Good to see Keir coming out for growth. Among other things, it’s a clear signal to his party that the next election is *not* going to be about redistribution, nationalisation, or more money for public services, but of focusing squarely on “the economy, stupid”.
As Rachael Reeves has pointed out, Britain has become high tax because it has been so low growth.
Ironically, Truss is also effectively saying this, in a roundabout way.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
That's just a buzzword. Without hard policies and a plan of action it's nothing more than a political slogan. Sad to see you fall for it.
Labour - in favour of economic growth and against recession!
No fucking shit.
Yes n No
Limits to Growth was published in 1972, and it is even more right now than it was then. You cannot grow indefinitely without going off-planet, and a sensible climate policy could be paraphrased as Against economic growth, and if that entails recession, them's the breaks. Being for growth is code for, Obviously pro net zero 2050, but it's not set in stone.
And that's why the High Frontier was published in 1976.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Sunak's wealth would not matter at all if wasn't squeezing the sh*t out of ordinary Brits with his taxation policies.
But he is. And he intends to keep doing so. And his reasons for doing so are at least debatable.
Sunak's wealth therefore is an issue and it is one labour would surely seize upon when the time came.
I have a (pretty firmly Conservative) friend who thinks Sunak 'hates SMEs because his friends in the city can't make money out of them'. To be clear, I don't personally believe Sunak 'hates' SMEs. But the world he inhabits isn't really one of the small businessman.
Good to see Keir coming out for growth. Among other things, it’s a clear signal to his party that the next election is *not* going to be about redistribution, nationalisation, or more money for public services, but of focusing squarely on “the economy, stupid”.
As Rachael Reeves has pointed out, Britain has become high tax because it has been so low growth.
Ironically, Truss is also effectively saying this, in a roundabout way.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
That's just a buzzword. Without hard policies and a plan of action it's nothing more than a political slogan. Sad to see you fall for it.
Labour - in favour of economic growth and against recession!
No fucking shit.
You’ve missed the point of my post. This is not intended to be hard policies, but rather a high level decision on focus.
This was not, for example, Corbyn’s or Miliband’s focus.
No, it's just a slogan until there are policies. It's the same as all of the politicians saying they're in favour of less poverty, well sure, yet none of them really have any policies to achieve that.
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
So boost the number of staff to match the checks that are actually done now. No big deal.
There is something rather amusing about the kind of bitter ex Remainer on this site who seems to think the only egress from this country is Dover to Calais.
While there was definitely a "Little England" element to some ex Leave supporters there's an equally "Little Europe" element amongst some ex Remainers.
There's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve the EU you can travel to. Heck, there's a big wide continent within the EU you can travel to without going through Dover either.
Many as cosmopolitan as you in Warrington?
Do you like having more choices, or less choices?
I like having more choices, and I have more now due to Brexit.
But not of travelling expeditiously from Dover to Calais.
Expeditiously travelling from Dover to Calais is upto the French, same as its always been. If they staff their border properly its expeditious, just as always.
But there's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve Calais. Broaden your horizons.
Man on keyboard up somewhere in the North West tells us to broaden our horizons.
If you seem to think the North West is 'ere be dragons then yes, broaden your horizons.
That's harsh - I'm as northern as they come. Not my fault that you're on the wrong side of the Pennines.
There is something rather amusing about the kind of bitter ex Remainer on this site who seems to think the only egress from this country is Dover to Calais.
While there was definitely a "Little England" element to some ex Leave supporters there's an equally "Little Europe" element amongst some ex Remainers.
There's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve the EU you can travel to. Heck, there's a big wide continent within the EU you can travel to without going through Dover either.
Many as cosmopolitan as you in Warrington?
Do you like having more choices, or less choices?
I like having more choices, and I have more now due to Brexit.
But not of travelling expeditiously from Dover to Calais.
Expeditiously travelling from Dover to Calais is upto the French, same as its always been. If they staff their border properly its expeditious, just as always.
But there's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve Calais. Broaden your horizons.
Man on keyboard up somewhere in the North West tells us to broaden our horizons.
If you seem to think the North West is 'ere be dragons then yes, broaden your horizons.
I think it's more why do you think you are an expert on how Dover works when you have probably never driven a car to France...
I'm starting to look at America election odds a bit harder.
There are so many contradictory signals happening right now I'm having a tough time parsing them.
Senate seats that should be absolute rocks solid safe GOP holds look surprisingly vulnerable (Utah, Ohio) but the fundamentals of Biden's favourables are so drastically dire, plus the generic congressional ballot being consistently in the GOP favour that I don't see how this stacks up at all.
Also the 2024 betting seems to be a swirl of big assumptions about implied odds that seems ripe for exploitation.
I feel there is a lot of money to be made here but I am not clever enough to see where it is (with the caveat that I've locked in a profit laying and backing DeSantis (@2.8 for DeSantis, absolute lols).
The problem is factoring in the civil war that is going on behind the scenes in the Republican Party.
I'm starting to look at America election odds a bit harder.
There are so many contradictory signals happening right now I'm having a tough time parsing them.
Senate seats that should be absolute rocks solid safe GOP holds look surprisingly vulnerable (Utah, Ohio) but the fundamentals of Biden's favourables are so drastically dire, plus the generic congressional ballot being consistently in the GOP favour that I don't see how this stacks up at all.
Also the 2024 betting seems to be a swirl of big assumptions about implied odds that seems ripe for exploitation.
I feel there is a lot of money to be made here but I am not clever enough to see where it is (with the caveat that I've locked in a profit laying and backing DeSantis (@2.8 for DeSantis, absolute lols).
I thought that the problem in Utah was that it's the one red state where religious attitudes are sufficiently coherent that they really don't like Trump. And Ohio that it's very anti-anti-abortion. Revoking RvW plays well to the Republican base, but it's not a great move for attracting swing voters (even when they were leaning your way to begin with).
There is something rather amusing about the kind of bitter ex Remainer on this site who seems to think the only egress from this country is Dover to Calais.
While there was definitely a "Little England" element to some ex Leave supporters there's an equally "Little Europe" element amongst some ex Remainers.
There's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve the EU you can travel to. Heck, there's a big wide continent within the EU you can travel to without going through Dover either.
Many as cosmopolitan as you in Warrington?
Do you like having more choices, or less choices?
I like having more choices, and I have more now due to Brexit.
But not of travelling expeditiously from Dover to Calais.
Expeditiously travelling from Dover to Calais is upto the French, same as its always been. If they staff their border properly its expeditious, just as always.
But there's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve Calais. Broaden your horizons.
Man on keyboard up somewhere in the North West tells us to broaden our horizons.
If you seem to think the North West is 'ere be dragons then yes, broaden your horizons.
I think it's more why do you think you are an expert on how Dover works when you have probably never driven a car to France...
I have driven a car to France a few times.
I've also travelled to dozens and dozens of countries in every continent bar South America and Antartica, some European, some non-EU.
Countries with enough staff to do the checks required can have smooth running borders, countries that don't do not. That has nothing to do with being in the EU or not.
If there aren't enough staff on that's not because of Brexit, its because there's not enough staff on.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
I'm starting to look at America election odds a bit harder.
There are so many contradictory signals happening right now I'm having a tough time parsing them.
Senate seats that should be absolute rocks solid safe GOP holds look surprisingly vulnerable (Utah, Ohio) but the fundamentals of Biden's favourables are so drastically dire, plus the generic congressional ballot being consistently in the GOP favour that I don't see how this stacks up at all.
Also the 2024 betting seems to be a swirl of big assumptions about implied odds that seems ripe for exploitation.
I feel there is a lot of money to be made here but I am not clever enough to see where it is (with the caveat that I've locked in a profit laying and backing DeSantis (@2.8 for DeSantis, absolute lols).
In mid Term, I would expect the President's approval rating to be decisive, even at a time of intense polarisation.
Good to see Keir coming out for growth. Among other things, it’s a clear signal to his party that the next election is *not* going to be about redistribution, nationalisation, or more money for public services, but of focusing squarely on “the economy, stupid”.
As Rachael Reeves has pointed out, Britain has become high tax because it has been so low growth.
Ironically, Truss is also effectively saying this, in a roundabout way.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
That's just a buzzword. Without hard policies and a plan of action it's nothing more than a political slogan. Sad to see you fall for it.
Labour - in favour of economic growth and against recession!
No fucking shit.
Yes n No
Limits to Growth was published in 1972, and it is even more right now than it was then. You cannot grow indefinitely without going off-planet, and a sensible climate policy could be paraphrased as Against economic growth, and if that entails recession, them's the breaks. Being for growth is code for, Obviously pro net zero 2050, but it's not set in stone.
And that's why the High Frontier was published in 1976.
That also assumes that growth necessarily involves more physical stuff. Rather than arranging atoms in interesting patterns.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
I'm starting to look at America election odds a bit harder.
There are so many contradictory signals happening right now I'm having a tough time parsing them.
Senate seats that should be absolute rocks solid safe GOP holds look surprisingly vulnerable (Utah, Ohio) but the fundamentals of Biden's favourables are so drastically dire, plus the generic congressional ballot being consistently in the GOP favour that I don't see how this stacks up at all.
Also the 2024 betting seems to be a swirl of big assumptions about implied odds that seems ripe for exploitation.
I feel there is a lot of money to be made here but I am not clever enough to see where it is (with the caveat that I've locked in a profit laying and backing DeSantis (@2.8 for DeSantis, absolute lols).
8-1 for Biden. Sure his ratings are terrible, but 8-1 for an incumbent president ?!!
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Sunak's wealth would not matter at all if wasn't squeezing the sh*t out of ordinary Brits with his taxation policies.
But he is. And he intends to keep doing so. And his reasons for doing so are at least debatable.
Sunak's wealth therefore is an issue and it is one labour would surely seize upon when the time came.
I have a (pretty firmly Conservative) friend who thinks Sunak 'hates SMEs because his friends in the city can't make money out of them'. To be clear, I don't personally believe Sunak 'hates' SMEs. But the world he inhabits isn't really one of the small businessman.
Indeed. He is the Davos candidate. The candidate of a HM Treasury that still worships at the altar of Gordon Brown daily.
With him, the tories are completely there for the taking.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
The problem is that it's not backed up by his followers.
I posted something on how strongly I feel about this at the weekend and got about 15 members of the pb Lefty herd all liking each other's posts saying being patriotic was racist and stupid.
Are you including my response to that?
I try to make a more thoughtful point, engaging you in discussion, but you'd prefer to argue with those posters who embody your caricature of the left.
No, not you.
A quick scan of Sunday's thread will reveal who the culprits are.
I wasn't on it but curious so I looked. Found this from you -
"Let me let you into a little secret: I have zero time for non-patriots."
I can't help but imagine that spoken sotto voce by somebody in uniform to somebody in cuffs.
"Patriotism" is a fig-leaf for political cowards.
"I am a patriot" "No, I am a patriot" "No, I am TRUE patriot" etc etc until everyone vomits.
How about instead of saying the word actually doing things which are positive for the country? Instead of the opposite as so many "patriots" actually are doing. cf the 6th January coup which was full of "patriots" trying to hang the Veep whilst waving the flag of a hostile former nation.
Yep, and although it might sound semantic I really do think the 'noun v adjective' difference here is crucial.
I don't get the willies when I hear somebody say they are patriotic. But when I hear about Patriots I just about know that's coming from a bad place.
That's the same with many nouns though.
There are a great many self-styled Liberals who can be very illiberal, while anyone who tried to overturn the election results on 6 January 2021 was no patriot, no matter what they called themselves.
Similarly it can work in reverse too, while I've been a Conservative most of my adult life, I've always considered myself a liberal and not a conservative.
That some self-styled Patriots do bad things does not make patriotism bad. That some self-styled Nationalists do bad things does not make nationalism bad. That some self-styled Liberals do bad things does not make liberalism bad.
Ok but I don't mean that. I'm talking about the noun being 'harder' than the adjective. Why? Because when you use the noun you are insinuating that whatever negative trait you're talking about kind of sums up the person rather than (with the adjective) it just being in the mix. With the noun it's not merely something they believe, it's what they are.
Eg: "You are racist" cf "You are A racist". The 2nd is stronger. Ditto, "You are not patriotic" is less in-your-face than "You are not a PATRIOT."
Just a language thing.
It's like that Lucan thing, all his mates banged on whenever questioned about the virtues of loyalty - meaning, siding with a fellow toff against a murdered servant. Patriotism is the same, a *very* minor virtue almost invariably deployed as a cover up for something else. The last resort of the scoundrel, to quote a much greater writer than George bloody Orwell.
Another thing about Orwell, he was much more of his class than he liked to think. That shit about horse racing and suet pudding - that's Eton things. And why are his fellow lefties not allowed to be anti monarchist if that's what they are? Perfectly respectable school of thought. The underlying thought is clear: toff socialism good, lower classes going in for socialism most distasteful.
It's not my favourite bit of Orwell, I must confess. Unfortunately it's the only bit that ever seems to get copied into here.
His socialism was along the lines of, the English working classes are the salt of the earth. They make such good gamekeepers.
Er no. He had the weird idea that if you wanted an equal democratic society, it would be a tad hard to do so from the point of view of hating the majority of population and their culture.
Also difficult for him to work for the revolution while apparently despising all his fellow socialists.
I'm starting to look at America election odds a bit harder.
There are so many contradictory signals happening right now I'm having a tough time parsing them.
Senate seats that should be absolute rocks solid safe GOP holds look surprisingly vulnerable (Utah, Ohio) but the fundamentals of Biden's favourables are so drastically dire, plus the generic congressional ballot being consistently in the GOP favour that I don't see how this stacks up at all.
Also the 2024 betting seems to be a swirl of big assumptions about implied odds that seems ripe for exploitation.
I feel there is a lot of money to be made here but I am not clever enough to see where it is (with the caveat that I've locked in a profit laying and backing DeSantis (@2.8 for DeSantis, absolute lols).
The problem is factoring in the civil war that is going on behind the scenes in the Republican Party.
Murdoch seems to have put Trump on a timeout with the NY Post savaging him.
I have assumed this is a temporary blip like in 2016 but this will definitely have to be monitored.
I'm starting to look at America election odds a bit harder.
There are so many contradictory signals happening right now I'm having a tough time parsing them.
Senate seats that should be absolute rocks solid safe GOP holds look surprisingly vulnerable (Utah, Ohio) but the fundamentals of Biden's favourables are so drastically dire, plus the generic congressional ballot being consistently in the GOP favour that I don't see how this stacks up at all.
Also the 2024 betting seems to be a swirl of big assumptions about implied odds that seems ripe for exploitation.
I feel there is a lot of money to be made here but I am not clever enough to see where it is (with the caveat that I've locked in a profit laying and backing DeSantis (@2.8 for DeSantis, absolute lols).
I thought that the problem in Utah was that it's the one red state where religious attitudes are sufficiently coherent that they really don't like Trump. And Ohio that it's very anti-anti-abortion. Revoking RvW plays well to the Republican base, but it's not a great move for attracting swing voters (even when they were leaning your way to begin with).
JD Vance is a uniquely shit candidate it ahs to be said. He's basically Peter Theil's choice rather than the GOPs
There is something rather amusing about the kind of bitter ex Remainer on this site who seems to think the only egress from this country is Dover to Calais.
While there was definitely a "Little England" element to some ex Leave supporters there's an equally "Little Europe" element amongst some ex Remainers.
There's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve the EU you can travel to. Heck, there's a big wide continent within the EU you can travel to without going through Dover either.
Other crossings exist - though ones that are less well served and slower and more expensive. The reason why so much of our import and export traffic with the EU uses it is because speed = cheap.
Love how "just use another less convenient crossing" is your solution.
If the French choose to be arseholes and make Dover/Calais less convenient, then an alternative crossing could be a better option.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
The problem is that it's not backed up by his followers.
I posted something on how strongly I feel about this at the weekend and got about 15 members of the pb Lefty herd all liking each other's posts saying being patriotic was racist and stupid.
Are you including my response to that?
I try to make a more thoughtful point, engaging you in discussion, but you'd prefer to argue with those posters who embody your caricature of the left.
No, not you.
A quick scan of Sunday's thread will reveal who the culprits are.
I wasn't on it but curious so I looked. Found this from you -
"Let me let you into a little secret: I have zero time for non-patriots."
I can't help but imagine that spoken sotto voce by somebody in uniform to somebody in cuffs.
"Patriotism" is a fig-leaf for political cowards.
"I am a patriot" "No, I am a patriot" "No, I am TRUE patriot" etc etc until everyone vomits.
How about instead of saying the word actually doing things which are positive for the country? Instead of the opposite as so many "patriots" actually are doing. cf the 6th January coup which was full of "patriots" trying to hang the Veep whilst waving the flag of a hostile former nation.
Yep, and although it might sound semantic I really do think the 'noun v adjective' difference here is crucial.
I don't get the willies when I hear somebody say they are patriotic. But when I hear about Patriots I just about know that's coming from a bad place.
That's the same with many nouns though.
There are a great many self-styled Liberals who can be very illiberal, while anyone who tried to overturn the election results on 6 January 2021 was no patriot, no matter what they called themselves.
Similarly it can work in reverse too, while I've been a Conservative most of my adult life, I've always considered myself a liberal and not a conservative.
That some self-styled Patriots do bad things does not make patriotism bad. That some self-styled Nationalists do bad things does not make nationalism bad. That some self-styled Liberals do bad things does not make liberalism bad.
Ok but I don't mean that. I'm talking about the noun being 'harder' than the adjective. Why? Because when you use the noun you are insinuating that whatever negative trait you're talking about kind of sums up the person rather than (with the adjective) it just being in the mix. With the noun it's not merely something they believe, it's what they are.
Eg: "You are racist" cf "You are A racist". The 2nd is stronger. Ditto, "You are not patriotic" is less in-your-face than "You are not a PATRIOT."
Just a language thing.
It's like that Lucan thing, all his mates banged on whenever questioned about the virtues of loyalty - meaning, siding with a fellow toff against a murdered servant. Patriotism is the same, a *very* minor virtue almost invariably deployed as a cover up for something else. The last resort of the scoundrel, to quote a much greater writer than George bloody Orwell.
Another thing about Orwell, he was much more of his class than he liked to think. That shit about horse racing and suet pudding - that's Eton things. And why are his fellow lefties not allowed to be anti monarchist if that's what they are? Perfectly respectable school of thought. The underlying thought is clear: toff socialism good, lower classes going in for socialism most distasteful.
It's not my favourite bit of Orwell, I must confess. Unfortunately it's the only bit that ever seems to get copied into here.
Mine neither, but people are being selective in their quotes from that essay. Orwell as a left wing intellectual wasn't confining his criticisms to left wing intellectuals
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Russia is going to do everything it can to make Germany look stupid for solely relying on its gas pipeline.
Maybe, but Russia's strategy seems to be confused. Is it trying to sell as much gas as possible for foreign currency earnings, or does it wasn't to punish Europeans for supporting Ukraine by stopping supplies?
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
There is something rather amusing about the kind of bitter ex Remainer on this site who seems to think the only egress from this country is Dover to Calais.
While there was definitely a "Little England" element to some ex Leave supporters there's an equally "Little Europe" element amongst some ex Remainers.
There's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve the EU you can travel to. Heck, there's a big wide continent within the EU you can travel to without going through Dover either.
Many as cosmopolitan as you in Warrington?
Do you like having more choices, or less choices?
I like having more choices, and I have more now due to Brexit.
But not of travelling expeditiously from Dover to Calais.
Expeditiously travelling from Dover to Calais is upto the French, same as its always been. If they staff their border properly its expeditious, just as always.
But there's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve Calais. Broaden your horizons.
Man on keyboard up somewhere in the North West tells us to broaden our horizons.
If you seem to think the North West is 'ere be dragons then yes, broaden your horizons.
I think it's more why do you think you are an expert on how Dover works when you have probably never driven a car to France...
I have driven a car to France a few times.
I've also travelled to dozens and dozens of countries in every continent bar South America and Antartica, some European, some non-EU.
Countries with enough staff to do the checks required can have smooth running borders, countries that don't do not. That has nothing to do with being in the EU or not.
If there aren't enough staff on that's not because of Brexit, its because there's not enough staff on.
So there are 12 booths in Dover for passport control.
All 12 booths are manned with staff
The French Government and Dover say that because of the extra work created by the UK becoming a third party country we need 12 more booths.
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
Indeed - that was my experience too. Normally the only checks outbound were done by the UK Border force, the French normally just checked you were waving the same number of passports at them as there were passengers in the car. They might stop Eastern European vehicles occasionally.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
I'm starting to look at America election odds a bit harder.
There are so many contradictory signals happening right now I'm having a tough time parsing them.
Senate seats that should be absolute rocks solid safe GOP holds look surprisingly vulnerable (Utah, Ohio) but the fundamentals of Biden's favourables are so drastically dire, plus the generic congressional ballot being consistently in the GOP favour that I don't see how this stacks up at all.
Also the 2024 betting seems to be a swirl of big assumptions about implied odds that seems ripe for exploitation.
I feel there is a lot of money to be made here but I am not clever enough to see where it is (with the caveat that I've locked in a profit laying and backing DeSantis (@2.8 for DeSantis, absolute lols).
The problem is factoring in the civil war that is going on behind the scenes in the Republican Party.
Murdoch seems to have put Trump on a timeout with the NY Post savaging him.
I have assumed this is a temporary blip like in 2016 but this will definitely have to be monitored.
The last thing that McCarthy and McConnell want is a vast tide of wild-eyed Trumpists pitching up in Washington following a red landslide.
There is something rather amusing about the kind of bitter ex Remainer on this site who seems to think the only egress from this country is Dover to Calais.
While there was definitely a "Little England" element to some ex Leave supporters there's an equally "Little Europe" element amongst some ex Remainers.
There's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve the EU you can travel to. Heck, there's a big wide continent within the EU you can travel to without going through Dover either.
Many as cosmopolitan as you in Warrington?
Do you like having more choices, or less choices?
I like having more choices, and I have more now due to Brexit.
But not of travelling expeditiously from Dover to Calais.
Expeditiously travelling from Dover to Calais is upto the French, same as its always been. If they staff their border properly its expeditious, just as always.
But there's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve Calais. Broaden your horizons.
Man on keyboard up somewhere in the North West tells us to broaden our horizons.
If you seem to think the North West is 'ere be dragons then yes, broaden your horizons.
I think it's more why do you think you are an expert on how Dover works when you have probably never driven a car to France...
I have driven a car to France a few times.
I've also travelled to dozens and dozens of countries in every continent bar South America and Antartica, some European, some non-EU.
Countries with enough staff to do the checks required can have smooth running borders, countries that don't do not. That has nothing to do with being in the EU or not.
If there aren't enough staff on that's not because of Brexit, its because there's not enough staff on.
So there are 12 booths in Dover for passport control.
All 12 booths are manned with staff
The French Government and Dover say that because of the extra work created by the UK becoming a third party country we need 12 more booths.
UK Government says we aren't paying for them...
Who has created the problem?
The 12 booths weren't all manned with staff when the queue began though. Once they were, the queue was cleared.
If an extra 12 booths are needed, then pay for them, but if they're not staffed in the first place, they're not needed.
There is something rather amusing about the kind of bitter ex Remainer on this site who seems to think the only egress from this country is Dover to Calais.
While there was definitely a "Little England" element to some ex Leave supporters there's an equally "Little Europe" element amongst some ex Remainers.
There's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve the EU you can travel to. Heck, there's a big wide continent within the EU you can travel to without going through Dover either.
Many as cosmopolitan as you in Warrington?
Do you like having more choices, or less choices?
I like having more choices, and I have more now due to Brexit.
But not of travelling expeditiously from Dover to Calais.
Expeditiously travelling from Dover to Calais is upto the French, same as its always been. If they staff their border properly its expeditious, just as always.
But there's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve Calais. Broaden your horizons.
Tell me, which countries has Brexit made it *easier* for us to visit?
Having spent time in tedious queues to get into both France and Spain already this year, I'm keen for my next holiday to be to one of those Brexit has made easier to enter.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
I was discussing Sunak with an Indian friend and he pointed out that there was no reason that he shouldn’t have the general Indian opinion of the war in Ukraine - that it is a Great Power nicking land, again. The Russians are just another side. The best thing is to stay clear and try and secure food and fuel supplies.
At first this might seem all kinds of bad - but if we don’t don’t demand that everyone who comes to this country signs up to European sensibilities, then why shouldn’t he think that?
My friend (first generation immigrant) sees Ukraine in the context of Kashmir (deliberate population displacement included), the border issues with China etc. He despises Modi - who he sees as Putin lite. In a way it could be summed up as “Putin is doing nasty shit, at about 230% of what the government at home in India is doing.”
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
It seems to me there are kinds of conduct which make citizen of nowhere a valid criticism, ignoring the unfortunate history of the expression. If you are a wealthy corporation or individual, your obligation to society is to make yourself a citizen of somewhere other than Monrovia or Delaware, and pay your taxes there. The non dom stuff absolutely stinks in this particular case.
Racism? in the Conservative Party membership? Keep it real, bro.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
I do find it baffling that Sunak isn't more popular among Tory members. An ardent Brexiteer long before Truss changed her tune. Suave and urbane. Highly successful meritocratic achiever (apparently). Fiscally conservative - advocating sound money (not like Labour who didn't save for a rainy day etc.). Tough on immigration and on the causes of immigration. A much more accomplished public, and parliamentary, performer than Truss.
So what is it about Sunak that irritates so many Tories? Is it really just that he raised NI to fix NHS and social care, and thinks that some of the money spent on Covid needs to be recouped?
There is something rather amusing about the kind of bitter ex Remainer on this site who seems to think the only egress from this country is Dover to Calais.
While there was definitely a "Little England" element to some ex Leave supporters there's an equally "Little Europe" element amongst some ex Remainers.
There's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve the EU you can travel to. Heck, there's a big wide continent within the EU you can travel to without going through Dover either.
Many as cosmopolitan as you in Warrington?
Do you like having more choices, or less choices?
I like having more choices, and I have more now due to Brexit.
But not of travelling expeditiously from Dover to Calais.
Expeditiously travelling from Dover to Calais is upto the French, same as its always been. If they staff their border properly its expeditious, just as always.
But there's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve Calais. Broaden your horizons.
Tell me, which countries has Brexit made it *easier* for us to visit?
Having spent time in tedious queues to get into both France and Spain already this year, I'm keen for my next holiday to be to one of those Brexit has made easier to enter.
As part of the trade deal with Australia it's now even easier to get a visa with them than it was pre Brexit. Especially for young workers.
Try some non European countries. Rarely have a problem travelling with any apart from the USA.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
It seems to me there are kinds of conduct which make citizen of nowhere a valid criticism, ignoring the unfortunate history of the expression. If you are a wealthy corporation or individual, your obligation to society is to make yourself a citizen of somewhere other than Monrovia or Delaware, and pay your taxes there. The non dom stuff absolutely stinks in this particular case.
Racism? in the Conservative Party membership? Keep it real, bro.
Good to see Keir coming out for growth. Among other things, it’s a clear signal to his party that the next election is *not* going to be about redistribution, nationalisation, or more money for public services, but of focusing squarely on “the economy, stupid”.
As Rachael Reeves has pointed out, Britain has become high tax because it has been so low growth.
Ironically, Truss is also effectively saying this, in a roundabout way.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
That's just a buzzword. Without hard policies and a plan of action it's nothing more than a political slogan. Sad to see you fall for it.
Labour - in favour of economic growth and against recession!
No fucking shit.
You’ve missed the point of my post. This is not intended to be hard policies, but rather a high level decision on focus.
This was not, for example, Corbyn’s or Miliband’s focus.
No, it's just a slogan until there are policies. It's the same as all of the politicians saying they're in favour of less poverty, well sure, yet none of them really have any policies to achieve that.
Labour’s priorities will be “Motherhood, motherhood, motherhood”.
Without identifying the inevitable choices such a policy brings with it…..
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
The problem is that it's not backed up by his followers.
I posted something on how strongly I feel about this at the weekend and got about 15 members of the pb Lefty herd all liking each other's posts saying being patriotic was racist and stupid.
Are you including my response to that?
I try to make a more thoughtful point, engaging you in discussion, but you'd prefer to argue with those posters who embody your caricature of the left.
No, not you.
A quick scan of Sunday's thread will reveal who the culprits are.
I wasn't on it but curious so I looked. Found this from you -
"Let me let you into a little secret: I have zero time for non-patriots."
I can't help but imagine that spoken sotto voce by somebody in uniform to somebody in cuffs.
"Patriotism" is a fig-leaf for political cowards.
"I am a patriot" "No, I am a patriot" "No, I am TRUE patriot" etc etc until everyone vomits.
How about instead of saying the word actually doing things which are positive for the country? Instead of the opposite as so many "patriots" actually are doing. cf the 6th January coup which was full of "patriots" trying to hang the Veep whilst waving the flag of a hostile former nation.
Yep, and although it might sound semantic I really do think the 'noun v adjective' difference here is crucial.
I don't get the willies when I hear somebody say they are patriotic. But when I hear about Patriots I just about know that's coming from a bad place.
That's the same with many nouns though.
There are a great many self-styled Liberals who can be very illiberal, while anyone who tried to overturn the election results on 6 January 2021 was no patriot, no matter what they called themselves.
Similarly it can work in reverse too, while I've been a Conservative most of my adult life, I've always considered myself a liberal and not a conservative.
That some self-styled Patriots do bad things does not make patriotism bad. That some self-styled Nationalists do bad things does not make nationalism bad. That some self-styled Liberals do bad things does not make liberalism bad.
Ok but I don't mean that. I'm talking about the noun being 'harder' than the adjective. Why? Because when you use the noun you are insinuating that whatever negative trait you're talking about kind of sums up the person rather than (with the adjective) it just being in the mix. With the noun it's not merely something they believe, it's what they are.
