal and trade deficits. Is this really this hard? Obviously the devil is in the details but what is needed is a narrative that both acknowledges the mess we are in and the long, painful journey we need to undertake to get out of it. Where is the shadow Chancellor?
There are so many basic fallacies in those four paragraphs that it's hard to know where to start.
Increasing investment would increase the trade (or I suppose you mean current account) deficit, not reduce it.
The "massive" stimulus to demand is failing to stimulate growth not mainly because it's leaking into imports, but because our private sector is strangled by high taxes and excessive regulation, and so cannot respond.
Reducing consumption reduces economic growth rather than increasing it.
Etc etc.
If we tackle our supply side problems (regulation, taxes, etc.) the demand side will take care of itself. And if we don't, the demand side doesn't matter much - we'll stagnate whatever happens to the current account.
As for the obsession about the trade deficit, shared by Donald Trump and his crew but no serious economist, Angola has a current account surplus of 5% of GDP and America a similar size deficit. Which country has the more successful economy?
It is growth that matters, not our current account deficit. And a growing economy will run a larger trade deficit than a stagnant one.
You can forsee exactly how it will go if SKS does put troops into Ukraine.
1. Rush of enthusiasm. The nation's brow is gilded with laurels as we embark on a collective enterprise of unqualified good.
2. Don't worry about RoE, strategy or an exit plan. See #1
3. Stories start to appear about why they don't have socks. Questions Must Be Asked.
4. British troops comport themselves with their usual restraint and decorum. Bad apples, not reflective of service ethos, etc.
5. Gruz 200s start.
6. The dominant objective becomes not to take casualties for political reasons leading to stasis and ineffectiveness.
7. Put a giant fucking poppy on your Nissan Juke.
You're assuming that our rather sad and embarrassing contribution to the occupation of Iraq is going to be replicated?
Sounds a bollocks comparison to me.
If it were to go badly wrong, it would be in a very different manner.
I also quite slightly irritated with the view that “we” (by which I mean rich world nations), can’t do anything worthwhile, so we might as well not do anything at all.
Some military interventions, in my lifetime, have gone very well, along with the failures.
AOC is having a moment. If she can connect with the more centrist Democratic voters too, then it could get interesting.
I think the Democrats need to choose someone next time who breaks out of their establishment echo chamber. AOC does that. But at the same time the “activist class” of the Democrats, whom AOC forms a part of, are deeply distrusted in middle America too.
Ideally I would say they want someone carrying the AOC economic message but being more ambivalent around the (for want of a better term) ‘wokey’ stuff. Weirdly, im not sure Bernie majors on the latter - they could have done with him being 30 years younger.
A depressing but entirely unsurprising poll for the opposition parties and the Tories in particular. Where is the narrative about how we start to get out of this mess, however slowly?
We are borrowing £100bn a year. Reeves says she will not borrow for current consumption but is finding it increasingly difficult to make the numbers work for that. Expect more tax increases (hopefully not as economically damaging as those in October) and fudging around what is "investment".
That massive stimulus to demand is not generating growth. It is not generating growth because too much of our consumption is spent on imports. We are bleeding nearly £50bn of demand to imports a year. Obviously we need imports. But we also need to produce as much as we consume.
So, our priorities should be increasing investment, reducing consumption, increasing production and eliminating both the fiscal and trade deficits. Is this really this hard? Obviously the devil is in the details but what is needed is a narrative that both acknowledges the mess we are in and the long, painful journey we need to undertake to get out of it. Where is the shadow Chancellor?
If reducing consumption is important in a society where people at the bottom can't realistically consume less and people at the top see no reason not to consume even more, then an updated & innovative form of rationing might be an answer.
Local election leaflets. I’ve had two in a seat I expect to return one Indy and one Reform.
Labour full of what the current coalition running Durham is doing wrong and how they would be much better while forgetting they have a poor record of their time in office and did not do a great job. All rather bland.
One from reform who only seem to be putting up one candidate. All stop the boats, net zero, cut my tax, and little as to,what they’d do for Durham. Which is what I care about.
Not a great start really. Also sounds like they are both out campaigning too.
I've had a whole series from the Ashfield Independents, and I think only one from Reform. I think all our County seats are single candidate.
AIs are playing up Reform type themes, and inserting some outright fabrications afaics - such as allegations about rolling Ashfield up with Nottingham City into a unitary, and bring in a Low Emission Zone. Nottingham, never mind Notts, is one of the places with afaik no prospect of that as they have been working on building public transport and similar initiatives since the 1990s.
I don't think there is a plan to merge Ashfield with Nottingham City is there? Plans I have seen online seem to be about Nick P's and Ken Clarke's old stomping patches.
Correct - they are scaremongering. There were three options:
A. One unitary covering Broxtowe, Gedling and Nottingham City; one unitary covering the remaining County including Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Newark and Sherwood and Rushcliffe,
B. One unitary covering Broxtowe, Nottingham City and Rushcliffe; one unitary covering the remaining County including Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Gedling, Mansfield and Newark and Sherwood,
C. One unitary covering Nottingham city (current arrangement); one unitary covering the County of Nottinghamshire.
They voted 2 days ago to endorse option C. Rushcliffe and Broxtowe and Gedling are clearly scared of the Nottingham finances.
Anabob would not be happy.
I'd have been happy with including Rushcliffe + one or both of Broxtowe and Gedling with Nottingham to give 2 unitaries in the ~600k range.
But the new County headquarters are in Ashfield, so that will be a modest boost for N of Nottingham.
A depressing but entirely unsurprising poll for the opposition parties and the Tories in particular. Where is the narrative about how we start to get out of this mess, however slowly?
We are borrowing £100bn a year. Reeves says she will not borrow for current consumption but is finding it increasingly difficult to make the numbers work for that. Expect more tax increases (hopefully not as economically damaging as those in October) and fudging around what is "investment".
That massive stimulus to demand is not generating growth. It is not generating growth because too much of our consumption is spent on imports. We are bleeding nearly £50bn of demand to imports a year. Obviously we need imports. But we also need to produce as much as we consume.
So, our priorities should be increasing investment, reducing consumption, increasing production and eliminating both the fiscal and trade deficits. Is this really this hard? Obviously the devil is in the details but what is needed is a narrative that both acknowledges the mess we are in and the long, painful journey we need to undertake to get out of it. Where is the shadow Chancellor?
Trouble is, we don't want to consume less. Many people at the bottom can't realistically consume meaningfully less, and those at the top think that they deserve to consume more.
(The finger pointing about why we don't need to get to net zero pretty urgently is another manifestation of roughly the same psychology.)
So we get these silly fantasies that, as long as we stop this or that bit of spending that doesn't really seem to benefit us, everything will be fine.
It's bigger than that, and probably has been since the Lawson years.
Consuming less is precisely the opposite of what we need to country to do. As I’ve pointed out a few times we have historically low levels of private debt and a growing savings rate.
Businesses aren’t spending money, and not are households. We’ve become a nation of misers, building up our own balance sheets at the expense of growth and investment. So government has ended up having to do our borrowing for us.
We need to be encouraging everyone to spend spend spend. Eat out to help out. Do that kitchen extension. Refurbish that office. Build the new datacentre, or the solar plant. Buy that IT system.
There are things government can do to stimulate this. Planning reform is one, but targeted incentives should be part of it too.
Yes, but it needs to be consumption that stimulates our economy, rather than just sucks in imports or spent on foreign holidays.
Not that simple.
Take a foreign holiday, surely the epitome of the “wasted” spending not benefiting Blighty. The UK economy gets:
- Quite likely the majority of the air fare or ferry ticket income - The taxi to the airport / fuel and car park charge / train ticket - if the accommodation was booked from here, then the agent’s commission (most booking engines contract at the home location of the traveler) - Car rental commission - The cat sitting charges - Travel insurance - Etc
If I take my last couple of foreign trips that’s probably about 50% of the cost.
And that’s the most extreme example of foreign consumption. For imported goods, especially ones we can’t make efficiently here, a large chunk of the income is going to:
- The local UK distributor (even if an LRD) - The principal company or IP owner in the supply chain - that may be say Swiss or German or Dutch but it’s quite common for it to be British. So corporate tax policy is important - The retailer - online or bricks and mortar (if you’re buying on Amazon it’s Amazon UK you’re paying) - The logistics companies holding and shipping it
In many cases that leaves little margin for the poor producer, which is likely a factory in Vietnam or a farm in Andalusia. In many cases they may even be making a loss.
Or take an installation of those famous cheap Chinese solar panels.
Import value, wholesale, of an array of say 9kw from China: under a grand.
Cost of installation, which reflects logistics, local reseller margin, labour, overheads, installer margin: £15k+
This intervention fitted in well with Kemi's 'show your workings' theme. She has come out strongly against 'doing things with no plan' and that includes military commitments. The implication being that Iraq wouldn't have been supported by a Kemi-led opposition. She's had a good few days.
Does the person who has come out strongly against 'doing things with no plan' - have a plan? Or have they stated that there is no need for a plan from her as it's too soon.
The latter. I was extremely against this, but if she can keep up the recent tempo and tone (giving a strong indication of where things have gone wrong and the required direction of travel, but announcing a policy review) on the various important issues, it will be OK.
Don't forget that Kemi's Tories will probably be the policy backbone of the next Government, even if they don't get most seats.
If they are the policy backbone, they will have most seats.
Reform's problems will commence when people start considering them as the governing party. The cupboard is bare. They may be good at sucking air through teeth and suggesting "I wouldn't do that". What they won't have is any plan to actually demonstrate a coherent alternative way of governing.
Something that Labour found out when they gained power last year. Although they have rapidly improved in some areas in 2025.
I don’t think this is unique to Reform. It is just they are not tried and tested historically.
The coalition running Durham, when in opposition in their separate groupings, did all of the ‘I wouldn’t do that’ stuff only to be no different when they were in power with the roles reversed and Labour now are doing the teeth sucking saying what they wouldn’t do. It’s disheartening.
Reforms issue is the lack of a ground game and candidate selection. If they get that right and can demonstrate some sort of competence then they have a chance.
I think they will do okay in Durham and win quite a few seats.
