Apologising for the Liz Truss mishanter – politicalbetting.com
Do you think the Conservatives would be right or wrong to apologise for the Liz Truss mini?Budget?Right: 47%Wrong: 17%Among 2024 Tory votersRight: 39%Wrong: 33%yougov.co.uk/topics/polit…
Apologising/disowning the Liz Truss premiership and how she operated, yes.
I can understand why some Tories are a little bit shy of criticising everything in the budget - even though the "fiscal event" screwed us - because they fear that'd undermine the argument to lower taxation. It did at least drop the H&SC levy, and did indicate a belief in most taxes coming down.
But that budget screwed the 40p rate coming back for a generation.
They threw her out in record time. The acknowledgement of her failure is obvious. Overt apology is probably a minor step but one that would be a good thing. It's not like they're ever going to defend her as a good PM.
I'm not convinced an apology would help with voters, not because voters will reject it but because by the time of the next general election most will have forgotten the details anyway. Come to think of it, I'd be surprised if more than a handful – even on PB – can recall precisely what happened and why.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
I'm unsure there's a commitment for 'sound money and an end to deficit spending' from any political party. Or, that there could be, given the situation the country finds itself in.
I don't know what the answer is for our economic woes, especially given the current world situation. But it'd be good if we all agreed that there are no easy answers, and it will involve all of us suffering to some extent.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
Typically that needs a financial crisis to come about.
The PIGS example is interesting; will we be a Greece or a Portugal ?
There's always a constituency for such a government, but it's almost always a minority constituency. The US is the poster child for this - the aggressive tax cutting party is adding several trillion to the deficit - but we're only slightly better.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
I'm unsure there's a commitment for 'sound money and an end to deficit spending' from any political party. Or, that there could be, given the situation the country finds itself in.
I don't know what the answer is for our economic woes, especially given the current world situation. But it'd be good if we all agreed that there are no easy answers, and it will involve all of us suffering to some extent.
Liz Truss was right. Britain needs more economic growth. Liz Truss was right. Treasury rules inhibit growth and must be rewritten. Ironic, really.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
With the SDR and war back in the news, what the Conservatives might apologise for is running down the armed forces. For the best reasons, you understand, something something peace dividend after the end of the Cold War. Global optimism, perhaps a touch naive in hindsight, but understandable.
This might give them space to attack the government's plans.
The Opposition's core problem is that everything Labour is screwing up (by their lights) was started under the blue team. It's not about Truss who was only running the show for about three days of Penny carrying her big sword, it's everything.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
Suppose the real question is 'Do you believe Mel Stride when he says it (Liz Truss) will never happen again"?
There is absolutely no guarantee that Boris won't come back; or some pandemic will appear; or the US will shatter the world financial system for a while. Politicians are like alchemists - promising gold from their leaden ideologies.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
Didn't Starmer receive criticism for tweeting about Eid?
Here's Narendra Modi doing the same:
"Best wishes on Eid ul-Adha. May this occasion inspire harmony and strengthen the fabric of peace in our society. Wishing everyone good health and prosperity."
Last year, Ukraine produced about 1,000 drones for every hour of the year, and this year they plan to produce about 40 for every minute. Incredible.
That’s a very good example of the misuse of statistics by the original tweeter. He must be a Lib Dem.
1000 per hour = 17 per minute.
17 / min —> 40 / min is a very impressive increase in capacity
But much less good that the impression that a casual reader would take away from a glance at the tweet.
I didn’t get the data from a tweet (and did the sums myself). And what is incredible is that they are producing so many in the first place.
Indeed. It's quite a figure. Although I wonder how the figures split up by type: from small quadcopters to much larger UAVs. And also by control type (FPV/radio, FPV/fibre-optic, autonomous etc). Not that I'd expect (or want) them to give us such info, as it'd probably be useful to the Russians.
Also, how many of the components are homegrown, and how many are imported. I bet almost all the chips are imported, for instance, but how many circuit boards are they making in Ukraine?
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the mini-budget, Liz Truss has made it relatively easy for the Tories to repudiate Trussism by behaving like an utter loon in the yeara since her tenure.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the mini-budget, Liz Truss has made it relatively easy for the Tories to repudiate Trussism by behaving like an utter loon in the yeara since her tenure.
Errr...only *since* her tenure?
That's the problem, really. She was an utter loon before, an utter loon during, and an utter loon since.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
We've debated that in recent months around the concept of repentance ('metanoia').
I think a big thing for the Conservative Party is the need to embrace the long-term not the short-term, and that means removing their belief in selling off assets rather than building a future, and dealing with their connections to certain types of financialisation. And to embrace the national interest more strongly, and particularly the promotion of civic life within the UK.
IMO it also means embracing a higher tax base, and to stop pandering to their wealthy base by permanent under-taxation of assets, especially housing assets which deliver tax free work free earnings.
For me, this shows every sign of taking up to a generation, that is if there is a future for the party.
If they choose to do so, the Starmer Government can do necessary reforms first, and leave what is lefty of the Cons marooned in the past.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
To take a point made by both Rory Stewart and Sam Freedman (yes, I know, Centrist Dad Central, on the other hand, they were eyewitnesses) it was known that Truss was eccentric and mega-ambitious, but she was good at sticking to a brief and pushing the message of the day. That made her useful.
Another manifestation of the triumph of politics over government. That didn't start with Cameron, and he's not the only one responsible, but it's another way that his contribution looks increasingly shlonky as time passes.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
Excellent. This the fiscal conservative side of you talking.
(I'm unsure that's the takeaway point I was supposed to make from this fascinating research...)
There was a project that used the transcripts from the Old Bailey to track the changes in cases heard there over time. It showed the changes in not only language but also society as driven by changes in law.
On the largest scales, we can see how, over the centuries, a state comes to manage its monopoly on violence and how people learn new ways of seeing the world (Klingenstein et al., 2015). Conversely, trial by trial, we can read for the weirdness, the variety, and the contexts that string together these innumerable moments in the vast sweep of history, and that can reveal the hidden experiences of a human life (Hitchcock, 2014).
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
To take a point made by both Rory Stewart and Sam Freedman (yes, I know, Centrist Dad Central, on the other hand, they were eyewitnesses) it was known that Truss was eccentric and mega-ambitious, but she was good at sticking to a brief and pushing the message of the day. That made her useful.
Another manifestation of the triumph of politics over government. That didn't start with Cameron, and he's not the only one responsible, but it's another way that his contribution looks increasingly shlonky as time passes.
Introducing both Truss and Mone to the corridors of power is quite a double. Mind you both were likely to get stuck in the lav, the former from gormlessness, the latter endlessly checking her make up.
Last year, Ukraine produced about 1,000 drones for every hour of the year, and this year they plan to produce about 40 for every minute. Incredible.
That’s a very good example of the misuse of statistics by the original tweeter. He must be a Lib Dem.
1000 per hour = 17 per minute.
17 / min —> 40 / min is a very impressive increase in capacity
But much less good that the impression that a casual reader would take away from a glance at the tweet.
I didn’t get the data from a tweet (and did the sums myself). And what is incredible is that they are producing so many in the first place.