Eg: "You are racist" cf "You are A racist". The 2nd is stronger. Ditto, "You are not patriotic" is less in-your-face than "You are not a PATRIOT."
Just a language thing.
It's like that Lucan thing, all his mates banged on whenever questioned about the virtues of loyalty - meaning, siding with a fellow toff against a murdered servant. Patriotism is the same, a *very* minor virtue almost invariably deployed as a cover up for something else. The last resort of the scoundrel, to quote a much greater writer than George bloody Orwell.
Another thing about Orwell, he was much more of his class than he liked to think. That shit about horse racing and suet pudding - that's Eton things. And why are his fellow lefties not allowed to be anti monarchist if that's what they are? Perfectly respectable school of thought. The underlying thought is clear: toff socialism good, lower classes going in for socialism most distasteful.
It's not my favourite bit of Orwell, I must confess. Unfortunately it's the only bit that ever seems to get copied into here.
Mine neither, but people are being selective in their quotes from that essay. Orwell as a left wing intellectual wasn't confining his criticisms to left wing intellectuals
Christ, I'd rather they be selective than quote the whole bloody thing.
Schulz keeps on reverting to the nostrums of his youth - being a Good German means friendship and peace with Russia.
Which, in turn, is a consequence of German guilt about World War 2... (And is also the reason why the Russians go on so much about the Ukrainian Nazis and the Azof Brigade: it tickles all the right guilt receptors in Berlin.)
It might be better if the German body politic could realise that they are empowering the nearest thing to Hitler in Europe right now. But changing one's mind is hard. Look at some of the posters on here.
Well it might affect Scholz's views, but I don't think I know any Germans who feel guilty about World War 2. German reunification seems to be an emotionally more important historical event for most Germans, and one many can remember. And Moscow supported German reunification at a time when they didn't really have to. And it is also remembered as "The Peaceful Revolution"
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Kamala to get the nom (@5.8) = 17.2% Dems to Win = (@2.48) = 40.3%
Implied Kamala to win if Nominee = 17.2%*40.3% = 6.9% = @14.4
Kamala's actual Election Winner Odds (@17) = 5.88%
Hmmmm
EDIT: Oh, what are the lay odds, I'm a dummy.
Those aren't independent events. Many people would say that the Dems would be less likely to win if Harris is the nominee.
This means that the Dems odds are dragged down by the chance of Harris being the nominee. So, if you don't think she will be the nominee, as well as laying her odds to be the nominee, you can also back the Dems to win, as you'd expect their odds to otherwise be better.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
I do find it baffling that Sunak isn't more popular among Tory members. An ardent Brexiteer long before Truss changed her tune. Suave and urbane. Highly successful meritocratic achiever (apparently). Fiscally conservative - advocating sound money (not like Labour who didn't save for a rainy day etc.). Tough on immigration and on the causes of immigration. A much more accomplished public, and parliamentary, performer than Truss.
So what is it about Sunak that irritates so many Tories? Is it really just that he raised NI to fix NHS and social care, and thinks that some of the money spent on Covid needs to be recouped?
Political incompetence for starters. Facing Liz when he could've had Mordaunt.
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
Indeed - that was my experience too. Normally the only checks outbound were done by the UK Border force, the French normally just checked you were waving the same number of passports at them as there were passengers in the car. They might stop Eastern European vehicles occasionally.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
In the event it takes 24 booths instead of 12 then would the responsible thing to do be:
A: Get 24 booths. Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
B: Stick with 12. Blame voters for a choice they may six years ago.
They've had six years to prepare for this. It isn't voters responsibility to deal with this, it's government's responsibility to accept voters choices and adapt.
If Sunak wants to go for Truss he should refer to her favourite economist and spell out what happens to those with mortgages if interest rates go up significantly .
He should also spell out that savers don’t win in this scenario as the related high inflation will nullify any gains from higher interest rates .
If he doesn’t go for her tonight then we should assume he’s waved the white flag and is looking longer term at his prospects and doesn’t want too much blue on blue action.
Nadine Dorries is enough to make a newly rejoined Tory member feel like ripping up their membership all over again. I remember when Private Francois did the same whenever he got airtime.
Russia is going to do everything it can to make Germany look stupid for solely relying on its gas pipeline.
Maybe, but Russia's strategy seems to be confused. Is it trying to sell as much gas as possible for foreign currency earnings, or does it wasn't to punish Europeans for supporting Ukraine by stopping supplies?
They don't seem able to make their mind up.
Suits them very well to keep the prices high with continuing uncertainty though doesn't it?
Good to see Keir coming out for growth. Among other things, it’s a clear signal to his party that the next election is *not* going to be about redistribution, nationalisation, or more money for public services, but of focusing squarely on “the economy, stupid”.
As Rachael Reeves has pointed out, Britain has become high tax because it has been so low growth.
Ironically, Truss is also effectively saying this, in a roundabout way.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
That's just a buzzword. Without hard policies and a plan of action it's nothing more than a political slogan. Sad to see you fall for it.
Labour - in favour of economic growth and against recession!
No fucking shit.
You’ve missed the point of my post. This is not intended to be hard policies, but rather a high level decision on focus.
This was not, for example, Corbyn’s or Miliband’s focus.
No, it's just a slogan until there are policies. It's the same as all of the politicians saying they're in favour of less poverty, well sure, yet none of them really have any policies to achieve that.
Labour’s priorities will be “Motherhood, motherhood, motherhood”.
Without identifying the inevitable choices such a policy brings with it…..
The key problem with your thesis is how Labour define "Motherhood" from a gender perspective.
The average Brit spends 115 hours in traffic each year. Swapping Fuel Duty for Road Pricing would boost GDP for 2 reasons.
1. You can't work if you're stuck in traffic. 2. Your effective labour market is smaller reducing the benefits of agglomeration.
How does reducing your effective labour market solve anything?
or
This study suggest constraints on housing supply have a 13.5% GDP cost in the US. And there are good reasons to believe supply is even more constrained in the UK
Firstly does he know that NIMBYISM is worth a lot of votes. Secondly has he seen how hard it is to do anything in San Francisco (yes I know it's an extreme example but there are plenty of others)..
Russia is going to do everything it can to make Germany look stupid for solely relying on its gas pipeline.
Maybe, but Russia's strategy seems to be confused. Is it trying to sell as much gas as possible for foreign currency earnings, or does it wasn't to punish Europeans for supporting Ukraine by stopping supplies?
They don't seem able to make their mind up.
Suits them very well to keep the prices high with continuing uncertainty though doesn't it?
They want to crack the sanctions wall with respect to the equipment for the pipeline. Once they have an exception, they will push for more
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
I do find it baffling that Sunak isn't more popular among Tory members. An ardent Brexiteer long before Truss changed her tune. Suave and urbane. Highly successful meritocratic achiever (apparently). Fiscally conservative - advocating sound money (not like Labour who didn't save for a rainy day etc.). Tough on immigration and on the causes of immigration. A much more accomplished public, and parliamentary, performer than Truss.
So what is it about Sunak that irritates so many Tories? Is it really just that he raised NI to fix NHS and social care, and thinks that some of the money spent on Covid needs to be recouped?
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
I do find it baffling that Sunak isn't more popular among Tory members. An ardent Brexiteer long before Truss changed her tune. Suave and urbane. Highly successful meritocratic achiever (apparently). Fiscally conservative - advocating sound money (not like Labour who didn't save for a rainy day etc.). Tough on immigration and on the causes of immigration. A much more accomplished public, and parliamentary, performer than Truss.
So what is it about Sunak that irritates so many Tories? Is it really just that he raised NI to fix NHS and social care, and thinks that some of the money spent on Covid needs to be recouped?
Political incompetence for starters. Facing Liz when he could've had Mordaunt.
As @MISTY has said, he's perceived as the Davos candidate. Personally I'm not sure how fair that is.
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
Indeed - that was my experience too. Normally the only checks outbound were done by the UK Border force, the French normally just checked you were waving the same number of passports at them as there were passengers in the car. They might stop Eastern European vehicles occasionally.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
In the event it takes 24 booths instead of 12 then would the responsible thing to do be:
A: Get 24 booths. Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
B: Stick with 12. Blame voters for a choice they may six years ago.
They've had six years to prepare for this. It isn't voters responsibility to deal with this, it's government's responsibility to accept voters choices and adapt.
Have you actually been to Dover? Have you seen where the port actually is? Folkestone isn't much better. Are you planning to requisition the Castle, or the White Cliffs?
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
I do find it baffling that Sunak isn't more popular among Tory members. An ardent Brexiteer long before Truss changed her tune. Suave and urbane. Highly successful meritocratic achiever (apparently). Fiscally conservative - advocating sound money (not like Labour who didn't save for a rainy day etc.). Tough on immigration and on the causes of immigration. A much more accomplished public, and parliamentary, performer than Truss.
So what is it about Sunak that irritates so many Tories? Is it really just that he raised NI to fix NHS and social care, and thinks that some of the money spent on Covid needs to be recouped?
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
I do find it baffling that Sunak isn't more popular among Tory members. An ardent Brexiteer long before Truss changed her tune. Suave and urbane. Highly successful meritocratic achiever (apparently). Fiscally conservative - advocating sound money (not like Labour who didn't save for a rainy day etc.). Tough on immigration and on the causes of immigration. A much more accomplished public, and parliamentary, performer than Truss.
So what is it about Sunak that irritates so many Tories? Is it really just that he raised NI to fix NHS and social care, and thinks that some of the money spent on Covid needs to be recouped?
What I'm hearing is that most of them still have a soft spot for Boris Johnson and there's a whiff (to them) of 'not solid chap' about Sunak for bringing him down and seeking to take his place.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently, albeit low interest rates have made this feel less acute.
On the Dem nominee, one pundit I respect is watching the gubernatorial in Michigan in November. If Gretchen Whitmer retains for the dems, that might be a platform for a tilt at the presidential.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently, albeit low interest rates have made this feel less acute.
And Truss will do the same by encouraging another 2 years of maximising short term profits before the Government changes....
There is something rather amusing about the kind of bitter ex Remainer on this site who seems to think the only egress from this country is Dover to Calais.
While there was definitely a "Little England" element to some ex Leave supporters there's an equally "Little Europe" element amongst some ex Remainers.
There's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve the EU you can travel to. Heck, there's a big wide continent within the EU you can travel to without going through Dover either.
Many as cosmopolitan as you in Warrington?
Do you like having more choices, or less choices?
I like having more choices, and I have more now due to Brexit.
But not of travelling expeditiously from Dover to Calais.
Expeditiously travelling from Dover to Calais is upto the French, same as its always been. If they staff their border properly its expeditious, just as always.
But there's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve Calais. Broaden your horizons.
Man on keyboard up somewhere in the North West tells us to broaden our horizons.
If you seem to think the North West is 'ere be dragons then yes, broaden your horizons.
I think it's more why do you think you are an expert on how Dover works when you have probably never driven a car to France...
I have driven a car to France a few times.
I've also travelled to dozens and dozens of countries in every continent bar South America and Antartica, some European, some non-EU.
Countries with enough staff to do the checks required can have smooth running borders, countries that don't do not. That has nothing to do with being in the EU or not.
If there aren't enough staff on that's not because of Brexit, its because there's not enough staff on.
So there are 12 booths in Dover for passport control.
All 12 booths are manned with staff
The French Government and Dover say that because of the extra work created by the UK becoming a third party country we need 12 more booths.
UK Government says we aren't paying for them...
Who has created the problem?
Would you call on Canadians to pay for extra border capacity on the US side of the border if Canadians wanted stricter passport only border control for security reasons and the US reciprocated? Currently, if you have an enhanced driving licence in either of the two countries, you can use it as a travel document, but agreements are rarely in perpetuity. Under your argument, as Canada moved first, it should be the one to hand cash to the US rather than both countries being grown up and adding more capacity as needed.
You can use the same argument for any two countries that have a travel agreement.
Yes, we're no longer in a free travel zone with the EU and that was our decision, but now France is controlling an external EU frontier and needs to accept that. If they want to play silly buggers that's their decision and I accept that as a sovereign decision of their government, but ultimately they'll hurt the port of Calais in the long term just as much as Dover.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
I do find it baffling that Sunak isn't more popular among Tory members. An ardent Brexiteer long before Truss changed her tune. Suave and urbane. Highly successful meritocratic achiever (apparently). Fiscally conservative - advocating sound money (not like Labour who didn't save for a rainy day etc.). Tough on immigration and on the causes of immigration. A much more accomplished public, and parliamentary, performer than Truss.
So what is it about Sunak that irritates so many Tories? Is it really just that he raised NI to fix NHS and social care, and thinks that some of the money spent on Covid needs to be recouped?
He is brown. They are racist.
So how do you explain Kemi Badenoch having been preferred over both of them?
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
No. You wish.
I most certainly don't wish.
But why so sure of No?
Because Sunak would've probably won this race if it had taken place a year ago (before he raised taxes) and probably even in January (before the stories about his family's tax affairs). His polling didn't suddenly fall off a cliff because the members all noticed he was Indian.
Also, Badenoch was polling about as well against Sunak as Truss.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
I do find it baffling that Sunak isn't more popular among Tory members. An ardent Brexiteer long before Truss changed her tune. Suave and urbane. Highly successful meritocratic achiever (apparently). Fiscally conservative - advocating sound money (not like Labour who didn't save for a rainy day etc.). Tough on immigration and on the causes of immigration. A much more accomplished public, and parliamentary, performer than Truss.
So what is it about Sunak that irritates so many Tories? Is it really just that he raised NI to fix NHS and social care, and thinks that some of the money spent on Covid needs to be recouped?
He is brown. They are racist.
This is just silly. Especially after the race we’ve seen.
Sunak is unliked because he’s put up taxes, and has no vision for doing anything else.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
I do find it baffling that Sunak isn't more popular among Tory members. An ardent Brexiteer long before Truss changed her tune. Suave and urbane. Highly successful meritocratic achiever (apparently). Fiscally conservative - advocating sound money (not like Labour who didn't save for a rainy day etc.). Tough on immigration and on the causes of immigration. A much more accomplished public, and parliamentary, performer than Truss.
So what is it about Sunak that irritates so many Tories? Is it really just that he raised NI to fix NHS and social care, and thinks that some of the money spent on Covid needs to be recouped?
Political incompetence for starters. Facing Liz when he could've had Mordaunt.
As @MISTY has said, he's perceived as the Davos candidate. Personally I'm not sure how fair that is.
Its up to him to move heaven and earth to counter that perception.
If Sunak wants to go for Truss he should refer to her favourite economist and spell out what happens to those with mortgages if interest rates go up significantly .
He should also spell out that savers don’t win in this scenario as the related high inflation will nullify any gains from higher interest rates .
If he doesn’t go for her tonight then we should assume he’s waved the white flag and is looking longer term at his prospects and doesn’t want too much blue on blue action.
Tory members have likely paid off theirs. He'd be better talking about the drop in house prices as leverage becomes harder to access.
Although surely 7% rates and 9% inflation is better for savers than 2% and 9% inflation.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
After thinking about this for a week, and digging into a bit, we should probably do all of the above AND keep corporation tax lowish.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
I do find it baffling that Sunak isn't more popular among Tory members. An ardent Brexiteer long before Truss changed her tune. Suave and urbane. Highly successful meritocratic achiever (apparently). Fiscally conservative - advocating sound money (not like Labour who didn't save for a rainy day etc.). Tough on immigration and on the causes of immigration. A much more accomplished public, and parliamentary, performer than Truss.
So what is it about Sunak that irritates so many Tories? Is it really just that he raised NI to fix NHS and social care, and thinks that some of the money spent on Covid needs to be recouped?
What I'm hearing is that most of them still have a soft spot for Boris Johnson and there's a whiff (to them) of 'not solid chap' about Sunak for bringing him down and seeking to take his place.
Yep. From what I have seen and read it is a combination of the fact they blame him - at least in part - for the removal of Johnson and also that they are angry with his handling of the finances through the Pandemic. There were and are many who thought he took the easy option of just throwing as much free money as he could find at the problem rather than being more nuanced about it. This at least is a position I have some sympathy for. The idea that he is fiscally conservative flies in the face of the facts when you look at his spending and tax policies.
That said, why anyone would want Truss either is a mystery to me. I think the only positive thing that can really be said about either of them is they won't be as catastrophically bad for the country as Johnson. But that is a bar so low you would have to be a world class limbo dancer to get underneath it.
Edit - I would add that the comments about racism are utter bullshit given that Badenoch was as popular if not more so with the wider membership than either of the last two.
There is something rather amusing about the kind of bitter ex Remainer on this site who seems to think the only egress from this country is Dover to Calais.
While there was definitely a "Little England" element to some ex Leave supporters there's an equally "Little Europe" element amongst some ex Remainers.
There's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve the EU you can travel to. Heck, there's a big wide continent within the EU you can travel to without going through Dover either.
Many as cosmopolitan as you in Warrington?
Do you like having more choices, or less choices?
I like having more choices, and I have more now due to Brexit.
But not of travelling expeditiously from Dover to Calais.
Expeditiously travelling from Dover to Calais is upto the French, same as its always been. If they staff their border properly its expeditious, just as always.
But there's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve Calais. Broaden your horizons.
Man on keyboard up somewhere in the North West tells us to broaden our horizons.
If you seem to think the North West is 'ere be dragons then yes, broaden your horizons.
I think it's more why do you think you are an expert on how Dover works when you have probably never driven a car to France...
I have driven a car to France a few times.
I've also travelled to dozens and dozens of countries in every continent bar South America and Antartica, some European, some non-EU.
Countries with enough staff to do the checks required can have smooth running borders, countries that don't do not. That has nothing to do with being in the EU or not.
If there aren't enough staff on that's not because of Brexit, its because there's not enough staff on.
So there are 12 booths in Dover for passport control.
All 12 booths are manned with staff
The French Government and Dover say that because of the extra work created by the UK becoming a third party country we need 12 more booths.
UK Government says we aren't paying for them...
Who has created the problem?
Would you call on Canadians to pay for extra border capacity on the US side of the border if Canadians wanted stricter passport only border control for security reasons and the US reciprocated? Currently, if you have an enhanced driving licence in either of the two countries, you can use it as a travel document, but agreements are rarely in perpetuity. Under your argument, as Canada moved first, it should be the one to hand cash to the US rather than both countries being grown up and adding more capacity as needed.
You can use the same argument for any two countries that have a travel agreement.
Yes, we're no longer in a free travel zone with the EU and that was our decision, but now France is controlling an external EU frontier and needs to accept that. If they want to play silly buggers that's their decision and I accept that as a sovereign decision of their government, but ultimately they'll hurt the port of Calais in the long term just as much as Dover.
There is something rather amusing about the kind of bitter ex Remainer on this site who seems to think the only egress from this country is Dover to Calais.
While there was definitely a "Little England" element to some ex Leave supporters there's an equally "Little Europe" element amongst some ex Remainers.
There's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve the EU you can travel to. Heck, there's a big wide continent within the EU you can travel to without going through Dover either.
Many as cosmopolitan as you in Warrington?
Do you like having more choices, or less choices?
I like having more choices, and I have more now due to Brexit.
But not of travelling expeditiously from Dover to Calais.
Expeditiously travelling from Dover to Calais is upto the French, same as its always been. If they staff their border properly its expeditious, just as always.
But there's a big wide world out there that doesn't involve Calais. Broaden your horizons.
Man on keyboard up somewhere in the North West tells us to broaden our horizons.
If you seem to think the North West is 'ere be dragons then yes, broaden your horizons.
I think it's more why do you think you are an expert on how Dover works when you have probably never driven a car to France...
I have driven a car to France a few times.
I've also travelled to dozens and dozens of countries in every continent bar South America and Antartica, some European, some non-EU.
Countries with enough staff to do the checks required can have smooth running borders, countries that don't do not. That has nothing to do with being in the EU or not.
If there aren't enough staff on that's not because of Brexit, its because there's not enough staff on.
So there are 12 booths in Dover for passport control.
All 12 booths are manned with staff
The French Government and Dover say that because of the extra work created by the UK becoming a third party country we need 12 more booths.
UK Government says we aren't paying for them...
Who has created the problem?
Would you call on Canadians to pay for extra border capacity on the US side of the border if Canadians wanted stricter passport only border control for security reasons and the US reciprocated? Currently, if you have an enhanced driving licence in either of the two countries, you can use it as a travel document, but agreements are rarely in perpetuity. Under your argument, as Canada moved first, it should be the one to hand cash to the US rather than both countries being grown up and adding more capacity as needed.
You can use the same argument for any two countries that have a travel agreement.
Yes, we're no longer in a free travel zone with the EU and that was our decision, but now France is controlling an external EU frontier and needs to accept that. If they want to play silly buggers that's their decision and I accept that as a sovereign decision of their government, but ultimately they'll hurt the port of Calais in the long term just as much as Dover.
France can’t unilaterally expand border posts on a foreign countries soil . There would need to be agreements and there’s the issue of a lack of space in Dover .
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
Indeed - that was my experience too. Normally the only checks outbound were done by the UK Border force, the French normally just checked you were waving the same number of passports at them as there were passengers in the car. They might stop Eastern European vehicles occasionally.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
In the event it takes 24 booths instead of 12 then would the responsible thing to do be:
A: Get 24 booths. Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
B: Stick with 12. Blame voters for a choice they may six years ago.
They've had six years to prepare for this. It isn't voters responsibility to deal with this, it's government's responsibility to accept voters choices and adapt.
Have you actually been to Dover? Have you seen where the port actually is? Folkestone isn't much better. Are you planning to requisition the Castle, or the White Cliffs?
Yes I have and yes there's space for 12 extra booths if they're needed. Where there's a will, there's a way.
As @RochdalePioneers has repeatedly said the Port of Dover requested ~£30 million to build new facilities. Oddly enough they didn't seem bothered that they'd need to requisition the White Cliffs to do so.
Considering that EU membership cost us £350mn a week gross, less net, and considering that this is supposedly your big problem with Brexit - spending half of one working day's gross EU membership fees to construct 12 extra booths and eliminate the problem seems like a bit of a bargain does it not?
Extending Article 50 and then the transition period cost us about €20 billion, so €20,000,000,000, so if £30,000,000 is the cost of fixing this and then we're out of the EU and the problem is dealt with, then voting Brexit seems eminently logical does it not?
If after six years this problem is real and hasn't been fixed, that's a failure of one or more of the respective government's not a failure of voting for Brexit.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
After thinking about this for a week, and digging into a bit, we should probably do all of the above AND keep corporation tax lowish.
Too many UK companies are minded to just sweat the existing assets with little attempt to grow, or invest in new kit or invest in training. I have no problem with that kind of company, who are not contributing to our economy in other ways, paying a bit more tax.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
The problem is that it's not backed up by his followers.
I posted something on how strongly I feel about this at the weekend and got about 15 members of the pb Lefty herd all liking each other's posts saying being patriotic was racist and stupid.
Are you including my response to that?
I try to make a more thoughtful point, engaging you in discussion, but you'd prefer to argue with those posters who embody your caricature of the left.
No, not you.
A quick scan of Sunday's thread will reveal who the culprits are.
I wasn't on it but curious so I looked. Found this from you -
"Let me let you into a little secret: I have zero time for non-patriots."
I can't help but imagine that spoken sotto voce by somebody in uniform to somebody in cuffs.
"Patriotism" is a fig-leaf for political cowards.
"I am a patriot" "No, I am a patriot" "No, I am TRUE patriot" etc etc until everyone vomits.
How about instead of saying the word actually doing things which are positive for the country? Instead of the opposite as so many "patriots" actually are doing. cf the 6th January coup which was full of "patriots" trying to hang the Veep whilst waving the flag of a hostile former nation.
Yep, and although it might sound semantic I really do think the 'noun v adjective' difference here is crucial.
I don't get the willies when I hear somebody say they are patriotic. But when I hear about Patriots I just about know that's coming from a bad place.
That's the same with many nouns though.
There are a great many self-styled Liberals who can be very illiberal, while anyone who tried to overturn the election results on 6 January 2021 was no patriot, no matter what they called themselves.
Similarly it can work in reverse too, while I've been a Conservative most of my adult life, I've always considered myself a liberal and not a conservative.
That some self-styled Patriots do bad things does not make patriotism bad. That some self-styled Nationalists do bad things does not make nationalism bad. That some self-styled Liberals do bad things does not make liberalism bad.
Ok but I don't mean that. I'm talking about the noun being 'harder' than the adjective. Why? Because when you use the noun you are insinuating that whatever negative trait you're talking about kind of sums up the person rather than (with the adjective) it just being in the mix. With the noun it's not merely something they believe, it's what they are.
Eg: "You are racist" cf "You are A racist". The 2nd is stronger. Ditto, "You are not patriotic" is less in-your-face than "You are not a PATRIOT."
Just a language thing.
„Es gibt also nur kranken Patriotismus. Gesunder Patriotismus klingt für mich ein bisschen wie `gutartiger Tumor´. Es ist vielleicht nicht direkt lebensgefährlich, aber es ist immer noch ein Tumor.“
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
No. You wish.
I most certainly don't wish.
But why so sure of No?
Because Sunak would've probably won this race if it had taken place a year ago (before he raised taxes) and probably even in January (before the stories about his family's tax affairs). His polling didn't suddenly fall off a cliff because the members all noticed he was Indian.
Also, Badenoch was polling about as well against Sunak as Truss.
Yes, all true and positive and meaningful. But if (say) 10% of the membership are going to vote against him because he's not white it would swing it for Truss.
Is it an absurd thought iyo - that 10% of the Con membership would secretly be like that?
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
I do find it baffling that Sunak isn't more popular among Tory members. An ardent Brexiteer long before Truss changed her tune. Suave and urbane. Highly successful meritocratic achiever (apparently). Fiscally conservative - advocating sound money (not like Labour who didn't save for a rainy day etc.). Tough on immigration and on the causes of immigration. A much more accomplished public, and parliamentary, performer than Truss.
So what is it about Sunak that irritates so many Tories? Is it really just that he raised NI to fix NHS and social care, and thinks that some of the money spent on Covid needs to be recouped?
The fact that most of the members appear to think Truss should be PM rather than Sunak shows how bonkers the party has become. It needs a long period in opposition to recover from the craziness.
If they seriously think replacing Johnson with Truss is sound idea and an electoral winning strategy then they truly are in La La Land.
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
Indeed - that was my experience too. Normally the only checks outbound were done by the UK Border force, the French normally just checked you were waving the same number of passports at them as there were passengers in the car. They might stop Eastern European vehicles occasionally.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
In the event it takes 24 booths instead of 12 then would the responsible thing to do be:
A: Get 24 booths. Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
B: Stick with 12. Blame voters for a choice they may six years ago.
They've had six years to prepare for this. It isn't voters responsibility to deal with this, it's government's responsibility to accept voters choices and adapt.
Have you actually been to Dover? Have you seen where the port actually is? Folkestone isn't much better. Are you planning to requisition the Castle, or the White Cliffs?
Yes I have and yes there's space for 12 extra booths if they're needed. Where there's a will, there's a way.
As @RochdalePioneers has repeatedly said the Port of Dover requested ~£30 million to build new facilities. Oddly enough they didn't seem bothered that they'd need to requisition the White Cliffs to do so.
Considering that EU membership cost us £350mn a week gross, less net, and considering that this is supposedly your big problem with Brexit - spending half of one working day's gross EU membership fees to construct 12 extra booths and eliminate the problem seems like a bit of a bargain does it not?
Extending Article 50 and then the transition period cost us about €20 billion, so €20,000,000,000, so if £30,000,000 is the cost of fixing this and then we're out of the EU and the problem is dealt with, then voting Brexit seems eminently logical does it not?
If after six years this problem is real and hasn't been fixed, that's a failure of one or more of the respective government's not a failure of voting for Brexit.
Once again you miss the fact Dover asked the UK Government for £30m to resolve the issues the UK Government created.
And the UK Government offered them £30,000 or 0.1% of what was needed.
And yes £30m is a lot of money - but adding space to a port by concreting over the open sea doesn't come cheap.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
After thinking about this for a week, and digging into a bit, we should probably do all of the above AND keep corporation tax lowish.
I would make high quality investment in machinery and high quality training very very tax advantageous.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
After thinking about this for a week, and digging into a bit, we should probably do all of the above AND keep corporation tax lowish.
Too many UK companies are minded to just sweat the existing assets with little attempt to grow, or invest in new kit or invest in training. I have no problem with that kind of company, who are not contributing to our economy in other ways, paying a bit more tax.
In theory I agree but in practice I think there is a more value in the “signalling” of a lowish corporate tax level than a text-book might suggest.
Especially post Brexit, which blew up one of our key pull-factors for investment.
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
Indeed - that was my experience too. Normally the only checks outbound were done by the UK Border force, the French normally just checked you were waving the same number of passports at them as there were passengers in the car. They might stop Eastern European vehicles occasionally.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
In the event it takes 24 booths instead of 12 then would the responsible thing to do be:
A: Get 24 booths. Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
B: Stick with 12. Blame voters for a choice they may six years ago.
They've had six years to prepare for this. It isn't voters responsibility to deal with this, it's government's responsibility to accept voters choices and adapt.
Have you actually been to Dover? Have you seen where the port actually is? Folkestone isn't much better. Are you planning to requisition the Castle, or the White Cliffs?
Yes I have and yes there's space for 12 extra booths if they're needed. Where there's a will, there's a way.
As @RochdalePioneers has repeatedly said the Port of Dover requested ~£30 million to build new facilities. Oddly enough they didn't seem bothered that they'd need to requisition the White Cliffs to do so.
Considering that EU membership cost us £350mn a week gross, less net, and considering that this is supposedly your big problem with Brexit - spending half of one working day's gross EU membership fees to construct 12 extra booths and eliminate the problem seems like a bit of a bargain does it not?
Extending Article 50 and then the transition period cost us about €20 billion, so €20,000,000,000, so if £30,000,000 is the cost of fixing this and then we're out of the EU and the problem is dealt with, then voting Brexit seems eminently logical does it not?
If after six years this problem is real and hasn't been fixed, that's a failure of one or more of the respective government's not a failure of voting for Brexit.
What we saw on Saturday is that half the booths were manned and a huge backlog built up. What we saw on Sunday was that all the booths were manned and the backlog melted away. This was always going to be one of the busiest weekends of the year. I am not sure that not increasing the number of booths is the problem. The absolute bottleneck is of course the number of ferries that can get in and out of the port. Spending more money on passport control is not going to change that.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
No. You wish.
I most certainly don't wish.
But why so sure of No?
Because Sunak would've probably won this race if it had taken place a year ago (before he raised taxes) and probably even in January (before the stories about his family's tax affairs). His polling didn't suddenly fall off a cliff because the members all noticed he was Indian.
Also, Badenoch was polling about as well against Sunak as Truss.
Yes, all true and positive and meaningful. But if (say) 10% of the membership are going to vote against him because he's not white it would swing it for Truss.
Is it an absurd thought iyo - that 10% of the Con membership would secretly be like that?
Serious question. I'm not making accusations.
Its a bit like labour and anti-semitism isn't it? You would have to be able to read people's minds to asses their true motivations.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
After thinking about this for a week, and digging into a bit, we should probably do all of the above AND keep corporation tax lowish.
Too many UK companies are minded to just sweat the existing assets with little attempt to grow, or invest in new kit or invest in training. I have no problem with that kind of company, who are not contributing to our economy in other ways, paying a bit more tax.
In theory I agree but in practice I think there is a more value in the “signalling” of a lowish corporate tax level than a text-book might suggest.
Especially post Brexit, which blew up one of our key pull-factors for investment.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
After thinking about this for a week, and digging into a bit, we should probably do all of the above AND keep corporation tax lowish.
Too many UK companies are minded to just sweat the existing assets with little attempt to grow, or invest in new kit or invest in training. I have no problem with that kind of company, who are not contributing to our economy in other ways, paying a bit more tax.
In theory I agree but in practice I think there is a more value in the “signalling” of a lowish corporate tax level than a text-book might suggest.
Especially post Brexit, which blew up one of our key pull-factors for investment.
I think there are ways of encouraging foreign investment (such as lower corporation tax for sites in enterprise / freeports) while increasing it for existing / local firms...
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
After thinking about this for a week, and digging into a bit, we should probably do all of the above AND keep corporation tax lowish.
I would make high quality investment in machinery and high quality training very very tax advantageous.
The average Brit spends 115 hours in traffic each year. Swapping Fuel Duty for Road Pricing would boost GDP for 2 reasons.
1. You can't work if you're stuck in traffic. 2. Your effective labour market is smaller reducing the benefits of agglomeration.
How does reducing your effective labour market solve anything?
or
This study suggest constraints on housing supply have a 13.5% GDP cost in the US. And there are good reasons to believe supply is even more constrained in the UK
Firstly does he know that NIMBYISM is worth a lot of votes. Secondly has he seen how hard it is to do anything in San Francisco (yes I know it's an extreme example but there are plenty of others)..
I don’t think it’s codswallop. It might be politically unrealistic, but it’s pretty obvious that Britain’s productivity is significantly impaired by housing/planning/transport issues.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
After thinking about this for a week, and digging into a bit, we should probably do all of the above AND keep corporation tax lowish.
Too many UK companies are minded to just sweat the existing assets with little attempt to grow, or invest in new kit or invest in training. I have no problem with that kind of company, who are not contributing to our economy in other ways, paying a bit more tax.
In theory I agree but in practice I think there is a more value in the “signalling” of a lowish corporate tax level than a text-book might suggest.
Especially post Brexit, which blew up one of our key pull-factors for investment.
I think there are ways of encouraging foreign investment (such as lower corporation tax for sites in enterprise / freeports) while increasing it for existing / local firms...
Freeports are a nonsense. Brexit claptrap. I feel embarrassed when Rishi mentions it.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
After thinking about this for a week, and digging into a bit, we should probably do all of the above AND keep corporation tax lowish.
Too many UK companies are minded to just sweat the existing assets with little attempt to grow, or invest in new kit or invest in training. I have no problem with that kind of company, who are not contributing to our economy in other ways, paying a bit more tax.
In theory I agree but in practice I think there is a more value in the “signalling” of a lowish corporate tax level than a text-book might suggest.
Especially post Brexit, which blew up one of our key pull-factors for investment.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
After thinking about this for a week, and digging into a bit, we should probably do all of the above AND keep corporation tax lowish.
Too many UK companies are minded to just sweat the existing assets with little attempt to grow, or invest in new kit or invest in training. I have no problem with that kind of company, who are not contributing to our economy in other ways, paying a bit more tax.
In theory I agree but in practice I think there is a more value in the “signalling” of a lowish corporate tax level than a text-book might suggest.
Especially post Brexit, which blew up one of our key pull-factors for investment.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
After thinking about this for a week, and digging into a bit, we should probably do all of the above AND keep corporation tax lowish.
I would make high quality investment in machinery and high quality training very very tax advantageous.
The average Brit spends 115 hours in traffic each year. Swapping Fuel Duty for Road Pricing would boost GDP for 2 reasons.
1. You can't work if you're stuck in traffic. 2. Your effective labour market is smaller reducing the benefits of agglomeration.
How does reducing your effective labour market solve anything?
or
This study suggest constraints on housing supply have a 13.5% GDP cost in the US. And there are good reasons to believe supply is even more constrained in the UK
Firstly does he know that NIMBYISM is worth a lot of votes. Secondly has he seen how hard it is to do anything in San Francisco (yes I know it's an extreme example but there are plenty of others)..
I don’t think it’s codswallop. It might be politically unrealistic, but it’s pretty obvious that Britain’s productivity is significantly impaired by housing/planning/transport issues.
But look at his solution to a problem - he wishes to price people off commuting to increase the effective labour market size.
How does that work because all you do with road pricing is move the tax from being paid at the pump to being paid per mile on the road - you haven't changed anything beyond when and how it's collected. You haven't done anything to make the commute time shorter.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
After thinking about this for a week, and digging into a bit, we should probably do all of the above AND keep corporation tax lowish.
I would make high quality investment in machinery and high quality training very very tax advantageous.
The average Brit spends 115 hours in traffic each year. Swapping Fuel Duty for Road Pricing would boost GDP for 2 reasons.
1. You can't work if you're stuck in traffic. 2. Your effective labour market is smaller reducing the benefits of agglomeration.
How does reducing your effective labour market solve anything?
or
This study suggest constraints on housing supply have a 13.5% GDP cost in the US. And there are good reasons to believe supply is even more constrained in the UK
Firstly does he know that NIMBYISM is worth a lot of votes. Secondly has he seen how hard it is to do anything in San Francisco (yes I know it's an extreme example but there are plenty of others)..
I don’t think it’s codswallop. It might be politically unrealistic, but it’s pretty obvious that Britain’s productivity is significantly impaired by housing/planning/transport issues.
But look at his solution to a problem - he wishes to price people off commuting to increase the effective labour market size.
How does that work because all you do with road pricing is move the tax from being paid at the pump to being paid per mile on the road - you haven't changed anything beyond when and how it's collected. You haven't done anything to make the commute time shorter.
Actually, he does not.
He suggests that road pricing will smooth traffic flow as people respond to paying full cost of congestion during peak hours.
He references Singapore where, as he notes, average urban traffic speeds have *sped up* in recent years as congestion as decreased.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
The corporate tax argument seems to have gone into one of those binary rabbit holes where the answer according to one group of people is that cancelling the rate rise will solve all our problems, while another group that cancelling the rise will solve nothing but increasing Capex incentives will solve all our problems. My experience is that it's more complex than that because there are different groups of potential investors who are motivated by different things.
Crudely speaking multinationals, particularly American ones, are more motivated by relative headline tax rates as well as incentive rates on income (like Patent box) when deciding on where to invest. The biggest driver for them at the moment is actually the falling US headline rate plus their FDII rate which incentivise them to keep international profits at home. If we want IP and corporate HQs in the UK then this is the more important group.
Domestic focused business with large capital requirements and long term investment horizons are more influenced by NPV and cashflow so pay more heed to capital allowances, the superdeduction (if it had been trailed earlier) and other reliefs. If we want industrial, infrastructure and R&D investment then this lot are important.
Government probably can't afford to keep both happy - though as CT only brings in around 50-70bn a year in theory they could try - so they will probably need to decide which group of investors and investment is more important.
It *is* possible for government policy to grow the economy, despite naysayers on left and right.
True, but it's also highly non-obvious how to go about it. Otherwise every government would do it...
The UK is now some way off the frontier of the productivity / GDP, so there are actually lots of things we could do.
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
French style, permanent tax breaks on investment in plant and machinery. At say, 100% tax relief.
Yes. Full relief. For starters.
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently.
We have focused on the low rate of CT rather than the effective rate. Rather than cancel the increase in the base rate we should increase the allowances. I don't see why 100% relief should be the cap either on capital spending or on training. We need incentives to invest in this country and the actual rate of CT is not particularly relevant to that.
After thinking about this for a week, and digging into a bit, we should probably do all of the above AND keep corporation tax lowish.
Too many UK companies are minded to just sweat the existing assets with little attempt to grow, or invest in new kit or invest in training. I have no problem with that kind of company, who are not contributing to our economy in other ways, paying a bit more tax.
In theory I agree but in practice I think there is a more value in the “signalling” of a lowish corporate tax level than a text-book might suggest.
Especially post Brexit, which blew up one of our key pull-factors for investment.
Pull factor versus where and from what source?
You really need someone to explain that?
Yes, please explain what the pull factor for the UK was versus the Netherlands before Brexit.
"A senior ally of Liz Truss has launched an attack on Rishi Sunak’s wealth as the Tory leadership race was branded “embarrassing” by a senior minister. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, hit out at Sunak for wearing a £3,500 bespoke suit and £450 Prada shoes, comparing the attire with £4.50 earrings Truss is apparently sporting."
Is there a touch of Cosmo Citizen of Nowhere being insinuated about Sunak, I wonder?
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
No. You wish.
I most certainly don't wish.
But why so sure of No?
Because Sunak would've probably won this race if it had taken place a year ago (before he raised taxes) and probably even in January (before the stories about his family's tax affairs). His polling didn't suddenly fall off a cliff because the members all noticed he was Indian.
Also, Badenoch was polling about as well against Sunak as Truss.
Yes, all true and positive and meaningful. But if (say) 10% of the membership are going to vote against him because he's not white it would swing it for Truss.
Is it an absurd thought iyo - that 10% of the Con membership would secretly be like that?
Serious question. I'm not making accusations.
I can't rule it out. It is possible that (say) Badenoch would beat Truss despite being black, rather than it being an irrelevant factor. However, there is no meaningful evidence to support the claim.
Hence my original comment, "you wish": I think you suspect just how prevalent these attitudes are in the Labour party, and you really want it to be just as true for the Conservatives. Because if it isn't, a good chunk of your worldview falls apart, and you are forced to confront just how awful identity politics actually is for improving the lot of minorities, and how much progress the Left has given up on by obsessing over what colour people's skin is.
Comments
To be clear, I don't personally believe Sunak 'hates' SMEs. But the world he inhabits isn't really one of the small businessman.
{idly wonders how much tritium is in stock, while looking at a picture of Snowden}
I've also travelled to dozens and dozens of countries in every continent bar South America and Antartica, some European, some non-EU.
Countries with enough staff to do the checks required can have smooth running borders, countries that don't do not. That has nothing to do with being in the EU or not.
If there aren't enough staff on that's not because of Brexit, its because there's not enough staff on.
How many long tons of pig iron do you need etc…
Also, racism - is this to any extent at all in the mix?
2024 Winning Party - Dems @2.48
Election Winner - Biden @9.0
Dem Nominee - Biden @3.95
Dem Nominee - Harris @5.8
I think Laying Harris is the correct move there?
Indeed. He is the Davos candidate. The candidate of a HM Treasury that still worships at the altar of Gordon Brown daily.
With him, the tories are completely there for the taking.
I have assumed this is a temporary blip like in 2016 but this will definitely have to be monitored.
Its the huge gulf between Sunak's lifestyle and the one he is asking the people of Britain to accept in the next few years.
They don't seem able to make their mind up.
All 12 booths are manned with staff
The French Government and Dover say that because of the extra work created by the UK becoming a third party country we need 12 more booths.
UK Government says we aren't paying for them...
Who has created the problem?
They all involve confronting various vested interests, though.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
The very last thing.
If an extra 12 booths are needed, then pay for them, but if they're not staffed in the first place, they're not needed.
Having spent time in tedious queues to get into both France and Spain already this year, I'm keen for my next holiday to be to one of those Brexit has made easier to enter.
At first this might seem all kinds of bad - but if we don’t don’t demand that everyone who comes to this country signs up to European sensibilities, then why shouldn’t he think that?
My friend (first generation immigrant) sees Ukraine in the context of Kashmir (deliberate population displacement included), the border issues with China etc. He despises Modi - who he sees as Putin lite. In a way it could be summed up as “Putin is doing nasty shit, at about 230% of what the government at home in India is doing.”
Kamala to get the nom (@5.8) = 17.2%
Dems to Win = (@2.48) = 40.3%
Implied Kamala to win if Nominee = 17.2%*40.3% = 6.9% = @14.4
Kamala's actual Election Winner Odds (@17) = 5.88%
Hmmmm
EDIT: Oh, what are the lay odds, I'm a dummy.
Racism? in the Conservative Party membership? Keep it real, bro.
Why I'm a Booster and not a Doomster:
In almost every area of policy I've looked into depth, there are massive low-hanging fruit capable of increasing GDP by at least 3-5% each.
https://twitter.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1551283707767656465
So what is it about Sunak that irritates so many Tories? Is it really just that he raised NI to fix NHS and social care, and thinks that some of the money spent on Covid needs to be recouped?
Try some non European countries. Rarely have a problem travelling with any apart from the USA.
Without identifying the inevitable choices such a policy brings with it…..
But why so sure of No?
This means that the Dems odds are dragged down by the chance of Harris being the nominee. So, if you don't think she will be the nominee, as well as laying her odds to be the nominee, you can also back the Dems to win, as you'd expect their odds to otherwise be better.
A: Get 24 booths. Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
B: Stick with 12. Blame voters for a choice they may six years ago.
They've had six years to prepare for this. It isn't voters responsibility to deal with this, it's government's responsibility to accept voters choices and adapt.
He should also spell out that savers don’t win in this scenario as the related high inflation will nullify any gains from higher interest rates .
If he doesn’t go for her tonight then we should assume he’s waved the white flag and is looking longer term at his prospects and doesn’t want too much blue on blue action.
Take
The average Brit spends 115 hours in traffic each year. Swapping Fuel Duty for Road Pricing would boost GDP for 2 reasons.
1. You can't work if you're stuck in traffic.
2. Your effective labour market is smaller reducing the benefits of agglomeration.
How does reducing your effective labour market solve anything?
or
This study suggest constraints on housing supply have a 13.5% GDP cost in the US. And there are good reasons to believe supply is even more constrained in the UK
Firstly does he know that NIMBYISM is worth a lot of votes. Secondly has he seen how hard it is to do anything in San Francisco (yes I know it's an extreme example but there are plenty of others)..
(via @Haggis_UK)
https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1551587262365827073
Personally I'm not sure how fair that is.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/21/liz-truss-holds-24-point-lead-over-rishi-sunak-amo
UK is actually at the bottom end of tax
competitiveness for business, despite common belief, and has essentially disincentivised capex until very recently, albeit low interest rates have made this feel less acute.
I saw her priced at 66-1 recently, but DYOR.
You can use the same argument for any two countries that have a travel agreement.
Yes, we're no longer in a free travel zone with the EU and that was our decision, but now France is controlling an external EU frontier and needs to accept that. If they want to play silly buggers that's their decision and I accept that as a sovereign decision of their government, but ultimately they'll hurt the port of Calais in the long term just as much as Dover.
Play the "Identify the constituency" game, from Smarkets. How many can you get right in a row?
https://maproom.net/c/smarkets/public.html
Also, Badenoch was polling about as well against Sunak as Truss.
Sunak is unliked because he’s put up taxes, and has no vision for doing anything else.
It’s that simple.
Although surely 7% rates and 9% inflation is better for savers than 2% and 9% inflation.
This would be the third least experienced of *all* Britain's PM's, beaten only by Addington and Pitt.
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/1551532894711070720
Truss, 12 years, would be 7th least experienced. Good thread.
That said, why anyone would want Truss either is a mystery to me. I think the only positive thing that can really be said about either of them is they won't be as catastrophically bad for the country as Johnson. But that is a bar so low you would have to be a world class limbo dancer to get underneath it.
Edit - I would add that the comments about racism are utter bullshit given that Badenoch was as popular if not more so with the wider membership than either of the last two.
As @RochdalePioneers has repeatedly said the Port of Dover requested ~£30 million to build new facilities. Oddly enough they didn't seem bothered that they'd need to requisition the White Cliffs to do so.
Considering that EU membership cost us £350mn a week gross, less net, and considering that this is supposedly your big problem with Brexit - spending half of one working day's gross EU membership fees to construct 12 extra booths and eliminate the problem seems like a bit of a bargain does it not?
Extending Article 50 and then the transition period cost us about €20 billion, so €20,000,000,000, so if £30,000,000 is the cost of fixing this and then we're out of the EU and the problem is dealt with, then voting Brexit seems eminently logical does it not?
If after six years this problem is real and hasn't been fixed, that's a failure of one or more of the respective government's not a failure of voting for Brexit.
Is it an absurd thought iyo - that 10% of the Con membership would secretly be like that?
Serious question. I'm not making accusations.
NBER is the National Bureau of Economic Research and, is, as far as I know, generally respected by economists: https://www.nber.org/
If they seriously think replacing Johnson with Truss is sound idea and an electoral winning strategy then they truly are in La La Land.
And the UK Government offered them £30,000 or 0.1% of what was needed.
And yes £30m is a lot of money - but adding space to a port by concreting over the open sea doesn't come cheap.
Pay for it by putting up CT.
Fuck Business.
Especially post Brexit, which blew up one of our key pull-factors for investment.
now that she has backed out of the customary Andrew Neil interview.
It might be politically unrealistic, but it’s pretty obvious that Britain’s productivity is significantly impaired by housing/planning/transport issues.
Brexit claptrap. I feel embarrassed when Rishi mentions it.
How does that work because all you do with road pricing is move the tax from being paid at the pump to being paid per mile on the road - you haven't changed anything beyond when and how it's collected. You haven't done anything to make the commute time shorter.
He suggests that road pricing will smooth traffic flow as people respond to paying full cost of congestion during peak hours.
He references Singapore where, as he notes, average urban traffic speeds have *sped up* in recent years as congestion as decreased.
Crudely speaking multinationals, particularly American ones, are more motivated by relative headline tax rates as well as incentive rates on income (like Patent box) when deciding on where to invest. The biggest driver for them at the moment is actually the falling US headline rate plus their FDII rate which incentivise them to keep international profits at home. If we want IP and corporate HQs in the UK then this is the more important group.
Domestic focused business with large capital requirements and long term investment horizons are more influenced by NPV and cashflow so pay more heed to capital allowances, the superdeduction (if it had been trailed earlier) and other reliefs. If we want industrial, infrastructure and R&D investment then this lot are important.
Government probably can't afford to keep both happy - though as CT only brings in around 50-70bn a year in theory they could try - so they will probably need to decide which group of investors and investment is more important.
Hence my original comment, "you wish": I think you suspect just how prevalent these attitudes are in the Labour party, and you really want it to be just as true for the Conservatives. Because if it isn't, a good chunk of your worldview falls apart, and you are forced to confront just how awful identity politics actually is for improving the lot of minorities, and how much progress the Left has given up on by obsessing over what colour people's skin is.