How does a private motor finance company impact the public finances?
Serious question. That has the feel of some vindictive people objecting to disabled people being able to use their Personal Independence Payment to make their lives easier.
Is there a case to support such a move?
Perhaps we need to start with not locking disabled people out of the best local parks.
It’s not really a serious question given the framing.
One in five new cars are motability and they go to people for all sorts of reasons. The scheme is expanding rapidly and needs to be looked at. For example the cars available on it. This is, ultimately, taxpayers money going to fund these cars.
I don't see the point there. The rapid expansion is likely to be a one-off due to the market.
What I am hearing there is inchoate outrage about disabled people spending a non-means-tested benefit on something that they find helps them most effectively.
I see no rational basis for interference. Basically, it's nothing whatsoever to do with the likes of John Rentoul or any politicians - unless an abuse can be shown. BTW I can't find the tweet - is it genuine?
If there are believed to be problems about who gets the benefit, then that's about who is eligible for the benefit, not about how it is spent. It is specifically intended as a modest contribution to helping disabled people adapt to their needs.
I have my own issues with Motability, as you know, mainly around equivalent mobility aids being excluded from the scheme.
But non-disabled commentators trying to control the lives of disabled people without a really strong case is as obscene as it sounds.
I haven't seen any weigh in from stirrers or politicians, but to me it has the same whiff as for example the outrage Robert Jenrick was trying to generate when he claimed that disability being listed as a factor deserving a pre-sentencing report in a Court Case was an act of discrimination against white men. But Jenrick is a dog whistler, as we know.
I would suggest that by 'radically scaling back motability' Rentoul means looking at eligibility first and foremost.
Your response reminds me of the trans-activist response to women who are angry with cross-dressers exposing themselves in women's loos. A blanket refusal to contemplate that there are people abusing the system - if you identify as disabled, you are. You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems odd to me, because these people are calling into question the benefits that those who are genuinely disabled depend upon, just as the perverts indulging their kink have called into question (wrongly in my view) the right of post-op transsexuals to use women's loos. I would be furious with them, not furious with the people wondering why motability has become a part of Britain's economy that can be seen from space.
You're spouting off on something you know nothing about as usual.
There's a set of cirtieria, a rigorous assessment, an appeal process. People who apply either qualify or they don't. Most who apply don't qualify for the higher rate mobility component of PIP, which is what you need to join the Motability scheme.
There are regular reviews, a process for reporting suspected fraud, an established investigation team, fraudulent claimants are made to pay back the money they've received and can be fined or imprisoned.
Your comment that "if you identify as disabled, you are" is utter bullshit and very offensive.
We can argue about whether my post is bullshit or not, but what it isn't is offensive. To assign it as offensive is to do exactly what I am observing - to try to stamp on criticism not of disabled people, but of able-bodied people gaming the system. That is (as I said) an odd and confusing stance.
On a point of order, I would object to the term 'able bodied'. I have a best friend with such severe depression that she can't go out of the house and one with severe learning difficulties. Both of them rely on benefits to live and I really hate the idea swirling around that people who claim disability benefits for mental health reasons are gaming the system for just feeling a bit sad.
A depressing but entirely unsurprising poll for the opposition parties and the Tories in particular. Where is the narrative about how we start to get out of this mess, however slowly?
We are borrowing £100bn a year. Reeves says she will not borrow for current consumption but is finding it increasingly difficult to make the numbers work for that. Expect more tax increases (hopefully not as economically damaging as those in October) and fudging around what is "investment".
That massive stimulus to demand is not generating growth. It is not generating growth because too much of our consumption is spent on imports. We are bleeding nearly £50bn of demand to imports a year. Obviously we need imports. But we also need to produce as much as we consume.
So, our priorities should be increasing investment, reducing consumption, increasing production and eliminating both the fiscal and trade deficits. Is this really this hard? Obviously the devil is in the details but what is needed is a narrative that both acknowledges the mess we are in and the long, painful journey we need to undertake to get out of it. Where is the shadow Chancellor?
If reducing consumption is important in a society where people at the bottom can't realistically consume less and people at the top see no reason not to consume even more, then an updated & innovative form of rationing might be an answer.
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
It is perfectly possible to have an over reaction to MAGA politics, but I think she will primary very well and who knows.
Like Corbyn, she engages voters who otherwise are apathetic.
I am also on Pritzker at 70, as a bit more mainstream, Midwest candidate but also showing a bit of fight.
All assuming that there are elections in the future of course.
Personally I don't think there is an external meaning, but maximising pleasure and the pleasure of others seems a reasonable shot. More thought produces a more nuanced answer, nut essentially the same.
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
In normal times but if Trump's tariffs increase prices significantly without creating more jobs even she could win
You can forsee exactly how it will go if SKS does put troops into Ukraine.
1. Rush of enthusiasm. The nation's brow is gilded with laurels as we embark on a collective enterprise of unqualified good.
2. Don't worry about RoE, strategy or an exit plan. See #1
3. Stories start to appear about why they don't have socks. Questions Must Be Asked.
4. British troops comport themselves with their usual restraint and decorum. Bad apples, not reflective of service ethos, etc.
5. Gruz 200s start.
6. The dominant objective becomes not to take casualties for political reasons leading to stasis and ineffectiveness.
7. Put a giant fucking poppy on your Nissan Juke.
There will be a. ‘It will all be over by Xmas’ vine about it. 1914 redux.
You ever driven a Juke ?
Don't think so. I definitely been a passenger in one. I remember being struck by how many mismatched and different materials were used in the interior trim. I think I counted 17.
One that I don't think we have covered - I may have missed it. Foreign funding of political parties.
Limitations on foreign funding of UK political parties are being considered earlier than thought likely. They were in the Starmer Manifesto. Sky News framed it as a response to Musk's meddling. The alleged proposals to do it on the basis of profits made in the UK seems timid to me.
There are other things that could go alongside it as a theme of the next King's Speech - levellng up voter ID, votes for 16 year olds etc.
Drop voter ID requirements in GB. Cut the red tape around voting! There was never a need for them, and you instantly save local councils money on running elections.
AOC is having a moment. If she can connect with the more centrist Democratic voters too, then it could get interesting.
I think she should be favourite for Dem nomination. The dems are going to be so angry in 4 years time, they'll want the anti trump.
For now, the big effect will be in the primaries for the midterms. The base will very probably pick more radical candidates; whether that works electorally is less predictable.
Assuming elections still happen, those results will go some way to determining AOC's chances.
"If you are an LGBTQ kid or family, we cannot throw you under the bus in order to win an election. In this house, we stand together"
I think that the right approach. By ceding ground rather than winning the argument you simply allow the centre ground to shift. It's better to stand up for what you believe.
As I frequently point out, Dems/Labour cannot win by becoming a pale facsimile of MAGA/Reform. People will choose the real thing every time. All it does is piss off and demotivate your own supporters.
Local election leaflets. I’ve had two in a seat I expect to return one Indy and one Reform.
Labour full of what the current coalition running Durham is doing wrong and how they would be much better while forgetting they have a poor record of their time in office and did not do a great job. All rather bland.
One from reform who only seem to be putting up one candidate. All stop the boats, net zero, cut my tax, and little as to,what they’d do for Durham. Which is what I care about.
Not a great start really. Also sounds like they are both out campaigning too.
I've had a whole series from the Ashfield Independents, and I think only one from Reform. I think all our County seats are single candidate.
AIs are playing up Reform type themes, and inserting some outright fabrications afaics - such as allegations about rolling Ashfield up with Nottingham City into a unitary, and bring in a Low Emission Zone. Nottingham, never mind Notts, is one of the places with afaik no prospect of that as they have been working on building public transport and similar initiatives since the 1990s.
I've had a Tory one so far. Which is interesting as I can't recall having one around here for locals in years and years.
At the General Election in Ashfield, Tories and LD were both essentially paper candidates.
I have not seen anything from Labour yet, but their fruitful local election seats will I think be elsewhere.
Ashfield Independents are running with "it's us versus Labour", complete with bar chart and no mention of either Reform or Jason Zadrozny.
(They used to be Lib Dems).
I'm on a funny bit of the map, so I may be getting leaflets from two candidates.
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
Hmm. Maybe. But Trump won in no small part because large chunks of America felt the economy and the government no longer worked for them. If Trump is seen to fail on that front then the opposing side of the argument might get a hearing.
For what it’s worth, much is made of the American culture of “small government/hands off/stop interfering in my life” that often seems to pervade discussions like this but I do actually think that is somewhat overdone and tends to be amplified by those who shout the loudest.
I think someone of the left economically, who can also demonstrate strong immigration creds/beliefs and who doesn’t major on identity politics would be an absolutely formidable candidate for the Democrats. The problem at the moment is that I’m not sure they’ve got someone who hits all those bases - they’ve got some who hit one or at a stretch two, but they need the complete package.
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
It is perfectly possible to have an over reaction to MAGA politics, but I think she will primary very well and who knows.
Like Corbyn, she engages voters who otherwise are apathetic.
I am also on Pritzker at 70, as a bit more mainstream, Midwest candidate but also showing a bit of fight.
All assuming that there are elections in the future of course.
FWIW, I don't think Trump will actually cancel elections. His cult will make sure they are pretty rigged. Far easier to get away with. But I wouldn't make a bet on it.
"If you are an LGBTQ kid or family, we cannot throw you under the bus in order to win an election. In this house, we stand together"
I think that the right approach. By ceding ground rather than winning the argument you simply allow the centre ground to shift. It's better to stand up for what you believe.
As I frequently point out, Dems/Labour cannot win by becoming a pale facsimile of MAGA/Reform. People will choose the real thing every time. All it does is piss off and demotivate your own supporters.
I don’t think the Democrats should abandon those voters. They should continue to stick up for minority and reproductive rights - it’s an important part of the debate. But it is the way they do so that is crucial here. I think the debate can be won on equal protection and against rights rollback. I am less convinced that they get a great hearing for further “progressive” policies.
"If you are an LGBTQ kid or family, we cannot throw you under the bus in order to win an election. In this house, we stand together"
I think that the right approach. By ceding ground rather than winning the argument you simply allow the centre ground to shift. It's better to stand up for what you believe.
As I frequently point out, Dems/Labour cannot win by becoming a pale facsimile of MAGA/Reform. People will choose the real thing every time. All it does is piss off and demotivate your own supporters.
The shift, if that’s what it is, is towards inclusivity rather than exclusivity. Changing language isn’t the same thing as ceding ground.
Interesting that 39% think leaving the EU has contributed most to the poor state of the British economy. A relatively easy fix I'd have thought. Certainly something for Labour's next manifesto if things don't improve
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
It is perfectly possible to have an over reaction to MAGA politics, but I think she will primary very well and who knows.
Like Corbyn, she engages voters who otherwise are apathetic.
I am also on Pritzker at 70, as a bit more mainstream, Midwest candidate but also showing a bit of fight.
All assuming that there are elections in the future of course.
FWIW, I don't think Trump will actually cancel elections. His cult will make sure they are pretty rigged. Far easier to get away with. But I wouldn't make a bet on it.
I think rigging is also probably easier for state level Republican officials to go along with -- it will feel more "good for me and my side" rather than "good for Trump", and it's something you can persuade yourself is just an extension of the usual "do legitimate things that advantage us" practices like gerrymandering. On the other hand the government hasn't been showing much sign so far of caring about retaining a veneer of legitimacy, so I guess I don't put outright cancellation at 0%.
"If you are an LGBTQ kid or family, we cannot throw you under the bus in order to win an election. In this house, we stand together"
I think that the right approach. By ceding ground rather than winning the argument you simply allow the centre ground to shift. It's better to stand up for what you believe.
As I frequently point out, Dems/Labour cannot win by becoming a pale facsimile of MAGA/Reform. People will choose the real thing every time. All it does is piss off and demotivate your own supporters.
I don’t think the Democrats should abandon those voters. They should continue to stick up for minority and reproductive rights - it’s an important part of the debate. But it is the way they do so that is crucial here. I think the debate can be won on equal protection and against rights rollback. I am less convinced that they get a great hearing for further “progressive” policies.
Suspect it's going to be simpler than that, though, boiling down to two questions.
1 Will the Administration allow a recognisably free and fair election?
2 If they do (and that's a much bigger if than it should be), MAGA- yay or nay?
Whatever platform the Democratic nominee runs on will be portrayed as fruitloop woke. Because the people around Trump tell lies.
You can forsee exactly how it will go if SKS does put troops into Ukraine.
1. Rush of enthusiasm. The nation's brow is gilded with laurels as we embark on a collective enterprise of unqualified good.
2. Don't worry about RoE, strategy or an exit plan. See #1
3. Stories start to appear about why they don't have socks. Questions Must Be Asked.
4. British troops comport themselves with their usual restraint and decorum. Bad apples, not reflective of service ethos, etc.
5. Gruz 200s start.
6. The dominant objective becomes not to take casualties for political reasons leading to stasis and ineffectiveness.
7. Put a giant fucking poppy on your Nissan Juke.
There will be a. ‘It will all be over by Xmas’ vine about it. 1914 redux.
You ever driven a Juke ?
Don't think so. I definitely been a passenger in one. I remember being struck by how many mismatched and different materials were used in the interior trim. I think I counted 17.
We test drove one and were surprised, for a medium sized car, how tiny it was inside.
When I worked on the CPM for the Micra in the early 00’s we used to but a TPE skin to vac form. It went on the top of the CPM. Our Japanese colleagues rather impolitely referred to the texture as ‘dead flesh’
Nissan interior trim designs have been uniformly awful since I can remember. I cannot say I am surprised at your thoughts.
Gap and flush conditions are concepts in principle to Nissan too.
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
It is perfectly possible to have an over reaction to MAGA politics, but I think she will primary very well and who knows.
Like Corbyn, she engages voters who otherwise are apathetic.
I am also on Pritzker at 70, as a bit more mainstream, Midwest candidate but also showing a bit of fight.
All assuming that there are elections in the future of course.
FWIW, I don't think Trump will actually cancel elections. His cult will make sure they are pretty rigged. Far easier to get away with. But I wouldn't make a bet on it.
Who the hell knows. He pushing to see how far he can go, and some of the crew behind him are openly hostile to democracy.
People come to accept the new normal, which opens the way to changing it further.
Local election leaflets. I’ve had two in a seat I expect to return one Indy and one Reform.
Labour full of what the current coalition running Durham is doing wrong and how they would be much better while forgetting they have a poor record of their time in office and did not do a great job. All rather bland.
One from reform who only seem to be putting up one candidate. All stop the boats, net zero, cut my tax, and little as to,what they’d do for Durham. Which is what I care about.
Not a great start really. Also sounds like they are both out campaigning too.
I've had a whole series from the Ashfield Independents, and I think only one from Reform. I think all our County seats are single candidate.
AIs are playing up Reform type themes, and inserting some outright fabrications afaics - such as allegations about rolling Ashfield up with Nottingham City into a unitary, and bring in a Low Emission Zone. Nottingham, never mind Notts, is one of the places with afaik no prospect of that as they have been working on building public transport and similar initiatives since the 1990s.
I've had a Tory one so far. Which is interesting as I can't recall having one around here for locals in years and years.
At the General Election in Ashfield, Tories and LD were both essentially paper candidates.
I have not seen anything from Labour yet, but their fruitful local election seats will I think be elsewhere.
Ashfield Independents are running with "it's us versus Labour", complete with bar chart and no mention of either Reform or Jason Zadrozny.
(They used to be Lib Dems).
I'm on a funny bit of the map, so I may be getting leaflets from two candidates.
Have JZ’s legal issues been resolved. Last I read he’d entered a plea of not guilty.
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
Hmm. Maybe. But Trump won in no small part because large chunks of America felt the economy and the government no longer worked for them. If Trump is seen to fail on that front then the opposing side of the argument might get a hearing.
For what it’s worth, much is made of the American culture of “small government/hands off/stop interfering in my life” that often seems to pervade discussions like this but I do actually think that is somewhat overdone and tends to be amplified by those who shout the loudest.
I think someone of the left economically, who can also demonstrate strong immigration creds/beliefs and who doesn’t major on identity politics would be an absolutely formidable candidate for the Democrats. The problem at the moment is that I’m not sure they’ve got someone who hits all those bases - they’ve got some who hit one or at a stretch two, but they need the complete package.
As Ezra Klein points out, one problem the Democrats have with running on "we'll make the economy work for you and fix the high cost of living crisis" is that they can't exactly point at states like California where Democrats are in control and say "see, we could make the whole country as good and cheap a place to live as California". They need to take a solid look at why it's so hard to build houses (and everything else) so that they have a believable positive alternative.
Interesting that 39% think leaving the EU has contributed most to the poor state of the British economy. A relatively easy fix I'd have thought. Certainly something for Labour's next manifesto if things don't improve
I was talking to a matr of mine yesterday who is a recruiter in the hospitality industry, who confirmed this is the worst he has ever known the economy - worse than covid, worse than 08 - and he hasn't placed anyone for three months. In his view, in his sector, Rachel Reeves has been the worst thing to happen to the economy in his lifetime.
I have had one each from LD and Conservative. Nothing from Reform or Labour. Usually we have a Lab candidate but fairly nominal. We have had other right wing candidates in the past for the BXP and BNP.
The Tory guy doesn't seem a complete dipstick, just the usually NIMBY stuff.
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
It is perfectly possible to have an over reaction to MAGA politics, but I think she will primary very well and who knows.
Like Corbyn, she engages voters who otherwise are apathetic.
I am also on Pritzker at 70, as a bit more mainstream, Midwest candidate but also showing a bit of fight.
All assuming that there are elections in the future of course.
FWIW, I don't think Trump will actually cancel elections. His cult will make sure they are pretty rigged. Far easier to get away with. But I wouldn't make a bet on it.
Who the hell knows. He pushing to see how far he can go, and some of the crew behind him are openly hostile to democracy.
People come to accept the new normal, which opens the way to changing it further.
They are going to become wildly hostile to democracy as the polls show the reaction to what Trump is seen as responsible for breaking.
That said, to capitalise the Democrats are going to have to retire a swathe of elderly senators/represenatives/party officials who still think they are protecting a cosy consensus on government between the two parties.
Fascinating for many reasons not least the Mormon outfit worn by the woman on camera right. There was a similar one on Newsnight but in pink with turn up cuffs and collar but in pink. Seems to be a developing Trumpite uniform.
I was talking to a matr of mine yesterday who is a recruiter in the hospitality industry, who confirmed this is the worst he has ever known the economy - worse than covid, worse than 08 - and he hasn't placed anyone for three months. In his view, in his sector, Rachel Reeves has been the worst thing to happen to the economy in his lifetime.
There’s 2 new posh hotels and a number of restaurants opening in Newcastle recently and in the near future. Can’t be all bad
I have had one each from LD and Conservative. Nothing from Reform or Labour. Usually we have a Lab candidate but fairly nominal. We have had other right wing candidates in the past for the BXP and BNP.
The Tory guy doesn't seem a complete dipstick, just the usually NIMBY stuff.
Just one from Labour here. I expect something from the Greens in due course, they’re the main challengers here.
Gaza independents don’t really loom large in SE London, it’s a different ethnic and religious mix compared with the East End.
How does a private motor finance company impact the public finances?
Serious question. That has the feel of some vindictive people objecting to disabled people being able to use their Personal Independence Payment to make their lives easier.
Is there a case to support such a move?
Perhaps we need to start with not locking disabled people out of the best local parks.
It’s not really a serious question given the framing.
One in five new cars are motability and they go to people for all sorts of reasons. The scheme is expanding rapidly and needs to be looked at. For example the cars available on it. This is, ultimately, taxpayers money going to fund these cars.
I don't see the point there. The rapid expansion is likely to be a one-off due to the market.
What I am hearing there is inchoate outrage about disabled people spending a non-means-tested benefit on something that they find helps them most effectively.
I see no rational basis for interference. Basically, it's nothing whatsoever to do with the likes of John Rentoul or any politicians - unless an abuse can be shown. BTW I can't find the tweet - is it genuine?