70% of casualties in the war are now from drones, mostly micro-drones. That's an amazing statistic, as in most wars it is a similar percentage for artillery.
The Ukranians are the world leaders in this, but the Russians are copying fast. It's a shift to defensive decentralised defensive weapons that makes assembling a concentration of forces for battle a major risk.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
I've never liked, grammatically, the phrase "lest we forget". Although I agree we shouldn't forget the sacrifices previous generations made to secure out freedom.
It's become a cliche and the culturally right version of "celebrate diversity", and just as annoying.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
We've debated that in recent months around the concept of repentance ('metanoia').
I think a big thing for the Conservative Party is the need to embrace the long-term not the short-term, and that means removing their belief in selling off assets rather than building a future, and dealing with their connections to certain types of financialisation. And to embrace the national interest more strongly, and particularly the promotion of civic life within the UK.
IMO it also means embracing a higher tax base, and to stop pandering to their wealthy base by permanent under-taxation of assets, especially housing assets which deliver tax free work free earnings.
For me, this shows every sign of taking up to a generation, that is if there is a future for the party.
If they choose to do so, the Starmer Government can do necessary reforms first, and leave what is lefty of the Cons marooned in the past.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
To take a point made by both Rory Stewart and Sam Freedman (yes, I know, Centrist Dad Central, on the other hand, they were eyewitnesses) it was known that Truss was eccentric and mega-ambitious, but she was good at sticking to a brief and pushing the message of the day. That made her useful.
Another manifestation of the triumph of politics over government. That didn't start with Cameron, and he's not the only one responsible, but it's another way that his contribution looks increasingly shlonky as time passes.
She was useful to Johnson mostly by not being an obviously credible successor, chosen not to be a threat, like young Sunak. What he didn’t think through was the likelihood that surrounding himself with numpties risked eventually leaving the party in the hands of one of them.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
Excellent. This the fiscal conservative side of you talking.
It's by far the most impressive one.
I have always been dry as dust on deficit spending and debt. I think it morally wrong for us to live now and send the bill to our children. I don't particularly have a view on the rate of taxation, just that the burden should be on wealth as well as income and should cover spending.
On social issues I am free and easy. I don't like other people telling me how to live and reciprocate by not telling other people how to live. It's why I am a liberal, not a conservative.
(I'm unsure that's the takeaway point I was supposed to make from this fascinating research...)
There was a project that used the transcripts from the Old Bailey to track the changes in cases heard there over time. It showed the changes in not only language but also society as driven by changes in law.
On the largest scales, we can see how, over the centuries, a state comes to manage its monopoly on violence and how people learn new ways of seeing the world (Klingenstein et al., 2015). Conversely, trial by trial, we can read for the weirdness, the variety, and the contexts that string together these innumerable moments in the vast sweep of history, and that can reveal the hidden experiences of a human life (Hitchcock, 2014).
Bottom line: We are products of the time we live in.
Quite a few years back, I got deep into reading the Old Bailey case files. They are quite fascinating snapshots of history. Even when chosen randomly, e.g. this one: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/t17450424-33
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
I think that's Osbourne's biggest mistake - with austerity he cut everything when he should have done more to cut day to day spending while throwing money at infrastructure projects...
Austerity would have been so bad and obvious if new schools / railways / hospitals / roads could be shown..
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
Last year, Ukraine produced about 1,000 drones for every hour of the year, and this year they plan to produce about 40 for every minute. Incredible.
That’s a very good example of the misuse of statistics by the original tweeter. He must be a Lib Dem.
1000 per hour = 17 per minute.
17 / min —> 40 / min is a very impressive increase in capacity
But much less good that the impression that a casual reader would take away from a glance at the tweet.
I didn’t get the data from a tweet (and did the sums myself). And what is incredible is that they are producing so many in the first place.
China helps Russia pull ahead in lethal drone war race with Ukraine Beijing denies helping Moscow, but Russia is scaling up both the production and the sophistication of its drones. https://www.politico.eu/article/china-russia-lethal-drone-war-race-ukraine-war-invasion-manufacture-putin-tech/ ...“Chinese manufacturers provide them with hardware, electronics, navigation, optical and telemetry systems, engines, microcircuits, processor modules, antenna field systems, control boards, navigation. They use so-called shell companies, change names, do everything to avoid being subject to export control and avoid sanctions for their activities,” said Oleh Aleksandrov, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service. “Yet officially, China sticks to all the rules. Yet only officially.”..
..Kyiv says that its access to new drones has been curtailed by China, while Beijing has placed no such restrictions on Russia. “The Chinese Mavic is open to the Russians, and it is closed to the Ukrainians. They simply closed it for Europe and for Ukraine, including for the EU. And for the Russians, there is still an opportunity to buy drones on the Chinese market,” Zelenskyy said..
China is by some distance the largest producer of drones and, most importantly, drone components.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
Kwasi Kwarteng was interviewed on Leading last year (Rory the ex-Tory again !), when he took the line "I thought I could control Liz Truss; I was wrong."
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
This will be a game changer for research into the disease. Possibly too late to make much difference for the PB demographic, but our kids will benefit.
Alzheimer’s blood test can spot people with early symptoms, study suggests
“Our study found that blood testing affirmed the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease with 95% sensitivity and 82% specificity,” he said.
“When performed in the outpatient clinical setting, this is similar to the accuracy of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of the disease and is much more convenient and cost-effective.”
Overall, researchers found that p-tau217 levels were higher in patients with Alzheimer’s disease versus those without the disease.
Day said the next steps in the research were to evaluate blood-based testing in more diverse patient populations and people with early Alzheimer’s who showed no cognitive symptoms...
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That makes no sense - day to day spending should be from taxation, borrowing should be capital investment. Micawber’s advice was for day to day spending, Polonus’s doesn’t cover buying something like a house
(I'm unsure that's the takeaway point I was supposed to make from this fascinating research...)
There was a project that used the transcripts from the Old Bailey to track the changes in cases heard there over time. It showed the changes in not only language but also society as driven by changes in law.
On the largest scales, we can see how, over the centuries, a state comes to manage its monopoly on violence and how people learn new ways of seeing the world (Klingenstein et al., 2015). Conversely, trial by trial, we can read for the weirdness, the variety, and the contexts that string together these innumerable moments in the vast sweep of history, and that can reveal the hidden experiences of a human life (Hitchcock, 2014).
Bottom line: We are products of the time we live in.
Quite a few years back, I got deep into reading the Old Bailey case files. They are quite fascinating snapshots of history. Even when chosen randomly, e.g. this one: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/t17450424-33
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
The problem we have is those sophisticated tools have a built in bias (towards London) that needs to be fixed. And that would best be fixing by given local leaders some actual money and responsibility
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
Sure, but as individuals we rarely are in a position to buy a property for cash. The costs are multiples of annual income. The reverse is true of governments, where capital expenditure is a tiny fraction of government income. No government infrastructure spend is 3x or more of annual tax take.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
How anybody can say that, when you have fiascos like HS2 or God knows how many IT projects, is beyond me.
Government is great at overpriced, misspecified investment disasters and zombie white elephants that just stumble on regardless of any economic benefits.
It is lousy at sustained capital investment that has a significant role in growth.
There are any number of reasons for this (political pressures, the cult of the intelligent amateur in government, private sector contractors knowing a mark when they see one, etc.) but the record of government in large capital projects is mostly pitiful and yet we keep on thinking that this time it's different.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
The problem we have is those sophisticated tools have a built in bias (towards London) that needs to be fixed. And that would best be fixing by given local leaders some actual money and responsibility
I agree wholeheartedly with that. The lack of investment outside the South East is quite likely a contributor to the UK's economic underperformance.
Last year, Ukraine produced about 1,000 drones for every hour of the year, and this year they plan to produce about 40 for every minute. Incredible.
That’s a very good example of the misuse of statistics by the original tweeter. He must be a Lib Dem.
1000 per hour = 17 per minute.
17 / min —> 40 / min is a very impressive increase in capacity
But much less good that the impression that a casual reader would take away from a glance at the tweet.
I didn’t get the data from a tweet (and did the sums myself). And what is incredible is that they are producing so many in the first place.
70% of casualties in the war are now from drones, mostly micro-drones. That's an amazing statistic, as in most wars it is a similar percentage for artillery.
The Ukranians are the world leaders in this, but the Russians are copying fast. It's a shift to defensive decentralised defensive weapons that makes assembling a concentration of forces for battle a major risk.
Wars are, and always have been, a great driver of innovation.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That makes no sense - day to day spending should be from taxation, borrowing should be capital investment. Micawber’s advice was for day to day spending, Polonus’s doesn’t cover buying something like a house
And that attitude is part of the reason we're here. There's an interview with Nathaniel Fried, the DOGE-UK techie, in today's Times;
Fried said he found “genuinely ancient” IT systems that were “nearly as old as me” and costing the council in wasted staff hours. He said that officials worked incredibly hard but were blighted by antiquated processes and inefficient procurement practices.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
Sure, but as individuals we rarely are in a position to buy a property for cash. The costs are multiples of annual income. The reverse is true of governments, where capital expenditure is a tiny fraction of government income. No government infrastructure spend is 3x or more of annual tax take.
That's why I only said a "bit like".
Requiring that all government investment come from income would both represent a large, and largely unnecessary fiscal contraction, and make government decision making still more cumbersome than it now is.
If you're borrowing for genuine capital investment, you're bequeathing the assets to your kids, along with the debt.
It's almost the direct opposite of selling assets to pay for current spending.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That makes no sense - day to day spending should be from taxation, borrowing should be capital investment. Micawber’s advice was for day to day spending, Polonus’s doesn’t cover buying something like a house
And that attitude is part of the reason we're here. There's an interview with Nathaniel Fried, the DOGE-UK techie, in today's Times;
Fried said he found “genuinely ancient” IT systems that were “nearly as old as me” and costing the council in wasted staff hours. He said that officials worked incredibly hard but were blighted by antiquated processes and inefficient procurement practices.
Which is very likely true, but a long way from LAZY WFH DESK JOCKEYS or MILLIONS OF FRAUD.
That was likely to be the case - IT systems costs £x00,000 minimum to properly develop and IT staff fall out of pay structures (because good ones know what we are worth) and councils simply can't justify the cost.
Last year, Ukraine produced about 1,000 drones for every hour of the year, and this year they plan to produce about 40 for every minute. Incredible.
That’s a very good example of the misuse of statistics by the original tweeter. He must be a Lib Dem.
1000 per hour = 17 per minute.
17 / min —> 40 / min is a very impressive increase in capacity
But much less good that the impression that a casual reader would take away from a glance at the tweet.
I didn’t get the data from a tweet (and did the sums myself). And what is incredible is that they are producing so many in the first place.
China helps Russia pull ahead in lethal drone war race with Ukraine Beijing denies helping Moscow, but Russia is scaling up both the production and the sophistication of its drones. https://www.politico.eu/article/china-russia-lethal-drone-war-race-ukraine-war-invasion-manufacture-putin-tech/ ...“Chinese manufacturers provide them with hardware, electronics, navigation, optical and telemetry systems, engines, microcircuits, processor modules, antenna field systems, control boards, navigation. They use so-called shell companies, change names, do everything to avoid being subject to export control and avoid sanctions for their activities,” said Oleh Aleksandrov, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service. “Yet officially, China sticks to all the rules. Yet only officially.”..
..Kyiv says that its access to new drones has been curtailed by China, while Beijing has placed no such restrictions on Russia. “The Chinese Mavic is open to the Russians, and it is closed to the Ukrainians. They simply closed it for Europe and for Ukraine, including for the EU. And for the Russians, there is still an opportunity to buy drones on the Chinese market,” Zelenskyy said..
China is by some distance the largest producer of drones and, most importantly, drone components.
That's an interesting illustration of how long things take to trickle through to MSM. That's June 5 ie Thursday. Or perhaps how they try to make older stories sound recent.
The Kyiv Independent was reporting that a week ago, and Bloomberg on May 29. I probably got it from Ukraine the Latest.
President Volodymyr Zelensky said China has stopped selling drones to Ukraine and Western countries while continuing to supply them to Russia, Bloomberg reported on May 29. .... Beijing has repeatedly denied aiding either side with military goods. On May 27, the Chinese Foreign Ministry also rejected claims made by Ukrainian intelligence chief Oleh Ivashchenko, who alleged that Beijing provided special chemicals, gunpowder, and other defense-related materials to at least 20 Russian military-industrial facilities.
The insight I get from that, I think, is the importance of specialism. A very good current example of an independent, whom I have no idea how he got to be an authority, is HI Sutton of Covert Shores. His website design is circa 1996-7.
I read the full document last night. It's mostly very vague; cybertwat this, AI bollocks that, agile integrated the other, etc.
What firm commitments exist are Gosplan style job creation schemes that look a lot like levelling up and will presumably end up with the same lack of success as all other attempts.
One of the few comments on hardware, "up to" (LOL) 12 x SSN, was quite interesting. The figure of 12 was obviously arrived at by adding the planned British 7 to the planned Australian 5 indicating that the RAN are maybe having to trim their nuclear submarine ambitions in the AUKUS money furnace. It also depends on building one boat every 18 months. The fastest an Astute has ever been built is 113 months for HMS Ambush so... yeah...
It mentions NATO about 100 times so the UK defence establishment clearly isn't ready to give up on it/face reality (delete as appropriate) yet. It mentions the EU once, so SKS is clearly scared of the Fukkers and didn't want to give them any thing that feeds the Brexit Betrayal narrative.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
Excellent. This the fiscal conservative side of you talking.
It's by far the most impressive one.
I have always been dry as dust on deficit spending and debt. I think it morally wrong for us to live now and send the bill to our children. I don't particularly have a view on the rate of taxation, just that the burden should be on wealth as well as income and should cover spending.
On social issues I am free and easy. I don't like other people telling me how to live and reciprocate by not telling other people how to live. It's why I am a liberal, not a conservative.
I'm the same on deficit *spending*. Borrowing to pay the bills is stupid when you are a government. The strategic political mistake we have made as a nation is also to assume that deficit *investment* is wrong.
Borrow, invest, gain a return on the investment. Capitalism! Especially when the state can borrow below market rate (effectively for free during that long period after the GFC) and can invest to drive economic growth.
Last year, Ukraine produced about 1,000 drones for every hour of the year, and this year they plan to produce about 40 for every minute. Incredible.
That’s a very good example of the misuse of statistics by the original tweeter. He must be a Lib Dem.
1000 per hour = 17 per minute.
17 / min —> 40 / min is a very impressive increase in capacity
But much less good that the impression that a casual reader would take away from a glance at the tweet.
I didn’t get the data from a tweet (and did the sums myself). And what is incredible is that they are producing so many in the first place.
China helps Russia pull ahead in lethal drone war race with Ukraine Beijing denies helping Moscow, but Russia is scaling up both the production and the sophistication of its drones. https://www.politico.eu/article/china-russia-lethal-drone-war-race-ukraine-war-invasion-manufacture-putin-tech/ ...“Chinese manufacturers provide them with hardware, electronics, navigation, optical and telemetry systems, engines, microcircuits, processor modules, antenna field systems, control boards, navigation. They use so-called shell companies, change names, do everything to avoid being subject to export control and avoid sanctions for their activities,” said Oleh Aleksandrov, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service. “Yet officially, China sticks to all the rules. Yet only officially.”..
..Kyiv says that its access to new drones has been curtailed by China, while Beijing has placed no such restrictions on Russia. “The Chinese Mavic is open to the Russians, and it is closed to the Ukrainians. They simply closed it for Europe and for Ukraine, including for the EU. And for the Russians, there is still an opportunity to buy drones on the Chinese market,” Zelenskyy said..
China is by some distance the largest producer of drones and, most importantly, drone components.
That's an interesting illustration of how long things take to trickle through to MSM. That's June 5 ie Thursday. Or perhaps how they try to make older stories sound recent.
The Kyiv Independent was reporting that a week ago, and Bloomberg on May 29. I probably got it from Ukraine the Latest.
President Volodymyr Zelensky said China has stopped selling drones to Ukraine and Western countries while continuing to supply them to Russia, Bloomberg reported on May 29. .... Beijing has repeatedly denied aiding either side with military goods. On May 27, the Chinese Foreign Ministry also rejected claims made by Ukrainian intelligence chief Oleh Ivashchenko, who alleged that Beijing provided special chemicals, gunpowder, and other defense-related materials to at least 20 Russian military-industrial facilities.
Ivashchenko also said that as of early 2025, 80% of critical electronic components in Russian drones were of Chinese origin...
What percentage of Ukrainian drone components are ultimately of Chinese origin ?
The Chinese are making out like bandits... Russians bought FPV drone components from China and received wooden blocks with glued-on photos of circuit boards. https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1931161668131991552
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
Excellent. This the fiscal conservative side of you talking.
It's by far the most impressive one.
More tax just means less real spending and the tax is squandered by the morons taking it, circle of disaster as we have seen. We need far less state and far less tax and let people spend their money. Instead they make it better to be idle and live off benefits.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
We couldn't. So we didn't invest whilst all of our competitors did. Which is why our economy is in such a mess.
There is nothing wrong with borrowing to invest. It is borrowing to burn that is the problem. And it goes beyond government. The manta of investment = subsidy means that the private sector largely stopped investing as well.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
Sure, but as individuals we rarely are in a position to buy a property for cash. The costs are multiples of annual income. The reverse is true of governments, where capital expenditure is a tiny fraction of government income. No government infrastructure spend is 3x or more of annual tax take.
HS2 is close and must be the biggest white elephant in the world ever.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Let's not scare monger or dismiss people's legitimate fears of people based solely on their skin colour or where their grandparents were born. I'm sure it is all totally fine. I certainly can't think of any prominent historical examples of minority groups being presented as an existential threat to the purity of the nation and that leading to anything bad happening.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
Much of that I agree with but actually I think we need to invest a bit more in the foreign office and diplomacy.
Changed world, and a British consular presence is important. Probably even the ferrero rocher.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
Excellent. This the fiscal conservative side of you talking.
It's by far the most impressive one.
More tax just means less real spending and the tax is squandered by the morons taking it, circle of disaster as we have seen. We need far less state and far less tax and let people spend their money. Instead they make it better to be idle and live off benefits.
Where would you like to cut spending so that taxes can be reduced...
Defence, NHS, pensioner's pensions, pensioner's social care, welfare for disabled people, police and justice system? Because at the moment that's where the money is going.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That makes no sense - day to day spending should be from taxation, borrowing should be capital investment. Micawber’s advice was for day to day spending, Polonus’s doesn’t cover buying something like a house
And that attitude is part of the reason we're here. There's an interview with Nathaniel Fried, the DOGE-UK techie, in today's Times;
Fried said he found “genuinely ancient” IT systems that were “nearly as old as me” and costing the council in wasted staff hours. He said that officials worked incredibly hard but were blighted by antiquated processes and inefficient procurement practices.
Last year, Ukraine produced about 1,000 drones for every hour of the year, and this year they plan to produce about 40 for every minute. Incredible.
That’s a very good example of the misuse of statistics by the original tweeter. He must be a Lib Dem.
1000 per hour = 17 per minute.
17 / min —> 40 / min is a very impressive increase in capacity
But much less good that the impression that a casual reader would take away from a glance at the tweet.
I didn’t get the data from a tweet (and did the sums myself). And what is incredible is that they are producing so many in the first place.
China helps Russia pull ahead in lethal drone war race with Ukraine Beijing denies helping Moscow, but Russia is scaling up both the production and the sophistication of its drones. https://www.politico.eu/article/china-russia-lethal-drone-war-race-ukraine-war-invasion-manufacture-putin-tech/ ...“Chinese manufacturers provide them with hardware, electronics, navigation, optical and telemetry systems, engines, microcircuits, processor modules, antenna field systems, control boards, navigation. They use so-called shell companies, change names, do everything to avoid being subject to export control and avoid sanctions for their activities,” said Oleh Aleksandrov, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service. “Yet officially, China sticks to all the rules. Yet only officially.”..
..Kyiv says that its access to new drones has been curtailed by China, while Beijing has placed no such restrictions on Russia. “The Chinese Mavic is open to the Russians, and it is closed to the Ukrainians. They simply closed it for Europe and for Ukraine, including for the EU. And for the Russians, there is still an opportunity to buy drones on the Chinese market,” Zelenskyy said..
China is by some distance the largest producer of drones and, most importantly, drone components.
That's an interesting illustration of how long things take to trickle through to MSM. That's June 5 ie Thursday. Or perhaps how they try to make older stories sound recent.
The Kyiv Independent was reporting that a week ago, and Bloomberg on May 29. I probably got it from Ukraine the Latest.
President Volodymyr Zelensky said China has stopped selling drones to Ukraine and Western countries while continuing to supply them to Russia, Bloomberg reported on May 29. .... Beijing has repeatedly denied aiding either side with military goods. On May 27, the Chinese Foreign Ministry also rejected claims made by Ukrainian intelligence chief Oleh Ivashchenko, who alleged that Beijing provided special chemicals, gunpowder, and other defense-related materials to at least 20 Russian military-industrial facilities.
Ivashchenko also said that as of early 2025, 80% of critical electronic components in Russian drones were of Chinese origin...
What percentage of Ukrainian drone components are ultimately of Chinese origin ?
The Chinese are making out like bandits... Russians bought FPV drone components from China and received wooden blocks with glued-on photos of circuit boards. https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1931161668131991552
I'm not sure.
But this seems to have been a known issue for at least the best part of a year, with efforts to address it:
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
How anybody can say that, when you have fiascos like HS2 or God knows how many IT projects, is beyond me.
Government is great at overpriced, misspecified investment disasters and zombie white elephants that just stumble on regardless of any economic benefits.
It is lousy at sustained capital investment that has a significant role in growth.
There are any number of reasons for this (political pressures, the cult of the intelligent amateur in government, private sector contractors knowing a mark when they see one, etc.) but the record of government in large capital projects is mostly pitiful and yet we keep on thinking that this time it's different.
But HS2 is an example of that failure in sustained capital investment - stuff like the bat tunnel is tiny proportion of the overall cost, most of which stems from the massive political uncertainty associated with the project.
The stuff that is good value-for-money is built slowly but continuously. A small(er), highly experienced workforce, with time to plan. If we stop-start stuff like HS2 we delay the benefits while massively increasing the costs. The submarine programme actually works quite well because the various contractors have contracts stretching decades in advance.
There should be a long term but limited plan to dual various roads (A1, A9, A96), slowly add trams to our cities (Edinburgh etc), build HS2. There should be no point at which these workforces ever down tools.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That makes no sense - day to day spending should be from taxation, borrowing should be capital investment. Micawber’s advice was for day to day spending, Polonus’s doesn’t cover buying something like a house
And that attitude is part of the reason we're here. There's an interview with Nathaniel Fried, the DOGE-UK techie, in today's Times;
Fried said he found “genuinely ancient” IT systems that were “nearly as old as me” and costing the council in wasted staff hours. He said that officials worked incredibly hard but were blighted by antiquated processes and inefficient procurement practices.
Which is very likely true, but a long way from LAZY WFH DESK JOCKEYS or MILLIONS OF FRAUD.
I sit in public buildings and gawp at some of the decrepit crap they are using. In hospital in both Banff and Aberdeen with mum this week. Ceiling lights are ancient, running florescent tube bulbs. You know how much money those things cost to run? You could save an absolute bomb replacing them with LEDs.
Why doesn't that happen? That's right - we can't afford it. So instead of spending a little in capex to replace the lights with ones that collapse the energy bill long term, we "save" that investment and pay a lot more in leccy costs.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
Excellent. This the fiscal conservative side of you talking.
It's by far the most impressive one.
More tax just means less real spending and the tax is squandered by the morons taking it, circle of disaster as we have seen. We need far less state and far less tax and let people spend their money. Instead they make it better to be idle and live off benefits.
Where would you like to cut spending so that taxes can be reduced...
Defence, NHS, pensioner's pensions, pensioner's social care, welfare for disabled people, police and justice system? Because at the moment that's where the money is going.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
We couldn't. So we didn't invest whilst all of our competitors did. Which is why our economy is in such a mess.
There is nothing wrong with borrowing to invest. It is borrowing to burn that is the problem. And it goes beyond government. The manta of investment = subsidy means that the private sector largely stopped investing as well.
Compare and contrast with Norway, which did invest from revenue into a capital fund.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
Excellent. This the fiscal conservative side of you talking.
It's by far the most impressive one.
More tax just means less real spending and the tax is squandered by the morons taking it, circle of disaster as we have seen. We need far less state and far less tax and let people spend their money. Instead they make it better to be idle and live off benefits.
Where would you like to cut spending so that taxes can be reduced...
Defence, NHS, pensioner's pensions, pensioner's social care, welfare for disabled people, police and justice system? Because at the moment that's where the money is going.
Freeze NHS hospital spending in real terms. It's the only way.
(Stuff like the triple lock is a very long term problem that also needs to be fixed. But if you're looking to free up cash in the next 5-10 years, it's all about hospitals).
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
One obvious flaw in the analysis is that he assumes immigrant populations have a higher fertility rate and always will do. Many immigrant populations do have a higher fertility rate in the first generation, but their fertility rate rapidly aligns with that of the host population.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
Excellent. This the fiscal conservative side of you talking.
It's by far the most impressive one.
More tax just means less real spending and the tax is squandered by the morons taking it, circle of disaster as we have seen. We need far less state and far less tax and let people spend their money. Instead they make it better to be idle and live off benefits.
Where would you like to cut spending so that taxes can be reduced...
Defence, NHS, pensioner's pensions, pensioner's social care, welfare for disabled people, police and justice system? Because at the moment that's where the money is going.
All of those , they are bloated and inefficient. Have had misfortune to be involved with NHS and social care/welfare recently. A&E is great but given the shedload there with sprained ankles and cuts , etc a real waste of the resources. Social care and welfare, totally useless, no idea what they do but it is far from social care and welfare, just excuses and wringing of hands.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That makes no sense - day to day spending should be from taxation, borrowing should be capital investment. Micawber’s advice was for day to day spending, Polonus’s doesn’t cover buying something like a house
And that attitude is part of the reason we're here. There's an interview with Nathaniel Fried, the DOGE-UK techie, in today's Times;
Fried said he found “genuinely ancient” IT systems that were “nearly as old as me” and costing the council in wasted staff hours. He said that officials worked incredibly hard but were blighted by antiquated processes and inefficient procurement practices.
Which is very likely true, but a long way from LAZY WFH DESK JOCKEYS or MILLIONS OF FRAUD.
I sit in public buildings and gawp at some of the decrepit crap they are using. In hospital in both Banff and Aberdeen with mum this week. Ceiling lights are ancient, running florescent tube bulbs. You know how much money those things cost to run? You could save an absolute bomb replacing them with LEDs.
Why doesn't that happen? That's right - we can't afford it. So instead of spending a little in capex to replace the lights with ones that collapse the energy bill long term, we "save" that investment and pay a lot more in leccy costs.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
Sure, but as individuals we rarely are in a position to buy a property for cash. The costs are multiples of annual income. The reverse is true of governments, where capital expenditure is a tiny fraction of government income. No government infrastructure spend is 3x or more of annual tax take.
HS2 is close and must be the biggest white elephant in the world ever.
In 20 years time people will wonder why HS2 was ever controversial. They moaned about crossrail calling it a white elephant. Now it’s a core element of London transportation. I remember the people insisting the M40 was a waste of money in the 80s too.
And the choruses throughout the 90s and 00s insisting Dubai was one huge expensive white elephant that would surely soon come crashing down.
Build and they will come.
Asset sweating is and remains the British disease.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
Sure, but as individuals we rarely are in a position to buy a property for cash. The costs are multiples of annual income. The reverse is true of governments, where capital expenditure is a tiny fraction of government income. No government infrastructure spend is 3x or more of annual tax take.
HS2 is close and must be the biggest white elephant in the world ever.
In 20 years time people will wonder why HS2 was ever controversial. They moaned about crossrail calling it a white elephant. Now it’s a core element of London transportation. I remember the people insisting the M40 was a waste of money in the 80s too.
And the choruses throughout the 90s and 00s insisting Dubai was one huge expensive white elephant that would surely soon come crashing down.
Build and they will come.
Asset sweating is and remains the British disease.
More infrastructure spending is necessary. It'd be nice if it weren't to serve the needs of London. There are other cities.
It's also a great shame Starmer canned the AI supercomputer (I forget the technical time) that was lined up and ready to be invested in.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That makes no sense - day to day spending should be from taxation, borrowing should be capital investment. Micawber’s advice was for day to day spending, Polonus’s doesn’t cover buying something like a house
And that attitude is part of the reason we're here. There's an interview with Nathaniel Fried, the DOGE-UK techie, in today's Times;
Fried said he found “genuinely ancient” IT systems that were “nearly as old as me” and costing the council in wasted staff hours. He said that officials worked incredibly hard but were blighted by antiquated processes and inefficient procurement practices.
Which is very likely true, but a long way from LAZY WFH DESK JOCKEYS or MILLIONS OF FRAUD.
I sit in public buildings and gawp at some of the decrepit crap they are using. In hospital in both Banff and Aberdeen with mum this week. Ceiling lights are ancient, running florescent tube bulbs. You know how much money those things cost to run? You could save an absolute bomb replacing them with LEDs.
Why doesn't that happen? That's right - we can't afford it. So instead of spending a little in capex to replace the lights with ones that collapse the energy bill long term, we "save" that investment and pay a lot more in leccy costs.
It's mind-numbingly stupid.
Trouble is that revenue spending benefits us now, capital spending benefits future us, who are largely them.
You need a strong social taboo to stop people eating seedcorn, and that taboo has been ground away since at least the days of Lawson. (See also: the racier bits of Private Equity, who would once have been denounced as the unacceptable face of capitalism.)
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
Excellent. This the fiscal conservative side of you talking.
It's by far the most impressive one.
More tax just means less real spending and the tax is squandered by the morons taking it, circle of disaster as we have seen. We need far less state and far less tax and let people spend their money. Instead they make it better to be idle and live off benefits.
Where would you like to cut spending so that taxes can be reduced...
Defence, NHS, pensioner's pensions, pensioner's social care, welfare for disabled people, police and justice system? Because at the moment that's where the money is going.
All of those , they are bloated and inefficient. Have had misfortune to be involved with NHS and social care/welfare recently. A&E is great but given the shedload there with sprained ankles and cuts , etc a real waste of the resources. Social care and welfare, totally useless, no idea what they do but it is far from social care and welfare, just excuses and wringing of hands.
Surely sprained ankles and cuts are what A&E is for.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
Sure, but as individuals we rarely are in a position to buy a property for cash. The costs are multiples of annual income. The reverse is true of governments, where capital expenditure is a tiny fraction of government income. No government infrastructure spend is 3x or more of annual tax take.
HS2 is close and must be the biggest white elephant in the world ever.
In 20 years time people will wonder why HS2 was ever controversial. They moaned about crossrail calling it a white elephant. Now it’s a core element of London transportation. I remember the people insisting the M40 was a waste of money in the 80s too.
And the choruses throughout the 90s and 00s insisting Dubai was one huge expensive white elephant that would surely soon come crashing down.
Build and they will come.
Asset sweating is and remains the British disease.
The cuckoo in the nest is highlighted in your claptrap, "LONDON". That is why we are skint , unlimited largesse in London and neglect the rest of the country though you could add south east to London. Many places would have welcomed a bus service never mind gazillions spent on an extra white elephant railline for London.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
Sure, but as individuals we rarely are in a position to buy a property for cash. The costs are multiples of annual income. The reverse is true of governments, where capital expenditure is a tiny fraction of government income. No government infrastructure spend is 3x or more of annual tax take.
HS2 is close and must be the biggest white elephant in the world ever.
In 20 years time people will wonder why HS2 was ever controversial. They moaned about crossrail calling it a white elephant. Now it’s a core element of London transportation. I remember the people insisting the M40 was a waste of money in the 80s too.
And the choruses throughout the 90s and 00s insisting Dubai was one huge expensive white elephant that would surely soon come crashing down.
Build and they will come.
Asset sweating is and remains the British disease.
More infrastructure spending is necessary. It'd be nice if it weren't to serve the needs of London. There are other cities.
It's also a great shame Starmer canned the AI supercomputer (I forget the technical time) that was lined up and ready to be invested in.
Being blunt it wasn’t that super given what others are spending
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
Sure, but as individuals we rarely are in a position to buy a property for cash. The costs are multiples of annual income. The reverse is true of governments, where capital expenditure is a tiny fraction of government income. No government infrastructure spend is 3x or more of annual tax take.
HS2 is close and must be the biggest white elephant in the world ever.
In 20 years time people will wonder why HS2 was ever controversial. They moaned about crossrail calling it a white elephant. Now it’s a core element of London transportation. I remember the people insisting the M40 was a waste of money in the 80s too.
And the choruses throughout the 90s and 00s insisting Dubai was one huge expensive white elephant that would surely soon come crashing down.
Build and they will come.
Asset sweating is and remains the British disease.
The cuckoo in the nest is highlighted in your claptrap, "LONDON". That is why we are skint , unlimited largesse in London and neglect the rest of the country though you could add south east to London. Many places would have welcomed a bus service never mind gazillions spent on an extra white elephant railline for London.
The problem was revealed in full last week - local mayors got their money from central government who can and will veto projects on random whims.
We need to give local and regional areas more ability to spend the money given to them and ideally the ability to raise (and borrow money themselves). To say build that local metro or tram system
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
One obvious flaw in the analysis is that he assumes immigrant populations have a higher fertility rate and always will do. Many immigrant populations do have a higher fertility rate in the first generation, but their fertility rate rapidly aligns with that of the host population.
He also seems to be a "one drop" man who considers not only immigrants as non-British, as well as their children, but all their descendants until the end of time.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Not "by 2040" - the claim is in 40 years time: so 2065 (actually 2063 is quoted). And the report says that including "white other" all whites become a minority by 2079.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
We couldn't. So we didn't invest whilst all of our competitors did. Which is why our economy is in such a mess.
There is nothing wrong with borrowing to invest. It is borrowing to burn that is the problem. And it goes beyond government. The manta of investment = subsidy means that the private sector largely stopped investing as well.
Compare and contrast with Norway, which did invest from revenue into a capital fund.
Yes and squandered all Scotland's oil to refurbish London and the South East whilst closing all industry in the north.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
Sure, but as individuals we rarely are in a position to buy a property for cash. The costs are multiples of annual income. The reverse is true of governments, where capital expenditure is a tiny fraction of government income. No government infrastructure spend is 3x or more of annual tax take.
HS2 is close and must be the biggest white elephant in the world ever.
In 20 years time people will wonder why HS2 was ever controversial. They moaned about crossrail calling it a white elephant. Now it’s a core element of London transportation. I remember the people insisting the M40 was a waste of money in the 80s too.
And the choruses throughout the 90s and 00s insisting Dubai was one huge expensive white elephant that would surely soon come crashing down.
Build and they will come.
Asset sweating is and remains the British disease.
More infrastructure spending is necessary. It'd be nice if it weren't to serve the needs of London. There are other cities.
It's also a great shame Starmer canned the AI supercomputer (I forget the technical time) that was lined up and ready to be invested in.
I agree on the rest of the country, though the visible bias to London is exaggerated a little by the sheer size and density of its population in a small area. 9 million people in one city, plus a vast population (nearly 10 million) in its SE commuter belt.
What London investment shows is that infrastructure spending works, and is needed everywhere.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
Sure, but as individuals we rarely are in a position to buy a property for cash. The costs are multiples of annual income. The reverse is true of governments, where capital expenditure is a tiny fraction of government income. No government infrastructure spend is 3x or more of annual tax take.
HS2 is close and must be the biggest white elephant in the world ever.
In 20 years time people will wonder why HS2 was ever controversial. They moaned about crossrail calling it a white elephant. Now it’s a core element of London transportation. I remember the people insisting the M40 was a waste of money in the 80s too.
And the choruses throughout the 90s and 00s insisting Dubai was one huge expensive white elephant that would surely soon come crashing down.
Build and they will come.
Asset sweating is and remains the British disease.
The cuckoo in the nest is highlighted in your claptrap, "LONDON". That is why we are skint , unlimited largesse in London and neglect the rest of the country though you could add south east to London. Many places would have welcomed a bus service never mind gazillions spent on an extra white elephant railline for London.
Comments
I can understand why some Tories are a little bit shy of criticising everything in the budget - even though the "fiscal event" screwed us - because they fear that'd undermine the argument to lower taxation. It did at least drop the H&SC levy, and did indicate a belief in most taxes coming down.
But that budget screwed the 40p rate coming back for a generation.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
They threw her out in record time. The acknowledgement of her failure is obvious. Overt apology is probably a minor step but one that would be a good thing. It's not like they're ever going to defend her as a good PM.
I don't know what the answer is for our economic woes, especially given the current world situation. But it'd be good if we all agreed that there are no easy answers, and it will involve all of us suffering to some extent.
The PIGS example is interesting; will we be a Greece or a Portugal ?
There's always a constituency for such a government, but it's almost always a minority constituency. The US is the poster child for this - the aggressive tax cutting party is adding several trillion to the deficit - but we're only slightly better.
"Mishanter" - a new word down from the Isle pf Skye. Thanks.
But there's also the other side of the equation: where do we put taxes up. It'll have to be both.
And IIRC you, at least, have tried to give an answer to these in the past. Many do not.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
This might give them space to attack the government's plans.
The Opposition's core problem is that everything Labour is screwing up (by their lights) was started under the blue team. It's not about Truss who was only running the show for about three days of Penny carrying her big sword, it's everything.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
There is absolutely no guarantee that Boris won't come back; or some pandemic will appear; or the US will shatter the world financial system for a while. Politicians are like alchemists - promising gold from their leaden ideologies.
A study of medieval murders shows that Oxford is (was) a violent cesspool...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/06/cold-case-files-the-medieval-murder-of-a-troublesome-priest/
(I'm unsure that's the takeaway point I was supposed to make from this fascinating research...)
1000 per hour = 17 per minute.
17 / min —> 40 / min is a very impressive increase in capacity
But much less good that the impression that a casual reader would take away from a glance at the tweet.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota):
Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
It's from this report, via his Visiting Professorship at the University of Buckingham at in a thing called the "Centre of Heterodox Social Science https://www.heterodoxcentre.com". It was fed to the Telegraph and similar news outlets. Even the Telegraph calls it a "claim".
https://www.heterodoxcentre.com/wp-content/uploads/3-CHSS-Goodwin.pdf To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Here's Narendra Modi doing the same:
"Best wishes on Eid ul-Adha. May this occasion inspire harmony and strengthen the fabric of peace in our society. Wishing everyone good health and prosperity."
https://x.com/narendramodi/status/1931189820883104208
Also, how many of the components are homegrown, and how many are imported. I bet almost all the chips are imported, for instance, but how many circuit boards are they making in Ukraine?
That's the problem, really. She was an utter loon before, an utter loon during, and an utter loon since.
And the membership still voted for her...
I think a big thing for the Conservative Party is the need to embrace the long-term not the short-term, and that means removing their belief in selling off assets rather than building a future, and dealing with their connections to certain types of financialisation. And to embrace the national interest more strongly, and particularly the promotion of civic life within the UK.
IMO it also means embracing a higher tax base, and to stop pandering to their wealthy base by permanent under-taxation of assets, especially housing assets which deliver tax free work free earnings.
For me, this shows every sign of taking up to a generation, that is if there is a future for the party.
If they choose to do so, the Starmer Government can do necessary reforms first, and leave what is lefty of the Cons marooned in the past.
https://x.com/dankaszeta/status/1930965347680591968?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Another manifestation of the triumph of politics over government. That didn't start with Cameron, and he's not the only one responsible, but it's another way that his contribution looks increasingly shlonky as time passes.
It's by far the most impressive one.
https://sites.santafe.edu/~simon/styled-7/
https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/about/projects
Bottom line: We are products of the time we live in.
Mind you both were likely to get stuck in the lav, the former from gormlessness, the latter endlessly checking her make up.
The Ukranians are the world leaders in this, but the Russians are copying fast. It's a shift to defensive decentralised defensive weapons that makes assembling a concentration of forces for battle a major risk.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment.
At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
It's become a cliche and the culturally right version of "celebrate diversity", and just as annoying.
Why did you choose to present the comparative data with inconsistent bases?
On social issues I am free and easy. I don't like other people telling me how to live and reciprocate by not telling other people how to live. It's why I am a liberal, not a conservative.
Or this one: death for theft:
https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/t17450424-34
Austerity would have been so bad and obvious if new schools / railways / hospitals / roads could be shown..
Beijing denies helping Moscow, but Russia is scaling up both the production and the sophistication of its drones.
https://www.politico.eu/article/china-russia-lethal-drone-war-race-ukraine-war-invasion-manufacture-putin-tech/
...“Chinese manufacturers provide them with hardware, electronics, navigation, optical and telemetry systems, engines, microcircuits, processor modules, antenna field systems, control boards, navigation. They use so-called shell companies, change names, do everything to avoid being subject to export control and avoid sanctions for their activities,” said Oleh Aleksandrov, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service. “Yet officially, China sticks to all the rules. Yet only officially.”..
..Kyiv says that its access to new drones has been curtailed by China, while Beijing has placed no such restrictions on Russia.
“The Chinese Mavic is open to the Russians, and it is closed to the Ukrainians. They simply closed it for Europe and for Ukraine, including for the EU. And for the Russians, there is still an opportunity to buy drones on the Chinese market,” Zelenskyy said..
China is by some distance the largest producer of drones and, most importantly, drone components.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98z_Jvhbwvc
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
Possibly too late to make much difference for the PB demographic, but our kids will benefit.
Alzheimer’s blood test can spot people with early symptoms, study suggests
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/07/alzheimers-blood-test-can-spot-people-with-early-symptoms-study-suggests
..Dr Gregg Day, who led the study in the journal Alzheimer’s and Dementia, said the test was as good as more invasive tests in use.
“Our study found that blood testing affirmed the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease with 95% sensitivity and 82% specificity,” he said.
“When performed in the outpatient clinical setting, this is similar to the accuracy of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of the disease and is much more convenient and cost-effective.”
Overall, researchers found that p-tau217 levels were higher in patients with Alzheimer’s disease versus those without the disease.
Day said the next steps in the research were to evaluate blood-based testing in more diverse patient populations and people with early Alzheimer’s who showed no cognitive symptoms...
It was titled "Voices from the Old Bailey".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012stwb/episodes/player
Here's one (40 minutes) about Shoplifting in 1699.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04fc80v
Thank-you - I will now relisten to a couple of those on my walk. 8 episodes are still available.
Government is great at overpriced, misspecified investment disasters and zombie white elephants that just stumble on regardless of any economic benefits.
It is lousy at sustained capital investment that has a significant role in growth.
There are any number of reasons for this (political pressures, the cult of the intelligent amateur in government, private sector contractors knowing a mark when they see one, etc.) but the record of government in large capital projects is mostly pitiful and yet we keep on thinking that this time it's different.
Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies.
No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method.
That would be a good start.
The lack of investment outside the South East is quite likely a contributor to the UK's economic underperformance.
Fried said he found “genuinely ancient” IT systems that were “nearly as old as me” and costing the council in wasted staff hours. He said that officials worked incredibly hard but were blighted by antiquated processes and inefficient procurement practices.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/cade944e-3902-4ffb-a547-23aac146bd6e?shareToken=56ae42ee5818ab0c33a72fa5b1cdfca7
Which is very likely true, but a long way from LAZY WFH DESK JOCKEYS or MILLIONS OF FRAUD.
Requiring that all government investment come from income would both represent a large, and largely unnecessary fiscal contraction, and make government decision making still more cumbersome than it now is.
If you're borrowing for genuine capital investment, you're bequeathing the assets to your kids, along with the debt.
It's almost the direct opposite of selling assets to pay for current spending.
The Kyiv Independent was reporting that a week ago, and Bloomberg on May 29. I probably got it from Ukraine the Latest.
President Volodymyr Zelensky said China has stopped selling drones to Ukraine and Western countries while continuing to supply them to Russia, Bloomberg reported on May 29.
....
Beijing has repeatedly denied aiding either side with military goods. On May 27, the Chinese Foreign Ministry also rejected claims made by Ukrainian intelligence chief Oleh Ivashchenko, who alleged that Beijing provided special chemicals, gunpowder, and other defense-related materials to at least 20 Russian military-industrial facilities.
Ivashchenko also said that as of early 2025, 80% of critical electronic components in Russian drones were of Chinese origin. In response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning reiterated that China has "never provided lethal weapons" and "strictly controls dual-use items." https://kyivindependent.com/china-suts-drone-sales-to-ukraine-west-but-continues-supplying-russia-bloomberg-reports/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-29/china-cut-drone-sales-to-west-but-supplies-them-to-russia-ukraine-says?embedded-checkout=true
The insight I get from that, I think, is the importance of specialism. A very good current example of an independent, whom I have no idea how he got to be an authority, is HI Sutton of Covert Shores. His website design is circa 1996-7.
http://www.hisutton.com/
What firm commitments exist are Gosplan style job creation schemes that look a lot like levelling up and will presumably end up with the same lack of success as all other attempts.
One of the few comments on hardware, "up to" (LOL) 12 x SSN, was quite interesting. The figure of 12 was obviously arrived at by adding the planned British 7 to the planned Australian 5 indicating that the RAN are maybe having to trim their nuclear submarine ambitions in the AUKUS money furnace. It also depends on building one boat every 18 months. The fastest an Astute has ever been built is 113 months for HMS Ambush so... yeah...
It mentions NATO about 100 times so the UK defence establishment clearly isn't ready to give up on it/face reality (delete as appropriate) yet. It mentions the EU once, so SKS is clearly scared of the Fukkers and didn't want to give them any thing that feeds the Brexit Betrayal narrative.
https://medievalmurdermap.co.uk/
Borrow, invest, gain a return on the investment. Capitalism! Especially when the state can borrow below market rate (effectively for free during that long period after the GFC) and can invest to drive economic growth.
This is the true crime of Osborneism.
The Chinese are making out like bandits...
Russians bought FPV drone components from China and received wooden blocks with glued-on photos of circuit boards.
https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1931161668131991552
We need far less state and far less tax and let people spend their money. Instead they make it better to be idle and live off benefits.
There is nothing wrong with borrowing to invest. It is borrowing to burn that is the problem. And it goes beyond government. The manta of investment = subsidy means that the private sector largely stopped investing as well.
Changed world, and a British consular presence is important. Probably even the ferrero rocher.
Defence, NHS, pensioner's pensions, pensioner's social care, welfare for disabled people, police and justice system? Because at the moment that's where the money is going.
I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
And part of me is feeling a bit Mandy Rice Davies. The guy is a entrepreneur selling IT solutions. He would say that wouldn't he?
But this seems to have been a known issue for at least the best part of a year, with efforts to address it:
https://dev.ua/en/news/kytai-zakruchuie-haiky
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2025/04/08/ukraine-is-making-fpv-drones-without-chinese-parts-and-at-lower-cost/
The stuff that is good value-for-money is built slowly but continuously. A small(er), highly experienced workforce, with time to plan. If we stop-start stuff like HS2 we delay the benefits while massively increasing the costs. The submarine programme actually works quite well because the various contractors have contracts stretching decades in advance.
There should be a long term but limited plan to dual various roads (A1, A9, A96), slowly add trams to our cities (Edinburgh etc), build HS2. There should be no point at which these workforces ever down tools.
Why doesn't that happen? That's right - we can't afford it. So instead of spending a little in capex to replace the lights with ones that collapse the energy bill long term, we "save" that investment and pay a lot more in leccy costs.
It's mind-numbingly stupid.
Hopefully still made in Britain.
(Off out now. Play nicely.)
(Stuff like the triple lock is a very long term problem that also needs to be fixed. But if you're looking to free up cash in the next 5-10 years, it's all about hospitals).
I am not sure if he thinks I really like them, or is just taking the piss too.
And the choruses throughout the 90s and 00s insisting Dubai was one huge expensive white elephant that would surely soon come crashing down.
Build and they will come.
Asset sweating is and remains the British disease.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's also a great shame Starmer canned the AI supercomputer (I forget the technical time) that was lined up and ready to be invested in.
You need a strong social taboo to stop people eating seedcorn, and that taboo has been ground away since at least the days of Lawson. (See also: the racier bits of Private Equity, who would once have been denounced as the unacceptable face of capitalism.)
Many places would have welcomed a bus service never mind gazillions spent on an extra white elephant railline for London.
We need to give local and regional areas more ability to spend the money given to them and ideally the ability to raise (and borrow money themselves). To say build that local metro or tram system
What London investment shows is that infrastructure spending works, and is needed everywhere.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal