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.
What a twit. I was enjoying your conversation with him. You don't even know who I support, if anyone. Do you usually go around trying to start unnecessary arguments. I wasn't commenting on your discussion. I was commenting on the fact that being a grammar nazi weakens your argument, that might be sound, and is childish and patronising.
As far as I am concerned the only justification is if you can get a good joke out of it.
I would try being more conciliatory rather than try starting an argument with someone who you don't even know whether they agree or disagree with you.
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.
That's a really interesting comment, but I'm not sure if it is best defined as a "Mormon" outfit (except as characteristic of that community). I think it is older than that in derivation - you will find that type of feature (eg the cuffs, long skirt in a dark colour with showing no skin) in illustrations of immigrants to the USA back in the 17C and 18C.
(I'd be interested to know what Reformed and perhaps black pentecostalists churches do - who can also have an emphasis on dress codes and strict behaviour.)
The Mormons were founded in the 1830s, and the values around "modesty" were imo inherited and then preserved from earlier periods. *
I think it is symbolic on Fox of both "America of our memory that we will rebuild" and "Christian modesty", which fits with the Fox News / Trumpist / MAGA Christian Nationalist theme. It has the same symbolic function as Muslim headscarves of various kinds.
Here, for a different example, is a painting of " The Early Puritans of New England Going to Church" from 1867 of a 17C scene. Here it's both sexes, but the men with the ones adopted by Lisa Boothe on Fox, with collars and cuffs.
I think you'll find them in the UK in pictures of roundheads, or amongst civil war reenactors such as the Sealed Knot.
* (Also interestingly were translation errors / cultural idioms in the King James Bible into the Book of Mormon, which translations in the mainstream have been corrected since.)
I originally wrote 'orthodox Jewish' but thought it might need a little too much explanation and possibly be misinterpreted as something pejorative so I changed it to Mormon which most will know from 'Witness'.
But thanks for the interesting post.
Why would people know the Mormons from “Witness”? The people in Witness are Amish.
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?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
Here is my biography, I have others if you don't like it.
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Jenrick resigned from the Cabinet in protest at the weakness of the key immigration policy, so I think he has established a modicum of credibility on this issue.
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.
Although, if we could all consume less and not feel the need to have stuff for stuff's sake, we'd all probably be a lot happier.
It's not all about "stuff" though. Taking the kids to Centre Parcs or Disneyworld. £400 for Glastonbury weekend.
We equate spending money with being happy. That's just how it is for modern humans, but what has actually happened is that we have turned actual day to day survival into a pay to play game and an ever increasing number of people are finding it harder to participate. There's no way out of it. Wealth inequality will only get worse, even as the transnational corporations that control everything get richer and increase "growth".
I'm about to go to a free exhibition on Japanese carpentry. Having fun without spending!
I'm an avid consumer of carpentry videos on YouTube, so I approve this message.
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.
I tend to correct it when people slip into Americanisms, which is something I find unwelcome. It's a bit like dispatching grey squirrels - a public duty. And yes, there are times when I get it wrong.
I don't correct every typo or misplaced apostrophe - on the very odd occasion if I feel that someone has made a particularly pompous post full of pathos and thunderous rhetoric, but made a basic spelling or grammatical error, I might point it out for my own puerile amusement. What can I say, I am only flesh and blood.
That's fair. All I can ask is you think the same of us when we take the piss in response.
I like being corrected on PB. It's part of the value of the site.
@Nigelb didn't say we would correct you. He said he hoped you feel the same when we take the piss in response. That is completely different.
I hope you didn't mind me correcting you unnecessarily.
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.
That's a really interesting comment, but I'm not sure if it is best defined as a "Mormon" outfit (except as characteristic of that community). I think it is older than that in derivation - you will find that type of feature (eg the cuffs, long skirt in a dark colour with showing no skin) in illustrations of immigrants to the USA back in the 17C and 18C.
(I'd be interested to know what Reformed and perhaps black pentecostalists churches do - who can also have an emphasis on dress codes and strict behaviour.)
The Mormons were founded in the 1830s, and the values around "modesty" were imo inherited and then preserved from earlier periods. *
I think it is symbolic on Fox of both "America of our memory that we will rebuild" and "Christian modesty", which fits with the Fox News / Trumpist / MAGA Christian Nationalist theme. It has the same symbolic function as Muslim headscarves of various kinds.
Here, for a different example, is a painting of " The Early Puritans of New England Going to Church" from 1867 of a 17C scene. Here it's both sexes, but the men with the ones adopted by Lisa Boothe on Fox, with collars and cuffs.
I think you'll find them in the UK in pictures of roundheads, or amongst civil war reenactors such as the Sealed Knot.
* (Also interestingly were translation errors / cultural idioms in the King James Bible into the Book of Mormon, which translations in the mainstream have been corrected since.)
And, of course, you'll find the collar and cuffs in "Witchfinder General", with Vincent Price playing Matthew Hopkins !
I wouldn't read so much into it. Fashions change over time, and the shift from bleached blonde MAGA anchor-women in short dresses to these outfits may not be of a lot of significance, just as the miniskirt and hotpants era gave way to maxi dresses, and Laura Ashley shepherdess style. Cottagecore is quite a meme in the USA.
Interestingly it is popular both with the Trad-wife phenomenon, but also Millenial and Gen Z lesbians.
“Who decides that the workday is from 9 to 5, instead of 11 to 4? Who decides that the hemlines will be below the knee this year and short again next year? Who draws up the borders, controls the currency, handles all of the decisions that happen transparently around us?"
"I don't know."
"Ah! I'm with them. Same group, different department. Think of me as a sort of middleman…. Come in, sit, sit. The tea is getting cold."
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
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.
Also you can't just rock up and buy a 3 year old motability car. The aftermarket for them is strictly by invitation.
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.
That's a really interesting comment, but I'm not sure if it is best defined as a "Mormon" outfit (except as characteristic of that community). I think it is older than that in derivation - you will find that type of feature (eg the cuffs, long skirt in a dark colour with showing no skin) in illustrations of immigrants to the USA back in the 17C and 18C.
(I'd be interested to know what Reformed and perhaps black pentecostalists churches do - who can also have an emphasis on dress codes and strict behaviour.)
The Mormons were founded in the 1830s, and the values around "modesty" were imo inherited and then preserved from earlier periods. *
I think it is symbolic on Fox of both "America of our memory that we will rebuild" and "Christian modesty", which fits with the Fox News / Trumpist / MAGA Christian Nationalist theme. It has the same symbolic function as Muslim headscarves of various kinds.
Here, for a different example, is a painting of " The Early Puritans of New England Going to Church" from 1867 of a 17C scene. Here it's both sexes, but the men with the ones adopted by Lisa Boothe on Fox, with collars and cuffs.
I think you'll find them in the UK in pictures of roundheads, or amongst civil war reenactors such as the Sealed Knot.
* (Also interestingly were translation errors / cultural idioms in the King James Bible into the Book of Mormon, which translations in the mainstream have been corrected since.)
And, of course, you'll find the collar and cuffs in "Witchfinder General", with Vincent Price playing Matthew Hopkins !
I wouldn't read so much into it. Fashions change over time, and the shift from bleached blonde MAGA anchor-women in short dresses to these outfits may not be of a lot of significance, just as the miniskirt and hotpants era gave way to maxi dresses, and Laura Ashley shepherdess style. Cottagecore is quite a meme in the USA.
Interestingly it is popular both with the Trad-wife phenomenon, but also Millenial and Gen Z lesbians.
“Who decides that the workday is from 9 to 5, instead of 11 to 4? Who decides that the hemlines will be below the knee this year and short again next year? Who draws up the borders, controls the currency, handles all of the decisions that happen transparently around us?"
"I don't know."
"Ah! I'm with them. Same group, different department. Think of me as a sort of middleman…. Come in, sit, sit. The tea is getting cold."
Love guys who talk in cryptic anagrams all the time. Normally hides a lack of anything interesting to say.
Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, said Putin told him that after the assassination attempt on Trump, he visited his local church, met with a priest, and prayed for him: “not because he could become the president of the US, but because he had a friendship with him and he was praying for his friend.”
Witkoff also stated that he doesn’t consider the Russian war criminal “a bad guy,” describing the war as a “complicated situation.”
I actually think the reaction to Trump now will come from the hard left. Think corbynite policies of massive wealth redistribution. Sanders looking to run in 2028.
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?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I actually think the reaction to Trump now will come from the hard left. Think corbynite policies of massive wealth redistribution. Sanders looking to run in 2028.
The hard left will never win a presidential election in the USA. What's needed is a non-woke centre-left Democratic party.
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.
Also you can't just rock up and buy a 3 year old motability car. The aftermarket for them is strictly by invitation.
I rather suspect that a number of these car deals are not by/with/or/from/to/for/at/or/near people with mobility issues.
Why? Well, if you look at the extensive history of tax frauds, such a structure is exactly what the fraudsters head towards.
All you need is some fake identities.
If we can’t even stop the money laundering in public, using barbers and sweet shops…
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
Overall it seems pretty dire for the industry. There will always be exceptions.
Plenty closing up here too. Only this week Hard Rock Cafe in Newcastle announced its closure.
I think the current economic environment is particularly tough on such dated middle market chains. Hard Rock is dying out for the same reason places like Berni Inns did.
High end foodie places and fast food places seem to be prospering, as well as independent restaurants with more niche menus.
This is already the situation in the United States and it's terrible imo. You either have to eat in a fast food restaurant or somewhere that costs a lot of money. There's nothing in between. I hope that doesn't happen over here. Thank goodness for the likes of Wetherspoons and Toby Carvery.
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.
However, it remains that if there is an issue of eligibility - then the fix is to review the eligibility for the Higher Rate PIP if there are people receiving it who should do so, not the Motability scheme.
I actually think the reaction to Trump now will come from the hard left. Think corbynite policies of massive wealth redistribution. Sanders looking to run in 2028.
The hard left will never win a presidential election in the USA. What's needed is a non-woke centre-left Democratic party.
Worked fine for the hard right. I suspect that there is a lot of crossover between some parts of both camps - Sanders goes down well with the Rogan crowd, for example. All about suspicion of the establishment, whether the government or corporates.
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.
That's a really interesting comment, but I'm not sure if it is best defined as a "Mormon" outfit (except as characteristic of that community). I think it is older than that in derivation - you will find that type of feature (eg the cuffs, long skirt in a dark colour with showing no skin) in illustrations of immigrants to the USA back in the 17C and 18C.
(I'd be interested to know what Reformed and perhaps black pentecostalists churches do - who can also have an emphasis on dress codes and strict behaviour.)
The Mormons were founded in the 1830s, and the values around "modesty" were imo inherited and then preserved from earlier periods. *
I think it is symbolic on Fox of both "America of our memory that we will rebuild" and "Christian modesty", which fits with the Fox News / Trumpist / MAGA Christian Nationalist theme. It has the same symbolic function as Muslim headscarves of various kinds.
Here, for a different example, is a painting of " The Early Puritans of New England Going to Church" from 1867 of a 17C scene. Here it's both sexes, but the men with the ones adopted by Lisa Boothe on Fox, with collars and cuffs.
I think you'll find them in the UK in pictures of roundheads, or amongst civil war reenactors such as the Sealed Knot.
* (Also interestingly were translation errors / cultural idioms in the King James Bible into the Book of Mormon, which translations in the mainstream have been corrected since.)
And, of course, you'll find the collar and cuffs in "Witchfinder General", with Vincent Price playing Matthew Hopkins !
I wouldn't read so much into it. Fashions change over time, and the shift from bleached blonde MAGA anchor-women in short dresses to these outfits may not be of a lot of significance, just as the miniskirt and hotpants era gave way to maxi dresses, and Laura Ashley shepherdess style. Cottagecore is quite a meme in the USA.
Interestingly it is popular both with the Trad-wife phenomenon, but also Millenial and Gen Z lesbians.
“Who decides that the workday is from 9 to 5, instead of 11 to 4? Who decides that the hemlines will be below the knee this year and short again next year? Who draws up the borders, controls the currency, handles all of the decisions that happen transparently around us?"
"I don't know."
"Ah! I'm with them. Same group, different department. Think of me as a sort of middleman…. Come in, sit, sit. The tea is getting cold."
Love guys who talk in cryptic anagrams all the time. Normally hides a lack of anything interesting to say.
A plane crashes on the Ukraine/Republic of China border. Which side do you bury the survivors?
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
Here is my biography, I have others if you don't like it.
My real name is Rachel and I approve this message.
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
Here is my biography, I have others if you don't like it.
My real name is Rachel and I approve this message.
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
"In the Black Country, the places I saw had names, but the names were merely so much alliteration: Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Walsall. You could call them all wilderness, and have done with it". (J.B. Priestley, English Journey).
And A.E. Houseman wrote a Shropshire Lad from Bromsgrove!
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
"In the Black Country, the places I saw had names, but the names were merely so much alliteration: Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Walsall. You could call them all wilderness, and have done with it". (J.B. Priestley, English Journey).
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
"In the Black Country, the places I saw had names, but the names were merely so much alliteration: Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Walsall. You could call them all wilderness, and have done with it". (J.B. Priestley, English Journey).
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
"In the Black Country, the places I saw had names, but the names were merely so much alliteration: Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Walsall. You could call them all wilderness, and have done with it". (J.B. Priestley, English Journey).
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
"In the Black Country, the places I saw had names, but the names were merely so much alliteration: Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Walsall. You could call them all wilderness, and have done with it". (J.B. Priestley, English Journey).
TBF, he wasn't wrong about Walsall.
I used to work there. I had to keep explaing to people that I hadn't taken a job in Poland.
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
"In the Black Country, the places I saw had names, but the names were merely so much alliteration: Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Walsall. You could call them all wilderness, and have done with it". (J.B. Priestley, English Journey).
TBF, he wasn't wrong about Walsall.
I used to work in Cradley Heath. Hmmmm.
Interesting place.
Cradley Heath is in Sandwell, Cradley is in Dudley. When I lived in Cradley (Herefordshire), confused Brummie visitors would ask if they had arrived in Cra(y)dley, so I would tell them no, it is near Dudley.
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
"In the Black Country, the places I saw had names, but the names were merely so much alliteration: Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Walsall. You could call them all wilderness, and have done with it". (J.B. Priestley, English Journey).
TBF, he wasn't wrong about Walsall.
I used to work there. I had to keep explaing to people that I hadn't taken a job in Poland.
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
"In the Black Country, the places I saw had names, but the names were merely so much alliteration: Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Walsall. You could call them all wilderness, and have done with it". (J.B. Priestley, English Journey).
TBF, he wasn't wrong about Walsall.
I used to work there. I had to keep explaing to people that I hadn't taken a job in Poland.
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
"In the Black Country, the places I saw had names, but the names were merely so much alliteration: Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Walsall. You could call them all wilderness, and have done with it". (J.B. Priestley, English Journey).
TBF, he wasn't wrong about Walsall.
Nor any of the others.
Did you have The National Arboretum in mind?
Wolverhampton has grotty bits but on the whole it's a decent place. Willenhall I try to avoid.
24 posts before the ban hammer swings (well, locks it to 'applicant').
Not too impressive. We need to make more jokes about the small size of Putin's cock and the number of small boys he sticks it in. We're clearly not annoying him enough at the moment.
On the Heathrow backup - the line, at least according to the government seems to be that they didn’t have a backup, as such.
A backup would supply power without interruption.
What they had was a plan to restore power, that was expected to take time and then would require resetting and restoring individual systems.
Someone was suggesting that financial pressure prevented real backups. In every bank I have worked at, they have layers of plans, including dealing with the complete destruction of main office - disaster recovery sites are standard. Quite interesting to wander around them and see the trading floors covered in dust sheets, waiting for The Day.
Labour must really be regretting foolishly boxing themselves in so thoroughly with their safety-first election campaign.
To have dined out on opposing ‘austerity’ for fourteen long years, only to be imposing ‘austerity: the sequel’ within a year of taking office, is something their activists and representatives will hate, and will take a long time to live down.
24 posts before the ban hammer swings (well, locks it to 'applicant').
Not too impressive. We need to make more jokes about the small size of Putin's cock and the number of small boys he sticks it in. We're clearly not annoying him enough at the moment.
Some of us are using our copies of “Fly fishing” by JR Hartley.
You appear to want to go for marlin fishing. Great big hook and haul the fish in with a turn round a power winch.
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
"In the Black Country, the places I saw had names, but the names were merely so much alliteration: Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Walsall. You could call them all wilderness, and have done with it". (J.B. Priestley, English Journey).
TBF, he wasn't wrong about Walsall.
I used to work in Cradley Heath. Hmmmm.
Interesting place.
Cradley Heath is in Sandwell, Cradley is in Dudley. When I lived in Cradley (Herefordshire), confused Brummie visitors would ask if they had arrived in Cra(y)dley, so I would tell them no, it is near Dudley.
The factory has houses on it now. Not too far from the Merry Hill Centre. Awful job, awful company. Joined a Facebook group of old employees recently for some nostalgia and found out someone I shared an office with in the early nineties died in 2018 of an aggressive cancer. Only 40. I was somewhat upset.
When I worked in Cannock the locals used to refer to the brummie contingent as 021’s.
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
"In the Black Country, the places I saw had names, but the names were merely so much alliteration: Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Walsall. You could call them all wilderness, and have done with it". (J.B. Priestley, English Journey).
TBF, he wasn't wrong about Walsall.
Nor any of the others.
Did you have The National Arboretum in mind?
Wolverhampton has grotty bits but on the whole it's a decent place. Willenhall I try to avoid.
The walk to Molineaux from the train station used to be less than fun.
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Batteries in an ISO container - about £900,000 for 3MWh. So 10 of those would run Heathrow for an hour. £9,000,000
Diesel generators behind those - 2MW in an ISO. £400,000 each, say. 15 required to backup Heathrow. £6,000,000
So £15,000,000 in hardware.
How much did yesterday cost?
You are ignoring installation costs, integration costs, ongoing maintenance and testing costs etc etc. Probably still worth doing, but I'd be surprised if the hardware cost is the dominant term.
Bizarre priorities by previous administrations may have given people an excuse to vote for scumbags, but they were not created by "the left" any more than Hitler was
Hitler was a reaction to the excesses of the weimar republic in the 1920s.
In Russia, do you know Hitler only had one ball, the other was in the Albert Hall?
Notice Putin is looking pretty chipper these days. Things seem to be breaking well for him.
Well, his hydrocarbons indistry seems to be breaking well...thanks to those Ukrainian drones.
The Left created individuals like Trump, Musk and Tate. These men are the correction to the Left's DEI, anti-male extremism. Now they want to whine and screech about what they themselves created, like toddlers shitting their nappies and then complaining about the bad smell. 11:20 AM · Mar 22, 2025 · 1,211 Views
Batteries in an ISO container - about £900,000 for 3MWh. So 10 of those would run Heathrow for an hour. £9,000,000
Diesel generators behind those - 2MW in an ISO. £400,000 each, say. 15 required to backup Heathrow. £6,000,000
So £15,000,000 in hardware.
How much did yesterday cost?
The interesting thing is you don't have to be an expert to know that Heathrow relying on one substation wasn't a good idea.
Did they assume the power network has immediately available backups, just for them?
On a much smaller scale, I remember visiting a utility call centre when the usual report of "I've just dug through a cable" came in.
Before you can say "doh!", the phones start going ape.
One caller appeared to be running a manufacturing outfit. "I'm losing thousands here" he says. After an attempt to calm him down the call was eventually terminated and everyone looks around, shrugs, and suggests that if a power supply is critical to the business, you should have your _own_ backup strategy.
That goes for hospitals, data centres, and, yes, airports.
Batteries in an ISO container - about £900,000 for 3MWh. So 10 of those would run Heathrow for an hour. £9,000,000
Diesel generators behind those - 2MW in an ISO. £400,000 each, say. 15 required to backup Heathrow. £6,000,000
So £15,000,000 in hardware.
How much did yesterday cost?
You are ignoring installation costs, integration costs, ongoing maintenance and testing costs etc etc. Probably still worth doing, but I'd be surprised if the hardware cost is the dominant term.
The point is the order of magnitude. The other costs are a function of the capital costs.
There are companies, around the world, selling such solutions as a standard thing.
For example, that Turkish mega hospital mentioned yesterday, has this scale of backup.
Bizarre priorities by previous administrations may have given people an excuse to vote for scumbags, but they were not created by "the left" any more than Hitler was
Hitler was a reaction to the excesses of the weimar republic in the 1920s.
In Russia, do you know Hitler only had one ball, the other was in the Albert Hall?
Notice Putin is looking pretty chipper these days. Things seem to be breaking well for him.
Well, his hydrocarbons indistry seems to be breaking well...thanks to those Ukrainian drones.
What air defence doing?
Seems to be breaking well, as well.
Or are they just on a really long tea break?
We are a long way from the days of the USSR and the radar coverage maps that blanketed the place from end to 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.
Whereas Ben’s response was full of needless digs and jibes at a quite reasonable post. You chose not to challenge that.
What a twit. I was enjoying your conversation with him. You don't even know who I support, if anyone. Do you usually go around trying to start unnecessary arguments.
The Left created individuals like Trump, Musk and Tate. These men are the correction to the Left's DEI, anti-male extremism. Now they want to whine and screech about what they themselves created, like toddlers shitting their nappies and then complaining about the bad smell. 11:20 AM · Mar 22, 2025 · 1,211 Views
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
And either Heathrow didn't have any experts considering whether or not it was a good idea to rely on one substation, or they did have experts who considered it and decided it was okay. But if they'd asked a random person in the street they would have said it wasn't a good idea.
A truly shocking story of an American pet owner who turned up at a Florida airport without the correct travel documentation for her dog, on a flight to Colombia, so she went to the airport toilets, strangled her dog, dumped it in the trash can, and flew on without it.
Thankfully there was enough ID left on the dog, when it was found, to bring her to justice.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
A truly shocking story of an American pet owner who turned up at a Florida airport without the correct travel documentation for her dog, on a flight to Colombia, so she went to the airport toilets, strangled her dog, dumped it in the trash can, and flew on without it.
Thankfully there was enough ID left on the dog, when it was found, to bring her to justice.
Not especially a pet person.
But there is a great deal of evidence that people who behave like this with pets, are often a danger to people as well.
A truly shocking story of an American pet owner who turned up at a Florida airport without the correct travel documentation for her dog, on a flight to Colombia, so she went to the airport toilets, strangled her dog, dumped it in the trash can, and flew on without it.
Thankfully there was enough ID left on the dog, when it was found, to bring her to justice.
The Left created individuals like Trump, Musk and Tate. These men are the correction to the Left's DEI, anti-male extremism. Now they want to whine and screech about what they themselves created, like toddlers shitting their nappies and then complaining about the bad smell. 11:20 AM · Mar 22, 2025 · 1,211 Views
Jonathan Pie, Who you may know from Russia Today, made the same point after the Trumpdozer won in 2016.
Jonathan Pie is a fictional character, like Pacificheights who does seem like a toddler smearing their own shit everywhere.
Jonathan Pie is also rubbish.
The left certainly didn't "create" Trump. He's been a grifter mooting political ambitions and spitting bile since at least the 1980s entirely off his own back. He was created by Roy Cohn.
One might also suggest that if the response to DEI or EDI and stuff like #MeToo overreaching, is to empower some of the foulest people on the planet, among them proven abusers and crooks, to dismantle the American state. Then the problem may not be primarily with the left.
An irony is that Donald Trump may well have saved "woke" as there had been a pretty significant liberal left backlash against it. Now radicals will claim vindication as moderation and instiutions have provided quite a flimsy defence against the far right. The argument will be that next time the left has to bring a gun to the knife fight and damn compromise as the right have done.
Labour must really be regretting foolishly boxing themselves in so thoroughly with their safety-first election campaign.
To have dined out on opposing ‘austerity’ for fourteen long years, only to be imposing ‘austerity: the sequel’ within a year of taking office, is something their activists and representatives will hate, and will take a long time to live down.
Do you think a party not promising to not raise Income Tax could get elected to power?
Labour must really be regretting foolishly boxing themselves in so thoroughly with their safety-first election campaign.
To have dined out on opposing ‘austerity’ for fourteen long years, only to be imposing ‘austerity: the sequel’ within a year of taking office, is something their activists and representatives will hate, and will take a long time to live down.
Do you think a party not promising to not raise Income Tax could get elected to power?
There is no need to raise income tax, just take the brakes off the economy with serious supply-side reform.
Too many people currently have a vested interest in preventing growth and they are permitted to do so by both our planning and judicial review systems. Reform both, take away the ability of people to prevent other people from creating economic growth . . . and the Exchequer will automatically get a big slice of any economic growth that creates via our existing tax rates.
Anyone seen this from Jenrick. Used to be only the bnp saying this.
was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism.
That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.
The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent. There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this.
Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.
Jenrick emphasises the high levels of immigration over the past two and a half decades - for one and a half of which the Tories have been in power.
Is it a sign he is planning to change his party? Or is he just stupid?
Where is Black Country whereof he writes. I realise he was born in Wolverhampton but according to Wikipedia he spent much of his youth in Ludlow and district.
"In the Black Country, the places I saw had names, but the names were merely so much alliteration: Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Walsall. You could call them all wilderness, and have done with it". (J.B. Priestley, English Journey).
TBF, he wasn't wrong about Walsall.
Nor any of the others.
Did you have The National Arboretum in mind?
Wolverhampton has grotty bits but on the whole it's a decent place. Willenhall I try to avoid.
The walk to Molineaux from the train station used to be less than fun.
The walk from the stands to the touchline at Molineaux is quite a distance too. I haven't been for years, but it used to be an odd shaped ground.
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.
One could say that of Governments of all stripes over the last ten years. Although without doubt Government by a bunch of football hooligans would be uniquely bad.
True. If one wants a truly bare cupboard, look no further than the Sunak manifesto.
They were offering further tax cuts (on top of the two NI cuts) with no loss of public service which I think we would all take now.
I would take it over what has transpired, certainly, but we wouldn't have got a good Government out of it. Labour coming in is clearly how it was meant to be.
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?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
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?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
The UK also had a positive balance of trade from 94 to 98, so that went under New Labour too.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
As good a takedown of Trump as I've heard from a paid politician. 'Any Questions' and the question she was answering is 'What do you think of Trumps chances of winning the Nobel Peace Prize?' From Northern Ireland so probably not job threatening!
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
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?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
One of the first things the Tories did after winning the 1979 election was to almost double the standard rate of VAT from 8% to 15%.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
One of the first things the Tories did after winning the 1979 election was to almost double the standard rate of VAT from 8% to 15%.
They like VAT, the Tories. Old school regressive taxation.
Others are Tsunoda, Albon, Alonso, and Ocon. On pace, Hadjar has the car to do it and if he retains his place or even gets passed by Antonelli he should not only retain the advantage over the others but have clear air which could be crucial.
I was also tempted by Russell at 12 for the win, hedged at 4. Also, Russell at 26 each way for the title (down to third the odds top 2, alas). He's currently third, just half a dozen points off Norris. While the Mercedes isn't as fast as the McLaren it seems less of a hassle to drive and doesn't chew tyres as much as the Red Bull.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
One of the first things the Tories did after winning the 1979 election was to almost double the standard rate of VAT from 8% to 15%.
They like VAT, the Tories. Old school regressive taxation.
I must say that in my retail pharmacy days I liked VAT. Apart from anything else it required one's books to be kept up to date. And Purchase Tax, which preceded it and which could be changed overnight was paid by a retailers supplier, which meant that when it went down retailers had to reduce their prices, when they'd already paid the tax.
US Federal tax receipts tracking towards a 10% ($500 billion) shortfall in 24-25 compared with the previous tax year, thanks in large part to Musk's Department of Government "Efficiency" hatchet job on the IRS. They just aren't collecting the taxes.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
It kicked off in the 90s when old codgers who had bought early doors were selling onto private landlords and moving to Spain.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
One of the first things the Tories did after winning the 1979 election was to almost double the standard rate of VAT from 8% to 15%.
They like VAT, the Tories. Old school regressive taxation.
I must say that in my retail pharmacy days I liked VAT. Apart from anything else it required one's books to be kept up to date. And Purchase Tax, which preceded it and which could be changed overnight was paid by a retailers supplier, which meant that when it went down retailers had to reduce their prices, when they'd already paid the tax.
Any purchase tax is regressive. I quite like VAT, just not a double digit rate.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
BTL wouldn't be needed if there was an adequate supply of Local Authority homes available to rent. I'd agree, of course, that in some (?many) areas the demand for council houses exceeded the supply.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
The problem is really supply.
If you want to increase the population by a million, you need an extra million bedrooms.
Otherwise you have “efficiencies” such as illegal HMOs.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
Can you not see the correlation through the mists of time? The one (RTB) led to the other (BTL). Thatcher created a million Peter Rachmans.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
Can you not see the correlation through the mists of time? The one (RTB) led to the other (BTL).
Terrible economic policies like excluding house prices from inflation so the Bank of England suppressed CPI but allowed housing costs to spiral out of control led to RTB exploding.
Especially combined with planning restrictions and an explosion in population.
If planning restrictions didn't exist and house prices were low then BTL wouldn't exist since there's no point in buying property if you need to pay its costs but have no tenant to pay your mortgage as a tenant can sooner pay their own mortgage instead.
Tenants paying a landlord's mortgage instead of their own is a market failure. A market failure that did not exist until the turn of the century.
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
Can you not see the correlation through the mists of time? The one (RTB) led to the other (BTL).
Terrible economic policies like excluding house prices from inflation so the Bank of England suppressed CPI but allowed housing costs to spiral out of control led to RTB exploding.
Especially combined with planning restrictions and an explosion in population.
If planning restrictions didn't exist and house prices were low then BTL wouldn't exist since there's no point in buying property if you need to pay its costs but have no tenant to pay your mortgage as a tenant can sooner pay their own mortgage instead.
Tenants paying a landlord's mortgage instead of their own is a market failure. A market failure that did not exist until the turn of the century.
NIMFBY! I am quite happy sitting on an almost million pound property.
Follow the f*****' trail. Self funding public sector housing was fine. RTB was a bribe for the 1979 election. Then came BTL. You are probably right about planning (but not the field behind my house, please).
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
Comments
As far as I am concerned the only justification is if you can get a good joke out of it.
I would try being more conciliatory rather than try starting an argument with someone who you don't even know whether they agree or disagree with you.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
I hope you didn't mind me correcting you unnecessarily.
"I don't know."
"Ah! I'm with them. Same group, different department. Think of me as a sort of middleman…. Come in, sit, sit. The tea is getting cold."
https://web.archive.org/web/20240525072827/https://www.robertjenrick.com/about
https://web.archive.org/web/20240815130405/https://www.robertjenrick.com/about
I will say I'm considering a slightly left field title bet...
Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, said Putin told him that after the assassination attempt on Trump, he visited his local church, met with a priest, and prayed for him: “not because he could become the president of the US, but because he had a friendship with him and he was praying for his friend.”
Witkoff also stated that he doesn’t consider the Russian war criminal “a bad guy,” describing the war as a “complicated situation.”
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1903238535458721962
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils
An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering
Neglect of old coalfield areas.
Fixation on property as an asset and investment
Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let.
A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Why? Well, if you look at the extensive history of tax frauds, such a structure is exactly what the fraudsters head towards.
All you need is some fake identities.
If we can’t even stop the money laundering in public, using barbers and sweet shops…
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-relief-for-disabled-people/vrdp28000
However, it remains that if there is an issue of eligibility - then the fix is to review the eligibility for the Higher Rate PIP if there are people receiving it who should do so, not the Motability scheme.
And A.E. Houseman wrote a Shropshire Lad from Bromsgrove!
Interesting place.
Did you have The National Arboretum in mind?
Do they still do the Walsall illuminations?
Not too impressive. We need to make more jokes about the small size of Putin's cock and the number of small boys he sticks it in. We're clearly not annoying him enough at the moment.
A backup would supply power without interruption.
What they had was a plan to restore power, that was expected to take time and then would require resetting and restoring individual systems.
Someone was suggesting that financial pressure prevented real backups. In every bank I have worked at, they have layers of plans, including dealing with the complete destruction of main office - disaster recovery sites are standard. Quite interesting to wander around them and see the trading floors covered in dust sheets, waiting for The Day.
To have dined out on opposing ‘austerity’ for fourteen long years, only to be imposing ‘austerity: the sequel’ within a year of taking office, is something their activists and representatives will hate, and will take a long time to live down.
You appear to want to go for marlin fishing. Great big hook and haul the fish in with a turn round a power winch.
When I worked in Cannock the locals used to refer to the brummie contingent as 021’s.
Batteries in an ISO container - about £900,000 for 3MWh. So 10 of those would run Heathrow for an hour. £9,000,000
Diesel generators behind those - 2MW in an ISO. £400,000 each, say. 15 required to backup Heathrow. £6,000,000
So £15,000,000 in hardware.
How much did yesterday cost?
It’s never been easier or cheaper to build resiliency into IT or power.
What air defence doing?
On a much smaller scale, I remember visiting a utility call centre when the usual report of "I've just dug through a cable" came in.
Before you can say "doh!", the phones start going ape.
One caller appeared to be running a manufacturing outfit. "I'm losing thousands here" he says. After an attempt to calm him down the call was eventually terminated and everyone looks around, shrugs, and suggests that if a power supply is critical to the business, you should have your _own_ backup strategy.
That goes for hospitals, data centres, and, yes, airports.
There are companies, around the world, selling such solutions as a standard thing.
For example, that Turkish mega hospital mentioned yesterday, has this scale of backup.
Or are they just on a really long tea break?
We are a long way from the days of the USSR and the radar coverage maps that blanketed the place from end to end.
Thankfully there was enough ID left on the dog, when it was found, to bring her to justice.
No.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
But there is a great deal of evidence that people who behave like this with pets, are often a danger to people as well.
The left certainly didn't "create" Trump. He's been a grifter mooting political ambitions and spitting bile since at least the 1980s entirely off his own back. He was created by Roy Cohn.
One might also suggest that if the response to DEI or EDI and stuff like #MeToo overreaching, is to empower some of the foulest people on the planet, among them proven abusers and crooks, to dismantle the American state. Then the problem may not be primarily with the left.
An irony is that Donald Trump may well have saved "woke" as there had been a pretty significant liberal left backlash against it. Now radicals will claim vindication as moderation and instiutions have provided quite a flimsy defence against the far right. The argument will be that next time the left has to bring a gun to the knife fight and damn compromise as the right have done.
Too many people currently have a vested interest in preventing growth and they are permitted to do so by both our planning and judicial review systems. Reform both, take away the ability of people to prevent other people from creating economic growth . . . and the Exchequer will automatically get a big slice of any economic growth that creates via our existing tax rates.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
Betting PostF1: gone for Hadjar to win group 2 at 3.3.
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/03/chinese-grand-prix-2025-pre-race.html
Others are Tsunoda, Albon, Alonso, and Ocon. On pace, Hadjar has the car to do it and if he retains his place or even gets passed by Antonelli he should not only retain the advantage over the others but have clear air which could be crucial.
I was also tempted by Russell at 12 for the win, hedged at 4. Also, Russell at 26 each way for the title (down to third the odds top 2, alas). He's currently third, just half a dozen points off Norris. While the Mercedes isn't as fast as the McLaren it seems less of a hassle to drive and doesn't chew tyres as much as the Red Bull.
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
And Purchase Tax, which preceded it and which could be changed overnight was paid by a retailers supplier, which meant that when it went down retailers had to reduce their prices, when they'd already paid the tax.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/03/22/irs-tax-revenue-loss-federal-budget/
It kicked off in the 90s when old codgers who had bought early doors were selling onto private landlords and moving to Spain.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
I'd agree, of course, that in some (?many) areas the demand for council houses exceeded the supply.
If you want to increase the population by a million, you need an extra million bedrooms.
Otherwise you have “efficiencies” such as illegal HMOs.
From the Guardian -
https://neweconomics.org/2024/05/more-than-4-in-10-council-homes-sold-under-right-to-buy-now-owned-by-private-landlords#:~:text=Press Releases-,More than 4 in 10 council homes sold under right,now owned by private landlords&text=41% of all council homes,for Us alliance, published today.
Terrible economic policies like excluding house prices from inflation so the Bank of England suppressed CPI but allowed housing costs to spiral out of control led to RTB exploding.
Especially combined with planning restrictions and an explosion in population.
If planning restrictions didn't exist and house prices were low then BTL wouldn't exist since there's no point in buying property if you need to pay its costs but have no tenant to pay your mortgage as a tenant can sooner pay their own mortgage instead.
Tenants paying a landlord's mortgage instead of their own is a market failure. A market failure that did not exist until the turn of the century.
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
Amanda Akass"
https://news.sky.com/story/migrant-hub-plan-will-send-alarm-bells-clanging-for-many-labour-mps-as-tories-smell-blood-13333761
Follow the f*****' trail. Self funding public sector housing was fine. RTB was a bribe for the 1979 election. Then came BTL. You are probably right about planning (but not the field behind my house, please).
Most importantly, they mean the risk of people just disappearing into the informal labour market completely disappears.