If there are believed to be problems about who gets the benefit, then that's about who is eligible for the benefit, not about how it is spent. It is specifically intended as a modest contribution to helping disabled people adapt to their needs.
I have my own issues with Motability, as you know, mainly around equivalent mobility aids being excluded from the scheme.
But non-disabled commentators trying to control the lives of disabled people without a really strong case is as obscene as it sounds.
I haven't seen any weigh in from stirrers or politicians, but to me it has the same whiff as for example the outrage Robert Jenrick was trying to generate when he claimed that disability being listed as a factor deserving a pre-sentencing report in a Court Case was an act of discrimination against white men. But Jenrick is a dog whistler, as we know.
I would suggest that by 'radically scaling back motability' Rentoul means looking at eligibility first and foremost.
Your response reminds me of the trans-activist response to women who are angry with cross-dressers exposing themselves in women's loos. A blanket refusal to contemplate that there are people abusing the system - if you identify as disabled, you are. You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems odd to me, because these people are calling into question the benefits that those who are genuinely disabled depend upon, just as the perverts indulging their kink have called into question (wrongly in my view) the right of post-op transsexuals to use women's loos. I would be furious with them, not furious with the people wondering why motability has become a part of Britain's economy that can be seen from space.
You're spouting off on something you know nothing about as usual.
There's a set of cirtieria, a rigorous assessment, an appeal process. People who apply either qualify or they don't. Most who apply don't qualify for the higher rate mobility component of PIP, which is what you need to join the Motability scheme.
There are regular reviews, a process for reporting suspected fraud, an established investigation team, fraudulent claimants are made to pay back the money they've received and can be fined or imprisoned.
Your comment that "if you identify as disabled, you are" is utter bullshit and very offensive.
Criteria.
That's your response? Unnecessarily pointing out an obvious typo.
Yes,
Any rule against it ?
It’s something Luckyguy, who I always like to read, does quite a bit so I thought I’d do it. Save him the bother.
No rule against it, no, but you might have a good argument to put (I was following the discussion) and this just makes it look like you are accepting defeat and going off on a an unrelated point, and a very weak one at that, because someone making as typo does not make their argument invalid at all.
Yes @Luckyguy1983 does it a lot (so good of you to save him the trouble ), but it just looks weak as I said, plus we are not school children so it is a bit insulting.
In addition @Luckyguy1983 has come a cropper at least a couple of times (I think on his favourite, licence) so when you correct someones spelling or grammar you can be setting yourself up to look a fool. I prefer to make myself look a fool by getting something relevant wrong.
But regardless of all of that, it is just patronising.
I was talking to a matr of mine yesterday who is a recruiter in the hospitality industry, who confirmed this is the worst he has ever known the economy - worse than covid, worse than 08 - and he hasn't placed anyone for three months. In his view, in his sector, Rachel Reeves has been the worst thing to happen to the economy in his lifetime.
There’s 2 new posh hotels and a number of restaurants opening in Newcastle recently and in the near future. Can’t be all bad
Probably a difference between the worst time for hospitality and the worst time for recruitment in hospitality. I imagine the employer NI changes really put a dampener on any new recruitment.
That said, there still seems to be lots on demand at the middle to upper end. My brother in law is a chef up in Yorkshire and can pretty much make his price.
Hospitality is partially automatable. I’d expect to see structural change in how coffee shop chains serve customers over the coming years. More tablets for ordering and more automatic (but high quality) coffee machines.
I was talking to a matr of mine yesterday who is a recruiter in the hospitality industry, who confirmed this is the worst he has ever known the economy - worse than covid, worse than 08 - and he hasn't placed anyone for three months. In his view, in his sector, Rachel Reeves has been the worst thing to happen to the economy in his lifetime.
There’s 2 new posh hotels and a number of restaurants opening in Newcastle recently and in the near future. Can’t be all bad
Mrs Foxy and I eat out once a week or so (generally Sunday lunch with Fox jr and partner). The places we go seem as busy as ever.
Trump recently said he had the authority to use the US military for future round ups and is poised to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops on the southern border and on America’s streets. Insiders say that his purge of senior brass is still in its early stages.
I was talking to a matr of mine yesterday who is a recruiter in the hospitality industry, who confirmed this is the worst he has ever known the economy - worse than covid, worse than 08 - and he hasn't placed anyone for three months. In his view, in his sector, Rachel Reeves has been the worst thing to happen to the economy in his lifetime.
There’s 2 new posh hotels and a number of restaurants opening in Newcastle recently and in the near future. Can’t be all bad
Probably a difference between the worst time for hospitality and the worst time for recruitment in hospitality. I imagine the employer NI changes really put a dampener on any new recruitment.
That said, there still seems to be lots on demand at the middle to upper end. My brother in law is a chef up in Yorkshire and can pretty much make his price.
Hospitality is partially automatable. I’d expect to see structural change in how coffee shop chains serve customers over the coming years. More tablets for ordering and more automatic (but high quality) coffee machines.
That works for fast food, but generally people want the analogue version. They want human contact, otherwise might as well make your own coffee at home.
I was talking to a matr of mine yesterday who is a recruiter in the hospitality industry, who confirmed this is the worst he has ever known the economy - worse than covid, worse than 08 - and he hasn't placed anyone for three months. In his view, in his sector, Rachel Reeves has been the worst thing to happen to the economy in his lifetime.
How does a private motor finance company impact the public finances?
Serious question. That has the feel of some vindictive people objecting to disabled people being able to use their Personal Independence Payment to make their lives easier.
Is there a case to support such a move?
Perhaps we need to start with not locking disabled people out of the best local parks.
It’s not really a serious question given the framing.
One in five new cars are motability and they go to people for all sorts of reasons. The scheme is expanding rapidly and needs to be looked at. For example the cars available on it. This is, ultimately, taxpayers money going to fund these cars.
I don't see the point there. The rapid expansion is likely to be a one-off due to the market.
What I am hearing there is inchoate outrage about disabled people spending a non-means-tested benefit on something that they find helps them most effectively.
I see no rational basis for interference. Basically, it's nothing whatsoever to do with the likes of John Rentoul or any politicians - unless an abuse can be shown. BTW I can't find the tweet - is it genuine?
If there are believed to be problems about who gets the benefit, then that's about who is eligible for the benefit, not about how it is spent. It is specifically intended as a modest contribution to helping disabled people adapt to their needs.
I have my own issues with Motability, as you know, mainly around equivalent mobility aids being excluded from the scheme.
But non-disabled commentators trying to control the lives of disabled people without a really strong case is as obscene as it sounds.
I haven't seen any weigh in from stirrers or politicians, but to me it has the same whiff as for example the outrage Robert Jenrick was trying to generate when he claimed that disability being listed as a factor deserving a pre-sentencing report in a Court Case was an act of discrimination against white men. But Jenrick is a dog whistler, as we know.
I would suggest that by 'radically scaling back motability' Rentoul means looking at eligibility first and foremost.
Your response reminds me of the trans-activist response to women who are angry with cross-dressers exposing themselves in women's loos. A blanket refusal to contemplate that there are people abusing the system - if you identify as disabled, you are. You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems odd to me, because these people are calling into question the benefits that those who are genuinely disabled depend upon, just as the perverts indulging their kink have called into question (wrongly in my view) the right of post-op transsexuals to use women's loos. I would be furious with them, not furious with the people wondering why motability has become a part of Britain's economy that can be seen from space.
You're spouting off on something you know nothing about as usual.
There's a set of cirtieria, a rigorous assessment, an appeal process. People who apply either qualify or they don't. Most who apply don't qualify for the higher rate mobility component of PIP, which is what you need to join the Motability scheme.
There are regular reviews, a process for reporting suspected fraud, an established investigation team, fraudulent claimants are made to pay back the money they've received and can be fined or imprisoned.
Your comment that "if you identify as disabled, you are" is utter bullshit and very offensive.
Criteria.
That's your response? Unnecessarily pointing out an obvious typo.
Yes,
Any rule against it ?
It’s something Luckyguy, who I always like to read, does quite a bit so I thought I’d do it. Save him the bother.
No rule against it, no, but you might have a good argument to put (I was following the discussion) and this just makes it look like you are accepting defeat and going off on a an unrelated point, and a very weak one at that, because someone making as typo does not make their argument invalid at all.
Yes @Luckyguy1983 does it a lot (so good of you to save him the trouble ), but it just looks weak as I said, plus we are not school children so it is a bit insulting.
In addition @Luckyguy1983 has come a cropper at least a couple of times (I think on his favourite, licence) so when you correct someones spelling or grammar you can be setting yourself up to look a fool. I prefer to make myself look a fool by getting something relevant wrong.
But regardless of all of that, it is just patronising.
Yesterday I had the corporate police do their usual editorial review of my draft newspaper article. They’re supposed to focus on purging things that might be politically sensitive but they can’t resist the occasional bit of language pedantry.
So they changed “spoiled” to “spoilt”, and I enjoyed pointing out they were using the informal spelling that according to grammar guides is “to be avoided”. Though not after a thorough internet browse to ensure I wasn’t going to get luckyguyed.
I was talking to a matr of mine yesterday who is a recruiter in the hospitality industry, who confirmed this is the worst he has ever known the economy - worse than covid, worse than 08 - and he hasn't placed anyone for three months. In his view, in his sector, Rachel Reeves has been the worst thing to happen to the economy in his lifetime.
There’s 2 new posh hotels and a number of restaurants opening in Newcastle recently and in the near future. Can’t be all bad
Probably a difference between the worst time for hospitality and the worst time for recruitment in hospitality. I imagine the employer NI changes really put a dampener on any new recruitment.
That said, there still seems to be lots on demand at the middle to upper end. My brother in law is a chef up in Yorkshire and can pretty much make his price.
Hospitality is partially automatable. I’d expect to see structural change in how coffee shop chains serve customers over the coming years. More tablets for ordering and more automatic (but high quality) coffee machines.
That works for fast food, but generally people want the analogue version. They want human contact, otherwise might as well make your own coffee at home.
Which means they’ll pay more. So the market works.
And in the big chains - Pret, Nero, Costa etc - they are fast food anyway. I’m not suggesting you’ll see it down your local independent.
Personally I don't think there is an external meaning, but maximising pleasure and the pleasure of others seems a reasonable shot. More thought produces a more nuanced answer, nut essentially the same.
Thank you. What an interesting thought provoking read. One of the answers brought tears to my eyes. I'm saving that.
A depressing but entirely unsurprising poll for the opposition parties and the Tories in particular. Where is the narrative about how we start to get out of this mess, however slowly?
We are borrowing £100bn a year. Reeves says she will not borrow for current consumption but is finding it increasingly difficult to make the numbers work for that. Expect more tax increases (hopefully not as economically damaging as those in October) and fudging around what is "investment".
That massive stimulus to demand is not generating growth. It is not generating growth because too much of our consumption is spent on imports. We are bleeding nearly £50bn of demand to imports a year. Obviously we need imports. But we also need to produce as much as we consume.
So, our priorities should be increasing investment, reducing consumption, increasing production and eliminating both the fiscal and trade deficits. Is this really this hard? Obviously the devil is in the details but what is needed is a narrative that both acknowledges the mess we are in and the long, painful journey we need to undertake to get out of it. Where is the shadow Chancellor?
The problem is that B-T-L is the most popular "investment" in this country, which does not grow the economy, but just shuffles money from tenants to landlords.
I was talking to a matr of mine yesterday who is a recruiter in the hospitality industry, who confirmed this is the worst he has ever known the economy - worse than covid, worse than 08 - and he hasn't placed anyone for three months. In his view, in his sector, Rachel Reeves has been the worst thing to happen to the economy in his lifetime.
Worse than... COVID? C'mon.
For him, yep. People were still placing staff during covid because there was cash sploshing around - no-one coukd spend it but the expectation was tbat they would be able to soon, and in the meantime people were furloughed. Whereas now the outlook for the hospitality industry is so grim that people are not.
A depressing but entirely unsurprising poll for the opposition parties and the Tories in particular. Where is the narrative about how we start to get out of this mess, however slowly?
We are borrowing £100bn a year. Reeves says she will not borrow for current consumption but is finding it increasingly difficult to make the numbers work for that. Expect more tax increases (hopefully not as economically damaging as those in October) and fudging around what is "investment".
That massive stimulus to demand is not generating growth. It is not generating growth because too much of our consumption is spent on imports. We are bleeding nearly £50bn of demand to imports a year. Obviously we need imports. But we also need to produce as much as we consume.
So, our priorities should be increasing investment, reducing consumption, increasing production and eliminating both the fiscal and trade deficits. Is this really this hard? Obviously the devil is in the details but what is needed is a narrative that both acknowledges the mess we are in and the long, painful journey we need to undertake to get out of it. Where is the shadow Chancellor?
The problem is that B-T-L is the most popular "investment" in this country, which does not grow the economy, but just shuffles money from tenants to landlords.
We need more renovations. Get the TV channels to flood the market with new series of changing rooms, grand designs, home front and George Clark’s amazing spaces.
I was talking to a matr of mine yesterday who is a recruiter in the hospitality industry, who confirmed this is the worst he has ever known the economy - worse than covid, worse than 08 - and he hasn't placed anyone for three months. In his view, in his sector, Rachel Reeves has been the worst thing to happen to the economy in his lifetime.
Worse than... COVID? C'mon.
For him, yep. People were still placing staff during covid because there was cash sploshing around - no-one coukd spend it but the expectation was tbat they would be able to soon, and in the meantime people were furloughed. Whereas now the outlook for the hospitality industry is so grim that people are not.
One of the “easy” fixes for last autumn’s budget would be to cancel the NI lower threshold reduction and instead lift the employer’s NI rate on higher incomes. Would completely reverse the impact on low wage employment, while continuing to close the NI/IT gap.
"If you are an LGBTQ kid or family, we cannot throw you under the bus in order to win an election. In this house, we stand together"
I think that the right approach. By ceding ground rather than winning the argument you simply allow the centre ground to shift. It's better to stand up for what you believe.
As I frequently point out, Dems/Labour cannot win by becoming a pale facsimile of MAGA/Reform. People will choose the real thing every time. All it does is piss off and demotivate your own supporters.
I take your point about pale facsimiles and the real thing. But I don't think it is a binary choice between full-on MAGA/Reform and full-on "Woke"/Corbyn. As well as far left and far right, there is centre left and centre right. Centre left is not a pale imitation of far right, and I think it is more appealing politically. I think AOC is moving from far left to centre left. Centre left is still supportive of minorities but it is not the main focus.
Interesting that 39% think leaving the EU has contributed most to the poor state of the British economy. A relatively easy fix I'd have thought. Certainly something for Labour's next manifesto if things don't improve
They'd be better finding a way to address the 61% who don't view Brexit as the biggest contribution to the poor state of the British economy.
Although perhaps too many of those 61% think it is Rachel Reeves?
A depressing but entirely unsurprising poll for the opposition parties and the Tories in particular. Where is the narrative about how we start to get out of this mess, however slowly?
We are borrowing £100bn a year. Reeves says she will not borrow for current consumption but is finding it increasingly difficult to make the numbers work for that. Expect more tax increases (hopefully not as economically damaging as those in October) and fudging around what is "investment".
That massive stimulus to demand is not generating growth. It is not generating growth because too much of our consumption is spent on imports. We are bleeding nearly £50bn of demand to imports a year. Obviously we need imports. But we also need to produce as much as we consume.
So, our priorities should be increasing investment, reducing consumption, increasing production and eliminating both the fiscal and trade deficits. Is this really this hard? Obviously the devil is in the details but what is needed is a narrative that both acknowledges the mess we are in and the long, painful journey we need to undertake to get out of it. Where is the shadow Chancellor?
The problem is that B-T-L is the most popular "investment" in this country, which does not grow the economy, but just shuffles money from tenants to landlords.
We will always need to have rental properties though. Build to let is a growing thing too.
As an investment it seems to be declining too.
What do,you advocate. An end to renting except through local,authorities/HA’s ?
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Interesting interview by the Kyiv Post with General Ben Hodges on the prospects for the US Armed Forces under Trump.
(One statement DOGE made was that they expected 8% cuts per annum.)
Hodges suggests that the US Army will be reduced by 20-25% from its current 490k manpower, and that most of the forces in Europe will be pulled out in fairly short order.
He notes that 40k of the 100k forces staff in Europe are funded out of special funds rather than core budgets.
AOC is having a moment. If she can connect with the more centrist Democratic voters too, then it could get interesting.
I think the Democrats need to choose someone next time who breaks out of their establishment echo chamber. AOC does that. But at the same time the “activist class” of the Democrats, whom AOC forms a part of, are deeply distrusted in middle America too.
Ideally I would say they want someone carrying the AOC economic message but being more ambivalent around the (for want of a better term) ‘wokey’ stuff. Weirdly, im not sure Bernie majors on the latter - they could have done with him being 30 years younger.
A depressing but entirely unsurprising poll for the opposition parties and the Tories in particular. Where is the narrative about how we start to get out of this mess, however slowly?
We are borrowing £100bn a year. Reeves says she will not borrow for current consumption but is finding it increasingly difficult to make the numbers work for that. Expect more tax increases (hopefully not as economically damaging as those in October) and fudging around what is "investment".
That massive stimulus to demand is not generating growth. It is not generating growth because too much of our consumption is spent on imports. We are bleeding nearly £50bn of demand to imports a year. Obviously we need imports. But we also need to produce as much as we consume.
So, our priorities should be increasing investment, reducing consumption, increasing production and eliminating both the fiscal and trade deficits. Is this really this hard? Obviously the devil is in the details but what is needed is a narrative that both acknowledges the mess we are in and the long, painful journey we need to undertake to get out of it. Where is the shadow Chancellor?
The problem is that B-T-L is the most popular "investment" in this country, which does not grow the economy, but just shuffles money from tenants to landlords.
We will always need to have rental properties though. Build to let is a growing thing too.
As an investment it seems to be declining too.
What do,you advocate. An end to renting except through local,authorities/HA’s ?
The obvious first starting point is financial education at school.
The more controversial but correct next step is to massively reduce housing benefit.
How does a private motor finance company impact the public finances?
Serious question.
By being entitled to buy cars VAT free. 20% of all new cars now don't have VAT collected on them. In addition, when motability sells the car on to a dealer after 3 years, VAT is only charged on the profit the dealer makes, as normal.
This, of course, is how motability leases are cheap: it's not so much bulk buying power as getting a 20% head start on depreciation power.
Of more immediate political import, local Government reorganisation (LGR to its friends) is exposing the tensions between largely Conservative run County Councils and District and Borough Councils where the Conservatives were largely turned out in 2022, 2023 and 2024.
Surrey is an example with two options presented to central Government.
Having failed to get his "county unitary", SCC leader Tim Oliver is going for a two-unitary solution but not surprisingly the Districts and Boroughs have put up a three council solution. These battle lines haven't changed since LGR was first mooted last year.
As the article suggests, one of the big problems is the debt of Woking and Spelthorne and indeed the county council - I've seen estimates of anywhere between £3 billion and £5.5 billion.
Having a look at the demographics, I think the "three councils" option would be - Guildford, Woking, Waverley as a new South West Surrey Council with about 386,000 people (based on 2023 population estimates), Surrey Heath, Runnymede, Spelthorne and Elmbridge as a North West Surrey Council with 425,000 and Epsom & Ewell, Reigate & Banstead, Mole Valley and Tandridge as an East Surrey Council of 405,000.
The populations of the Borough and District Council vary from 82,000 in Epsom & Ewell to 156,000 in Reigate & Banstead.
I thought originally there would be no compulsion around LGR - if there wasn't agreement between the two tiers, the current system would remain. Now, central Government does what it always does - takes a decision and gets heat from both and indeed all sides.
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
It is perfectly possible to have an over reaction to MAGA politics, but I think she will primary very well and who knows.
Like Corbyn, she engages voters who otherwise are apathetic.
I am also on Pritzker at 70, as a bit more mainstream, Midwest candidate but also showing a bit of fight.
All assuming that there are elections in the future of course.
FWIW, I don't think Trump will actually cancel elections. His cult will make sure they are pretty rigged. Far easier to get away with. But I wouldn't make a bet on it.
Yes. Look at Orban or Erdogan for how to do it. Erdogan has just had his main political opponent arrested on what looks like trumped up charges, and also got the university where his opponent got his degree to cancel it (presidential candidates need to have a degree). Even Putin has elections.
"If you are an LGBTQ kid or family, we cannot throw you under the bus in order to win an election. In this house, we stand together"
I think that the right approach. By ceding ground rather than winning the argument you simply allow the centre ground to shift. It's better to stand up for what you believe.
As I frequently point out, Dems/Labour cannot win by becoming a pale facsimile of MAGA/Reform. People will choose the real thing every time. All it does is piss off and demotivate your own supporters.
I take your point about pale facsimiles and the real thing. But I don't think it is a binary choice between full-on MAGA/Reform and full-on "Woke"/Corbyn. As well as far left and far right, there is centre left and centre right. Centre left is not a pale imitation of far right, and I think it is more appealing politically. I think AOC is moving from far left to centre left. Centre left is still supportive of minorities but it is not the main focus.
I am centre-left myself, so don't have a problem with your points.
I do think that real leaders aren't just weather vanes, they reshape the debate and win arguments. There is no sign of the other leading Dems (or Labour here) realising that. They expect to be elected as the lesser of 2 evils, and to kick out the failed government. That worked for Starmer in July, but won't work for re-election.
There has to be a left wing vision beyond cheese-paring cuts to disability benefits.
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
I'd take issue with the "ageing population" argument. Yes, the average age is increasing, but that's partly later children but mainly healthier older people. A way forward is surely to increase full retirement age and make retirement more flexible.
A depressing but entirely unsurprising poll for the opposition parties and the Tories in particular. Where is the narrative about how we start to get out of this mess, however slowly?
We are borrowing £100bn a year. Reeves says she will not borrow for current consumption but is finding it increasingly difficult to make the numbers work for that. Expect more tax increases (hopefully not as economically damaging as those in October) and fudging around what is "investment".
That massive stimulus to demand is not generating growth. It is not generating growth because too much of our consumption is spent on imports. We are bleeding nearly £50bn of demand to imports a year. Obviously we need imports. But we also need to produce as much as we consume.
So, our priorities should be increasing investment, reducing consumption, increasing production and eliminating both the fiscal and trade deficits. Is this really this hard? Obviously the devil is in the details but what is needed is a narrative that both acknowledges the mess we are in and the long, painful journey we need to undertake to get out of it. Where is the shadow Chancellor?
The problem is that B-T-L is the most popular "investment" in this country, which does not grow the economy, but just shuffles money from tenants to landlords.
We will always need to have rental properties though. Build to let is a growing thing too.
As an investment it seems to be declining too.
What do,you advocate. An end to renting except through local,authorities/HA’s ?
The obvious first starting point is financial education at school.
The more controversial but correct next step is to massively reduce housing benefit.
And of course, as always, build, build, build.
You can't cut housing benefit without first reducing rents and house prices in that area
I was talking to a matr of mine yesterday who is a recruiter in the hospitality industry, who confirmed this is the worst he has ever known the economy - worse than covid, worse than 08 - and he hasn't placed anyone for three months. In his view, in his sector, Rachel Reeves has been the worst thing to happen to the economy in his lifetime.
Worse than... COVID? C'mon.
For him, yep. People were still placing staff during covid because there was cash sploshing around - no-one coukd spend it but the expectation was tbat they would be able to soon, and in the meantime people were furloughed. Whereas now the outlook for the hospitality industry is so grim that people are not.
One of the “easy” fixes for last autumn’s budget would be to cancel the NI lower threshold reduction and instead lift the employer’s NI rate on higher incomes. Would completely reverse the impact on low wage employment, while continuing to close the NI/IT gap.
Do they want to reverse the impact on low wage employment? I can think of several reasons why, from a government perspective, they wouldn't:
If we are to cope with less low wage migration demand for low wage employees needs to be dampened If the government wants to employ people on low wages in the care sector they need to dampen demand from private sector employers for the same people The supermarkets in particular have found an employment model based on part time low wage work partly to avoid paying employer taxes and let those staff top up through benefits. This partially addresses that.
And yes, we should extend NI on higher incomes.
Finally as the government are so rubbish at pointing it out, and awareness is neglible, for the vast majority of small business with less than 10 staff, employer NI will actually fall or be zero next tax year due to the big increase in employment allowance.
Interesting interview by the Kyiv Post with General Ben Hodges on the prospects for the US Armed Forces under Trump.
(One statement DOGE made was that they expected 8% cuts per annum.)
Hodges suggests that the US Army will be reduced by 20-25% from its current 490k manpower, and that most of the forces in Europe will be pulled out in fairly short order.
He notes that 40k of the 100k forces staff in Europe are funded out of special funds rather than core budgets.
A depressing but entirely unsurprising poll for the opposition parties and the Tories in particular. Where is the narrative about how we start to get out of this mess, however slowly?
We are borrowing £100bn a year. Reeves says she will not borrow for current consumption but is finding it increasingly difficult to make the numbers work for that. Expect more tax increases (hopefully not as economically damaging as those in October) and fudging around what is "investment".
That massive stimulus to demand is not generating growth. It is not generating growth because too much of our consumption is spent on imports. We are bleeding nearly £50bn of demand to imports a year. Obviously we need imports. But we also need to produce as much as we consume.
So, our priorities should be increasing investment, reducing consumption, increasing production and eliminating both the fiscal and trade deficits. Is this really this hard? Obviously the devil is in the details but what is needed is a narrative that both acknowledges the mess we are in and the long, painful journey we need to undertake to get out of it. Where is the shadow Chancellor?
The problem is that B-T-L is the most popular "investment" in this country, which does not grow the economy, but just shuffles money from tenants to landlords.
We will always need to have rental properties though. Build to let is a growing thing too.
As an investment it seems to be declining too.
What do,you advocate. An end to renting except through local,authorities/HA’s ?
The obvious first starting point is financial education at school.
The more controversial but correct next step is to massively reduce housing benefit.
And of course, as always, build, build, build.
You can't cut housing benefit without first reducing rents and house prices in that area
Would Musk see it that way?
Of course you can. Rent prices at the lower third of the market will see a sharp shock downwards. Taxpayers will save money and landlords lose out. Some will sell, to either more capable landlords or renters. All are good outcomes.
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
They will be making a huuuuge mistake if they go off to the left. They need a comforting figure who reminds people of the 90s, before the left went woke, and the right went Trump. I don't know who that is, but from the little I know of Cortez, it isn't her.
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
It is perfectly possible to have an over reaction to MAGA politics, but I think she will primary very well and who knows.
Like Corbyn, she engages voters who otherwise are apathetic.
I am also on Pritzker at 70, as a bit more mainstream, Midwest candidate but also showing a bit of fight.
All assuming that there are elections in the future of course.
FWIW, I don't think Trump will actually cancel elections. His cult will make sure they are pretty rigged. Far easier to get away with. But I wouldn't make a bet on it.
US presidential election and Congressional management is done at the state level not by the federal government
"If you are an LGBTQ kid or family, we cannot throw you under the bus in order to win an election. In this house, we stand together"
I think that the right approach. By ceding ground rather than winning the argument you simply allow the centre ground to shift. It's better to stand up for what you believe.
As I frequently point out, Dems/Labour cannot win by becoming a pale facsimile of MAGA/Reform. People will choose the real thing every time. All it does is piss off and demotivate your own supporters.
I take your point about pale facsimiles and the real thing. But I don't think it is a binary choice between full-on MAGA/Reform and full-on "Woke"/Corbyn. As well as far left and far right, there is centre left and centre right. Centre left is not a pale imitation of far right, and I think it is more appealing politically. I think AOC is moving from far left to centre left. Centre left is still supportive of minorities but it is not the main focus.
I am centre-left myself, so don't have a problem with your points.
I do think that real leaders aren't just weather vanes, they reshape the debate and win arguments. There is no sign of the other leading Dems (or Labour here) realising that. They expect to be elected as the lesser of 2 evils, and to kick out the failed government. That worked for Starmer in July, but won't work for re-election.
There has to be a left wing vision beyond cheese-paring cuts to disability benefits.
Timing matters, too, for great leaders. Lincoln was the right man in 1860, Churchill in 1940, Truman in 1945, but perhaps not at other times.
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
It is perfectly possible to have an over reaction to MAGA politics, but I think she will primary very well and who knows.
Like Corbyn, she engages voters who otherwise are apathetic.
I am also on Pritzker at 70, as a bit more mainstream, Midwest candidate but also showing a bit of fight.
All assuming that there are elections in the future of course.
FWIW, I don't think Trump will actually cancel elections. His cult will make sure they are pretty rigged. Far easier to get away with. But I wouldn't make a bet on it.
US presidential election and Congressional management is done at the state level not by the federal government
There are many ways to rig an election, not just the management of how people vote. You can control the media. You can arrest political opponents. You can saturate the airwaves with propaganda lies. You can declare a war/national emergency.
How does a private motor finance company impact the public finances?
Serious question. That has the feel of some vindictive people objecting to disabled people being able to use their Personal Independence Payment to make their lives easier.
Is there a case to support such a move?
Perhaps we need to start with not locking disabled people out of the best local parks.
It’s not really a serious question given the framing.
One in five new cars are motability and they go to people for all sorts of reasons. The scheme is expanding rapidly and needs to be looked at. For example the cars available on it. This is, ultimately, taxpayers money going to fund these cars.
I don't see the point there. The rapid expansion is likely to be a one-off due to the market.
What I am hearing there is inchoate outrage about disabled people spending a non-means-tested benefit on something that they find helps them most effectively.
I see no rational basis for interference. Basically, it's nothing whatsoever to do with the likes of John Rentoul or any politicians - unless an abuse can be shown. BTW I can't find the tweet - is it genuine?
If there are believed to be problems about who gets the benefit, then that's about who is eligible for the benefit, not about how it is spent. It is specifically intended as a modest contribution to helping disabled people adapt to their needs.
I have my own issues with Motability, as you know, mainly around equivalent mobility aids being excluded from the scheme.
But non-disabled commentators trying to control the lives of disabled people without a really strong case is as obscene as it sounds.
I haven't seen any weigh in from stirrers or politicians, but to me it has the same whiff as for example the outrage Robert Jenrick was trying to generate when he claimed that disability being listed as a factor deserving a pre-sentencing report in a Court Case was an act of discrimination against white men. But Jenrick is a dog whistler, as we know.
I would suggest that by 'radically scaling back motability' Rentoul means looking at eligibility first and foremost.
Your response reminds me of the trans-activist response to women who are angry with cross-dressers exposing themselves in women's loos. A blanket refusal to contemplate that there are people abusing the system - if you identify as disabled, you are. You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems odd to me, because these people are calling into question the benefits that those who are genuinely disabled depend upon, just as the perverts indulging their kink have called into question (wrongly in my view) the right of post-op transsexuals to use women's loos. I would be furious with them, not furious with the people wondering why motability has become a part of Britain's economy that can be seen from space.
You're spouting off on something you know nothing about as usual.
There's a set of cirtieria, a rigorous assessment, an appeal process. People who apply either qualify or they don't. Most who apply don't qualify for the higher rate mobility component of PIP, which is what you need to join the Motability scheme.
There are regular reviews, a process for reporting suspected fraud, an established investigation team, fraudulent claimants are made to pay back the money they've received and can be fined or imprisoned.
Your comment that "if you identify as disabled, you are" is utter bullshit and very offensive.
Criteria.
That's your response? Unnecessarily pointing out an obvious typo.
Yes,
Any rule against it ?
It’s something Luckyguy, who I always like to read, does quite a bit so I thought I’d do it. Save him the bother.
No rule against it, no, but you might have a good argument to put (I was following the discussion) and this just makes it look like you are accepting defeat and going off on a an unrelated point, and a very weak one at that, because someone making as typo does not make their argument invalid at all.
Yes @Luckyguy1983 does it a lot (so good of you to save him the trouble ), but it just looks weak as I said, plus we are not school children so it is a bit insulting.
In addition @Luckyguy1983 has come a cropper at least a couple of times (I think on his favourite, licence) so when you correct someones spelling or grammar you can be setting yourself up to look a fool. I prefer to make myself look a fool by getting something relevant wrong.
But regardless of all of that, it is just patronising.
Whereas Ben’s response was full of needless digs and jibes at a quite reasonable post. You chose not to challenge that.
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post observed today that “the ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ [is making] the federal government almost comically inefficient.”
She wrote that Internal Revenue Service employees line up at shared computers on Mondays to submit their “five things I did last week” emails to DOGE while taxpayer service calls go unanswered. Federal surveyors at the Bureau of Land Management are no longer allowed to buy replacement equipment, so when a shovel breaks they can’t simply replace it;
A depressing but entirely unsurprising poll for the opposition parties and the Tories in particular. Where is the narrative about how we start to get out of this mess, however slowly?
We are borrowing £100bn a year. Reeves says she will not borrow for current consumption but is finding it increasingly difficult to make the numbers work for that. Expect more tax increases (hopefully not as economically damaging as those in October) and fudging around what is "investment".
That massive stimulus to demand is not generating growth. It is not generating growth because too much of our consumption is spent on imports. We are bleeding nearly £50bn of demand to imports a year. Obviously we need imports. But we also need to produce as much as we consume.
So, our priorities should be increasing investment, reducing consumption, increasing production and eliminating both the fiscal and trade deficits. Is this really this hard? Obviously the devil is in the details but what is needed is a narrative that both acknowledges the mess we are in and the long, painful journey we need to undertake to get out of it. Where is the shadow Chancellor?
The problem is that B-T-L is the most popular "investment" in this country, which does not grow the economy, but just shuffles money from tenants to landlords.
We will always need to have rental properties though. Build to let is a growing thing too.
As an investment it seems to be declining too.
What do,you advocate. An end to renting except through local,authorities/HA’s ?
The obvious first starting point is financial education at school.
The more controversial but correct next step is to massively reduce housing benefit.
And of course, as always, build, build, build.
I agree. Financial education should be a priority for schools.
I also agree with build, build, build, but where’s the capacity to do it ?
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
It is perfectly possible to have an over reaction to MAGA politics, but I think she will primary very well and who knows.
Like Corbyn, she engages voters who otherwise are apathetic.
I am also on Pritzker at 70, as a bit more mainstream, Midwest candidate but also showing a bit of fight.
All assuming that there are elections in the future of course.
FWIW, I don't think Trump will actually cancel elections. His cult will make sure they are pretty rigged. Far easier to get away with. But I wouldn't make a bet on it.
US presidential election and Congressional management is done at the state level not by the federal government
There are many ways to rig an election, not just the management of how people vote. You can control the media. You can arrest political opponents. You can saturate the airwaves with propaganda lies. You can declare a war/national emergency.
In which case the US will effectively be near civil war anyway and most blue states would secede from the Union
Interesting interview by the Kyiv Post with General Ben Hodges on the prospects for the US Armed Forces under Trump.
(One statement DOGE made was that they expected 8% cuts per annum.)
Hodges suggests that the US Army will be reduced by 20-25% from its current 490k manpower, and that most of the forces in Europe will be pulled out in fairly short order.
He notes that 40k of the 100k forces staff in Europe are funded out of special funds rather than core budgets.
A feature of Trump is that he despises the armed forces as “suckers and losers.”
Unless they face an external danger, dictators generally prefer a weak military, for it’s there where effective opposition exists.
The unusual thing avbout the US are the vast numbers of weapons held outside the military. The Commorative (formerly Confedarate) Air Force has over 350 flying planes. And if an armed group ever took over the Arizona boneywards....
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
AOC is too left wing for US voters.
It is perfectly possible to have an over reaction to MAGA politics, but I think she will primary very well and who knows.
Like Corbyn, she engages voters who otherwise are apathetic.
I am also on Pritzker at 70, as a bit more mainstream, Midwest candidate but also showing a bit of fight.
All assuming that there are elections in the future of course.
FWIW, I don't think Trump will actually cancel elections. His cult will make sure they are pretty rigged. Far easier to get away with. But I wouldn't make a bet on it.
US presidential election and Congressional management is done at the state level not by the federal government
There are many ways to rig an election, not just the management of how people vote. You can control the media. You can arrest political opponents. You can saturate the airwaves with propaganda lies. You can declare a war/national emergency.
I believe Trump's lawyers have already started work at attacking Democratic Party activities and funding streams. There's also been talk of purging the voter lists. If DOGE can dismantle the entire social security administration with ten of Musk's people how much harder will it be take control of each state and electoral databases and just wipe them?
Comments
Reform's problems will commence when people start considering them as the governing party. The cupboard is bare. They may be good at sucking air through teeth and suggesting "I wouldn't do that". What they won't have is any plan to actually demonstrate a coherent alternative way of governing.
Cutting current spending is not the only option. What's disappointing to me is that our proportion of spending that is capital (or early intervention) is the same as it was under the Conservatives. Whatever your position on the size of the state, it's that proportion that must change if we're to get out of this mess.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7v5lr2186o
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anti-Oligarchy-Anti-Rich-Eat-the-Oligarch/dp/B0DTK2SSK6
That's what the Democratic establishment has been trying to do, and the polling is utterly disastrous for them. The Democrat's approval rating from Democratic voters is below zero:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/21/polling-data-democrats-primaries-grassroots-tea-party-00241769
Similar to the GOP base revolt which brought about the Tea Party movement.
AOC is having a moment. If she can connect with the more centrist Democratic voters too, then it could get interesting.
Could shorten considerably if she does run in primaries.
Whether she is the answer to defeat Trump I have no idea. Sadly, I think it probably wont matter who the candidate is because Trump's cult team will not allow a free and fair election.
If it were to go badly wrong, it would be in a very different manner.
Take a foreign holiday, surely the epitome of the “wasted” spending not benefiting Blighty. The UK economy gets:
- Quite likely the majority of the air fare or ferry ticket income
- The taxi to the airport / fuel and car park charge / train ticket
- if the accommodation was booked from here, then the agent’s commission (most booking engines contract at the home location of the traveler)
- Car rental commission
- The cat sitting charges
- Travel insurance
- Etc
If I take my last couple of foreign trips that’s probably about 50% of the cost.
And that’s the most extreme example of foreign consumption. For imported goods, especially ones we can’t make efficiently here, a large chunk of the income is going to:
- The local UK distributor (even if an LRD)
- The principal company or IP owner in the supply chain - that may be say Swiss or German or Dutch but it’s quite common for it to be British. So corporate tax policy is important
- The retailer - online or bricks and mortar (if you’re buying on Amazon it’s Amazon UK you’re paying)
- The logistics companies holding and shipping it
In many cases that leaves little margin for the poor producer, which is likely a factory in Vietnam or a farm in Andalusia. In many cases they may even be making a loss.
I’ll bet the marketing executives at Unilever didn’t think of that when they decided to do it.
Increasing investment would increase the trade (or I suppose you mean current account) deficit, not reduce it.
The "massive" stimulus to demand is failing to stimulate growth not mainly because it's leaking into imports, but because our private sector is strangled by high taxes and excessive regulation, and so cannot respond.
Reducing consumption reduces economic growth rather than increasing it.
Etc etc.
If we tackle our supply side problems (regulation, taxes, etc.) the demand side will take care of itself. And if we don't, the demand side doesn't matter much - we'll stagnate whatever happens to the current account.
As for the obsession about the trade deficit, shared by Donald Trump and his crew but no serious economist, Angola has a current account surplus of 5% of GDP and America a similar size deficit. Which country has the more successful economy?
It is growth that matters, not our current account deficit. And a growing economy will run a larger trade deficit than a stagnant one.
Some military interventions, in my lifetime, have gone very well, along with the failures.
Ideally I would say they want someone carrying the AOC economic message but being more ambivalent around the (for want of a better term) ‘wokey’ stuff. Weirdly, im not sure Bernie majors on the latter - they could have done with him being 30 years younger.
Good morning, everybody.
A. One unitary covering Broxtowe, Gedling and Nottingham City; one unitary covering the remaining County including Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Newark and Sherwood and Rushcliffe,
B. One unitary covering Broxtowe, Nottingham City and Rushcliffe; one unitary covering the remaining County including Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Gedling, Mansfield and Newark and Sherwood,
C. One unitary covering Nottingham city (current arrangement); one unitary covering the County of Nottinghamshire.
They voted 2 days ago to endorse option C. Rushcliffe and Broxtowe and Gedling are clearly scared of the Nottingham finances.
Anabob would not be happy.
I'd have been happy with including Rushcliffe + one or both of Broxtowe and Gedling with Nottingham to give 2 unitaries in the ~600k range.
But the new County headquarters are in Ashfield, so that will be a modest boost for N of Nottingham.
Import value, wholesale, of an array of say 9kw from China: under a grand.
Cost of installation, which reflects logistics, local reseller margin, labour, overheads, installer margin: £15k+
She has also dropped her pronouns, which is a good sign.
I don’t think this is unique to Reform. It is just they are not tried and tested historically.
The coalition running Durham, when in opposition in their separate groupings, did all of the ‘I wouldn’t do that’ stuff only to be no different when they were in power with the roles reversed and Labour now are doing the teeth sucking saying what they wouldn’t do. It’s disheartening.
Reforms issue is the lack of a ground game and candidate selection. If they get that right and can demonstrate some sort of competence then they have a chance.
I think they will do okay in Durham and win quite a few seats.
We need to get those rich savers spending.
Oh, and good morning PB
Like Corbyn, she engages voters who otherwise are apathetic.
I am also on Pritzker at 70, as a bit more mainstream, Midwest candidate but also showing a bit of fight.
All assuming that there are elections in the future of course.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/mar/22/what-is-the-meaning-of-life-15-possible-answers-from-a-palliative-care-doctor-a-holocaust-survivor-a-jail-inmate-and-more
Personally I don't think there is an external meaning, but maximising pleasure and the pleasure of others seems a reasonable shot. More thought produces a more nuanced answer, nut essentially the same.
Assuming elections still happen, those results will go some way to determining AOC's chances.
https://bsky.app/profile/acyn.bsky.social/post/3lkwgojkh2r2y
"If you are an LGBTQ kid or family, we cannot throw you under the bus in order to win an election. In this house, we stand together"
I think that the right approach. By ceding ground rather than winning the argument you simply allow the centre ground to shift. It's better to stand up for what you believe.
As I frequently point out, Dems/Labour cannot win by becoming a pale facsimile of MAGA/Reform. People will choose the real thing every time. All it does is piss off and demotivate your own supporters.
I have not seen anything from Labour yet, but their fruitful local election seats will I think be elsewhere.
Ashfield Independents are running with "it's us versus Labour", complete with bar chart and no mention of either Reform or Jason Zadrozny.
(They used to be Lib Dems).
I'm on a funny bit of the map, so I may be getting leaflets from two candidates.
For what it’s worth, much is made of the American culture of “small government/hands off/stop interfering in my life” that often seems to pervade discussions like this but I do actually think that is somewhat overdone and tends to be amplified by those who shout the loudest.
I think someone of the left economically, who can also demonstrate strong immigration creds/beliefs and who doesn’t major on identity politics would be an absolutely formidable candidate for the Democrats. The problem at the moment is that I’m not sure they’ve got someone who hits all those bases - they’ve got some who hit one or at a stretch two, but they need the complete package.
FOX News short piece on AOC's pronouns.
Changing language isn’t the same thing as ceding ground.
Or he's sitting in a tank at least.
https://x.com/BBCNews/status/1903086699007373798
1 Will the Administration allow a recognisably free and fair election?
2 If they do (and that's a much bigger if than it should be), MAGA- yay or nay?
Whatever platform the Democratic nominee runs on will be portrayed as fruitloop woke. Because the people around Trump tell lies.
When I worked on the CPM for the Micra in the early 00’s we used to but a TPE skin to vac form. It went on the top of the CPM. Our Japanese colleagues rather impolitely referred to the texture as ‘dead flesh’
Nissan interior trim designs have been uniformly awful since I can remember. I cannot say I am surprised at your thoughts.
Gap and flush conditions are concepts in principle to Nissan too.
He pushing to see how far he can go, and some of the crew behind him are openly hostile to democracy.
People come to accept the new normal, which opens the way to changing it further.
I have had one each from LD and Conservative. Nothing from Reform or Labour. Usually we have a Lab candidate but fairly nominal. We have had other right wing candidates in the past for the BXP and BNP.
The Tory guy doesn't seem a complete dipstick, just the usually NIMBY stuff.
That said, to capitalise the Democrats are going to have to retire a swathe of elderly senators/represenatives/party officials who still think they are protecting a cosy consensus on government between the two parties.
Gaza independents don’t really loom large in SE London, it’s a different ethnic and religious mix compared with the East End.
Yes @Luckyguy1983 does it a lot (so good of you to save him the trouble
In addition @Luckyguy1983 has come a cropper at least a couple of times (I think on his favourite, licence) so when you correct someones spelling or grammar you can be setting yourself up to look a fool. I prefer to make myself look a fool by getting something relevant wrong.
But regardless of all of that, it is just patronising.
That said, there still seems to be lots on demand at the middle to upper end. My brother in law is a chef up in Yorkshire and can pretty much make his price.
Hospitality is partially automatable. I’d expect to see structural change in how coffee shop chains serve customers over the coming years. More tablets for ordering and more automatic (but high quality) coffee machines.
Trump recently said he had the authority to use the US military for future round ups and is poised to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops on the southern border and on America’s streets. Insiders say that his purge of senior brass is still in its early stages.
https://www.ft.com/content/3741dee9-a801-4572-8f61-997c04d6698d
article. They’re supposed to focus on purging things that might be politically sensitive but they can’t resist the occasional bit of language pedantry.
So they changed “spoiled” to “spoilt”, and I enjoyed pointing out they were using the informal spelling that according to grammar guides is “to be avoided”. Though not after a thorough internet browse to ensure I wasn’t going to get luckyguyed.
And in the big chains - Pret, Nero, Costa etc - they are fast food anyway. I’m not suggesting you’ll see it down your local independent.
One of the answers brought tears to my eyes.
I'm saving that.
But I don't think it is a binary choice between full-on MAGA/Reform and full-on "Woke"/Corbyn.
As well as far left and far right, there is centre left and centre right.
Centre left is not a pale imitation of far right, and I think it is more appealing politically.
I think AOC is moving from far left to centre left.
Centre left is still supportive of minorities but it is not the main focus.
Although perhaps too many of those 61% think it is Rachel Reeves?
As an investment it seems to be declining too.
What do,you advocate. An end to renting except through local,authorities/HA’s ?
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
(One statement DOGE made was that they expected 8% cuts per annum.)
Hodges suggests that the US Army will be reduced by 20-25% from its current 490k manpower, and that most of the forces in Europe will be pulled out in fairly short order.
He notes that 40k of the 100k forces staff in Europe are funded out of special funds rather than core budgets.
https://youtu.be/usfrJg3CY-Y?t=966
The more controversial but correct next step is to massively reduce housing benefit.
And of course, as always, build, build, build.
This, of course, is how motability leases are cheap: it's not so much bulk buying power as getting a 20% head start on depreciation power.
Surrey is an example with two options presented to central Government.
www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/two-options-new-surrey-councils-31232821
Having failed to get his "county unitary", SCC leader Tim Oliver is going for a two-unitary solution but not surprisingly the Districts and Boroughs have put up a three council solution. These battle lines haven't changed since LGR was first mooted last year.
As the article suggests, one of the big problems is the debt of Woking and Spelthorne and indeed the county council - I've seen estimates of anywhere between £3 billion and £5.5 billion.
Having a look at the demographics, I think the "three councils" option would be - Guildford, Woking, Waverley as a new South West Surrey Council with about 386,000 people (based on 2023 population estimates), Surrey Heath, Runnymede, Spelthorne and Elmbridge as a North West Surrey Council with 425,000 and Epsom & Ewell, Reigate & Banstead, Mole Valley and Tandridge as an East Surrey Council of 405,000.
The populations of the Borough and District Council vary from 82,000 in Epsom & Ewell to 156,000 in Reigate & Banstead.
I thought originally there would be no compulsion around LGR - if there wasn't agreement between the two tiers, the current system would remain. Now, central Government does what it always does - takes a decision and gets heat from both and indeed all sides.
I do think that real leaders aren't just weather vanes, they reshape the debate and win arguments. There is no sign of the other leading Dems (or Labour here) realising that. They expect to be elected as the lesser of 2 evils, and to kick out the failed government. That worked for Starmer in July, but won't work for re-election.
There has to be a left wing vision beyond cheese-paring cuts to disability benefits.
If we are to cope with less low wage migration demand for low wage employees needs to be dampened
If the government wants to employ people on low wages in the care sector they need to dampen demand from private sector employers for the same people
The supermarkets in particular have found an employment model based on part time low wage work partly to avoid paying employer taxes and let those staff top up through benefits. This partially addresses that.
And yes, we should extend NI on higher incomes.
Finally as the government are so rubbish at pointing it out, and awareness is neglible, for the vast majority of small business with less than 10 staff, employer NI will actually fall or be zero next tax year due to the big increase in employment allowance.
Unless they face an external danger, dictators generally prefer a weak military, for it’s there where effective opposition exists.
Of course you can. Rent prices at the lower third of the market will see a sharp shock downwards. Taxpayers will save money and landlords lose out. Some will sell, to either more capable landlords or renters. All are good outcomes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5AlvaMKvmA
Mind you not too different from Dacre's mob at the Daily Mail
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
She wrote that Internal Revenue Service employees line up at shared computers on Mondays to submit their “five things I did last week” emails to DOGE while taxpayer service calls go unanswered. Federal surveyors at the Bureau of Land Management are no longer allowed to buy replacement equipment, so when a shovel breaks they can’t simply replace it;
Letter from an American email
I also agree with build, build, build, but where’s the capacity to do it ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYsOFXnfsCU