Johnson was right to announce his departure when he did – politicalbetting.com
Johnson was right to announce his departure when he did – politicalbetting.com
One of the most positive things that will be said about Johnson is the manner of his exit. He read how opinion was moving and his announcement was absolutely right. It was him taking the initiative.
Comments
-
Test0
-
I just ate in the same restaurant as Marjorie Taylor Greene. What she was doing in the hotbed of liberalism that is West LA, I'm not clear...1
-
Betfair next prime minister
1.06 Liz Truss 94%
17 Rishi Sunak 6%
Next Conservative leader
1.06 Liz Truss 94%
17 Rishi Sunak 6%0 -
It is the last Conservative hustings tonight, 7-9pm.0
-
There is a certain cognitive dissonance out there. As per the header most think Johnson was right to go, but many think the Tories will regret it, 53% of Con voters.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/08/30/66ff7/20 -
Thanks for these updates. It is useful to have them available in the archives to look at what people were thinking at the time. There are some who are only wise after the event.DecrepiterJohnL said:Betfair next prime minister
1.06 Liz Truss 94%
17 Rishi Sunak 6%
Next Conservative leader
1.06 Liz Truss 94%
17 Rishi Sunak 6%
I don't see much value here.
My mum voted Truss. The deciding thing apparently was when Sunak said at one hustings that if he was in his Twenties again, he would stay in California. She saw it as disloyal. A bit ironic though, as my folks did emigrate to the States themselves, albeit in their thirties!
1 -
Sad news about Mikhael Gorbachev overnight. RIP, one of the good guys who did everything to bring about peace.
Sadly, his last memories of Russia will have been those of war.1 -
We really should have a thread on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of the people's princess.0
-
A rare Russian reformer, but they never seem to last long before chaos then tyranny resume.Sandpit said:Sad news about Mikhael Gorbachev overnight. RIP, one of the good guys who did everything to bring about peace.
Sadly, his last memories of Russia will have been those of war.
The collapse of the Iron curtain in 1989-90 was a world changing moment, and Gorbachev was key to it going off relatively peacefully. We in the West squandered the possibility of a reformed Russia, preferring a corrupt oligarchy until that turned sour. The best thing that we did was to bring Eastern Europe into the EU, into the mainstream of European society, and soon to be joined by Ukraine and Georgia.0 -
So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls1 -
If she had lived on, how would she be seen now?TheScreamingEagles said:We really should have a thread on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of the people's princess.
Vilified by the tabloids that adored her when young is my speculation.0 -
Sadly, the royal story in the news today is her daughter-in-law, who appears to think that the world revolves around herself.TheScreamingEagles said:We really should have a thread on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of the people's princess.
1 -
That's not dissonance - just acknowledgment of the likely replacement.Foxy said:There is a certain cognitive dissonance out there. As per the header most think Johnson was right to go, but many think the Tories will regret it, 53% of Con voters.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/08/30/66ff7/2
Frying pan; fire.0 -
Name on shiny project.TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls0 -
I don't think the Prince of Wales could have married that ghastly Parker-Bowles woman whilst Diana, Princess of Wales was alive, so I reckon we'd have seen some proper vicious briefings on both sides.Foxy said:
If she had lived on, how would she be seen now?TheScreamingEagles said:We really should have a thread on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of the people's princess.
Vilified by the tabloids that adored her when young is my speculation.0 -
Declassified documents don't still have classified cover sheets.
https://mobile.twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1564820846786535425
DOJ publishes information from FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, includes photograph of documents taken from the White House by Donald Trump after his Presidency. SECRET/SCI markings clearly visible.0 -
The 1922 should have been counting the votes as they came in - with no opportunity to change your mind. They are clearly already checking received votes against membership lists. Once one candidate had secured 50% + 1 of the total possible votes cast, they should have declared the winner. We would probably have had a new PM taking decisions a couple of weeks back.DecrepiterJohnL said:It is the last Conservative hustings tonight, 7-9pm.
Anybody that wanted to see the candidates at hustings could have done so weeks ago, on Zoom.2 -
I wish the uk press would just stop printing anything about her. But they love a bit of it don’t they, because they know the mere mention of her raises the blood pressure in their customers and drives clicks. I’m not sure there’s a more annoyingly banal person in public life right now. Even the Kardashians flaunt their banality with a degree of knowingness, which tempers it somewhat.Sandpit said:
Sadly, the royal story in the news today is her daughter-in-law, who appears to think that the world revolves around herself.TheScreamingEagles said:We really should have a thread on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of the people's princess.
2 -
Hard to understand why the chumleys at the top thought this all a good idea. Whole summer has been wasted.MarqueeMark said:
The 1922 should have been counting the votes as they came in - with no opportunity to change your mind. They are clearly already checking received votes against membership lists. Once one candidate had secured 50% + 1 of the total possible votes cast, they should have declared the winner. We would probably have had a new PM taking decisions a couple of weeks back.DecrepiterJohnL said:It is the last Conservative hustings tonight, 7-9pm.
Anybody that wanted to see the candidates at hustings could have done so weeks ago, on Zoom.
2 -
Yes, the Tabloids love their Two Minutes Hate. It gives their readers something to tut over in the morningsmoonshine said:
I wish the uk press would just stop printing anything about her. But they love a bit of it don’t they, because they know the mere mention of her raises the blood pressure in their customers and drives clicks. I’m not sure there’s a more annoyingly banal person in public life right now. Even the Kardashians flaunt their banality with a degree of knowingness, which tempers it somewhat.Sandpit said:
Sadly, the royal story in the news today is her daughter-in-law, who appears to think that the world revolves around herself.TheScreamingEagles said:We really should have a thread on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of the people's princess.
2 -
Sadly, negative emotions sell newspapers, get clicks & likes. Hence the Mail has something like 20 articles about her today, knowing that their audience will ‘engage’ with the ‘content’. As you say, she’s best ignored.moonshine said:
I wish the uk press would just stop printing anything about her. But they love a bit of it don’t they, because they know the mere mention of her raises the blood pressure in their customers and drives clicks. I’m not sure there’s a more annoyingly banal person in public life right now. Even the Kardashians flaunt their banality with a degree of knowingness, which tempers it somewhat.Sandpit said:
Sadly, the royal story in the news today is her daughter-in-law, who appears to think that the world revolves around herself.TheScreamingEagles said:We really should have a thread on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of the people's princess.
0 -
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.0 -
Boris Johnson parted company with ‘normal’ rather a long time ago.rcs1000 said:
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.0 -
He's also allowed the civil service to shunt the Cumbria coal mine into the repair yard. What an utterly useless [wordthatgetsyoubanned]TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls0 -
If he's effectively signed over £30bn to someone, 'a nice thing' will no doubt be bestowed at some point.Nigelb said:
Name on shiny project.TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls0 -
I cannot read the Times article, but the Guardian implies it's private funding, so probably arranged as you say:rcs1000 said:
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.
"The prime minister and the chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, approved financing for the construction of two new reactors known as Sizewell C, enabling private funding of about £20-30bn to be raised."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/21/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-funding-approved-despite-tory-split0 -
How long is the term on a fixed-price contract to buy electricity for £X per kWh likely to be?JosiasJessop said:
I cannot read the Times article, but the Guardian implies it's private funding, so probably arranged as you say:rcs1000 said:
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.
"The prime minister and the chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, approved financing for the construction of two new reactors known as Sizewell C, enabling private funding of about £20-30bn to be raised."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/21/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-funding-approved-despite-tory-split0 -
Followed by clapping in the street to show our appreciation....?DecrepiterJohnL said:It is the last Conservative hustings tonight, 7-9pm.
3 -
It'll be twenty years on a fixed rate plus RPI basis, presumably based on the Areva/Framatone EPR design.Gallowgate said:How long is the term on a fixed-price contract to buy electricity for £X per kWh likely to be?
JosiasJessop said:
I cannot read the Times article, but the Guardian implies it's private funding, so probably arranged as you say:rcs1000 said:
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.
"The prime minister and the chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, approved financing for the construction of two new reactors known as Sizewell C, enabling private funding of about £20-30bn to be raised."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/21/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-funding-approved-despite-tory-split0 -
They'd probably prefer the clap to the rogering they will get at the next election.Peter_the_Punter said:
Followed by clapping in the street to show our appreciation....?DecrepiterJohnL said:It is the last Conservative hustings tonight, 7-9pm.
0 -
No idea.Gallowgate said:How long is the term on a fixed-price contract to buy electricity for £X per kWh likely to be?
JosiasJessop said:
I cannot read the Times article, but the Guardian implies it's private funding, so probably arranged as you say:rcs1000 said:
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.
"The prime minister and the chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, approved financing for the construction of two new reactors known as Sizewell C, enabling private funding of about £20-30bn to be raised."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/21/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-funding-approved-despite-tory-split0 -
Did anybody know about this mad if completely harmless tradition?
"In the documentary Secrets of the Royal Kitchen, former royal chef Graham Newbould revealed: "The royals never have square sandwiches because tradition has it that anyone presenting them with pointed-edged food is trying to overthrow the throne of England."
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/the-queen-royals-pointy-food-24886506?fbclid=IwAR0J2xF5SuYD7n_YkIsN79pA_yNxAv1H2IXjKGCup2GOIQt6u3qYGtmQlyw1 -
Its a preposterous system. But it does raise the possibility that members, having seen Mistress truss and her "let them eat blankets" response to the growing financial disaster, would change their vote for Sunak. Would be an entertainingly mega turn-up.MarqueeMark said:
The 1922 should have been counting the votes as they came in - with no opportunity to change your mind. They are clearly already checking received votes against membership lists. Once one candidate had secured 50% + 1 of the total possible votes cast, they should have declared the winner. We would probably have had a new PM taking decisions a couple of weeks back.DecrepiterJohnL said:It is the last Conservative hustings tonight, 7-9pm.
Anybody that wanted to see the candidates at hustings could have done so weeks ago, on Zoom.0 -
So what shape are they? Do we actually have somebody cutting bread into circles?Fishing said:Did anybody know about this mad if completely harmless tradition?
"In the documentary Secrets of the Royal Kitchen, former royal chef Graham Newbould revealed: "The royals never have square sandwiches because tradition has it that anyone presenting them with pointed-edged food is trying to overthrow the throne of England."
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/the-queen-royals-pointy-food-24886506?fbclid=IwAR0J2xF5SuYD7n_YkIsN79pA_yNxAv1H2IXjKGCup2GOIQt6u3qYGtmQlyw0 -
WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.0 -
Talks about "jam pennies" which must be round, surely. THough when HMtQ was little.ydoethur said:
So what shape are they? Do we actually have somebody cutting bread into circles?Fishing said:Did anybody know about this mad if completely harmless tradition?
"In the documentary Secrets of the Royal Kitchen, former royal chef Graham Newbould revealed: "The royals never have square sandwiches because tradition has it that anyone presenting them with pointed-edged food is trying to overthrow the throne of England."
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/the-queen-royals-pointy-food-24886506?fbclid=IwAR0J2xF5SuYD7n_YkIsN79pA_yNxAv1H2IXjKGCup2GOIQt6u3qYGtmQlyw0 -
Probably. And the resulting shavings are given to the poor on ye tenth Sundaye after Candlemas.ydoethur said:
So what shape are they? Do we actually have somebody cutting bread into circles?Fishing said:Did anybody know about this mad if completely harmless tradition?
"In the documentary Secrets of the Royal Kitchen, former royal chef Graham Newbould revealed: "The royals never have square sandwiches because tradition has it that anyone presenting them with pointed-edged food is trying to overthrow the throne of England."
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/the-queen-royals-pointy-food-24886506?fbclid=IwAR0J2xF5SuYD7n_YkIsN79pA_yNxAv1H2IXjKGCup2GOIQt6u3qYGtmQlyw1 -
Doiesn't that leave open the salient question (they "approved financing") of how much public money will be injected as well, now or later during operation?JosiasJessop said:
I cannot read the Times article, but the Guardian implies it's private funding, so probably arranged as you say:rcs1000 said:
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.
"The prime minister and the chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, approved financing for the construction of two new reactors known as Sizewell C, enabling private funding of about £20-30bn to be raised."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/21/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-funding-approved-despite-tory-split0 -
That GDP figure reflects the falling population, though. Per capita it's much closer.CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.0 -
.
Going to be expensive, if compared to doing it a decade ago, then.rcs1000 said:
It'll be twenty years on a fixed rate plus RPI basis, presumably based on the Areva/Framatone EPR design.Gallowgate said:How long is the term on a fixed-price contract to buy electricity for £X per kWh likely to be?
JosiasJessop said:
I cannot read the Times article, but the Guardian implies it's private funding, so probably arranged as you say:rcs1000 said:
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.
"The prime minister and the chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, approved financing for the construction of two new reactors known as Sizewell C, enabling private funding of about £20-30bn to be raised."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/21/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-funding-approved-despite-tory-split
0 -
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon?CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.0 -
The capital cost is quite cheap when you amortise it even over 25 years yet alone 60. I don’t know why the state doesn’t just fund this stuff upfront with long term gilts and farm out the operation to the private sector.rcs1000 said:
It'll be twenty years on a fixed rate plus RPI basis,Gallowgate said:How long is the term on a fixed-price contract to buy electricity for £X per kWh likely to be?
JosiasJessop said:
I cannot read the Times article, but the Guardian implies it's private funding, so probably arranged as you say:rcs1000 said:
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.
"The prime minister and the chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, approved financing for the construction of two new reactors known as Sizewell C, enabling private funding of about £20-30bn to be raised."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/21/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-funding-approved-despite-tory-split
presumably based on the Areva/Framatone EPR
design.
0 -
All the hustings have been downstreamed on Youtube, and there were the broadcast debates on Channel 4, ITV and BBC1 before that, and half a debate on Talk TV that was cut short when the presenter fainted. So yes, there is no need for ten party hustings around the country at which Rishi made the same introduction each time and at least Liz Truss had the sense to localise her introductions, normally by promising to widen a local road.MarqueeMark said:
The 1922 should have been counting the votes as they came in - with no opportunity to change your mind. They are clearly already checking received votes against membership lists. Once one candidate had secured 50% + 1 of the total possible votes cast, they should have declared the winner. We would probably have had a new PM taking decisions a couple of weeks back.DecrepiterJohnL said:It is the last Conservative hustings tonight, 7-9pm.
Anybody that wanted to see the candidates at hustings could have done so weeks ago, on Zoom.
There is a question as to whether votes are checked against membership lists, as well as if membership lists are up to date. On yesterday's thread we briefly discussed a legal move to check these details. There might be a judicial review, although that too is proceeding with a stunning lack of urgency.
https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2022/08/30/our-case-for-judicial-review-30-august-2022/
We should note that while the Conservative government affects to believe photo ID is essential for the security of elections, the Conservative Party is more relaxed about security when electing a new Prime Minister. Perhaps it feels less need to suppress Labour votes!1 -
This is the sort of claim that is so obviously b/s (or overplayed) that you must be a simple-minded fool to believe it.Fishing said:Did anybody know about this mad if completely harmless tradition?
"In the documentary Secrets of the Royal Kitchen, former royal chef Graham Newbould revealed: "The royals never have square sandwiches because tradition has it that anyone presenting them with pointed-edged food is trying to overthrow the throne of England."
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/the-queen-royals-pointy-food-24886506?fbclid=IwAR0J2xF5SuYD7n_YkIsN79pA_yNxAv1H2IXjKGCup2GOIQt6u3qYGtmQlyw
A bit like when Paxman got into trouble over a claim about Prince Charles and boiled eggs...0 -
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?0 -
This is not good.
The comparison with S Korea is particularly telling. And note, they still have significant heavy industry, too.
Depressed by how terribly Britain comes out of this chart comparing r&d spending...
https://mobile.twitter.com/bibivanderzee/status/15648542263455088662 -
If the Royal chefs nip down to any supermarket, they can buy round loaves. Problem solved.Fishing said:
Probably. And the resulting shavings are given to the poor on ye tenth Sundaye after Candlemas.ydoethur said:
So what shape are they? Do we actually have somebody cutting bread into circles?Fishing said:Did anybody know about this mad if completely harmless tradition?
"In the documentary Secrets of the Royal Kitchen, former royal chef Graham Newbould revealed: "The royals never have square sandwiches because tradition has it that anyone presenting them with pointed-edged food is trying to overthrow the throne of England."
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/the-queen-royals-pointy-food-24886506?fbclid=IwAR0J2xF5SuYD7n_YkIsN79pA_yNxAv1H2IXjKGCup2GOIQt6u3qYGtmQlyw0 -
The other thing to bear in mind is the international comparison - Spain, Italy, Korea, Japan are in much worse trouble.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
(The Nordics look ok though).0 -
Rishi at least had a plan to address this by raising corporation tax and then giving companies tax allowances for investment and R&D. Liz Truss prefers to keep on with George Osborne's policy that after ten years has produced little discernible benefit.Nigelb said:This is not good.
The comparison with S Korea is particularly telling. And note, they still have significant heavy industry, too.
Depressed by how terribly Britain comes out of this chart comparing r&d spending...
https://mobile.twitter.com/bibivanderzee/status/1564854226345508866
1 -
Yes - it’s -0.1% on a per head basis:Eabhal said:
That GDP figure reflects the falling population, though. Per capita it's much closer.CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564538506487160833
Per year. For 50 years.
0 -
And???? that's been the case since time immemorial...Nigelb said:This is not good.
The comparison with S Korea is particularly telling. And note, they still have significant heavy industry, too.
Depressed by how terribly Britain comes out of this chart comparing r&d spending...
https://mobile.twitter.com/bibivanderzee/status/1564854226345508866
It's a point I've made here for years - we throw cheap labour at problems rather than investing money because the Government does not provide sufficient incentive (100% corporate tax rebates minimum) on investment...0 -
Lower proportion of immigrant families who tend to have larger families?Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
0 -
I don't think we chose to squander Russia, we tried for many years to bring Russia in from the cold, and we succeeded as you say with most of Eastern Europe. Unfortunately Russia's leaders chose that a gangster state would be better for them than the path of freedom. That wasn't our choice.Foxy said:
A rare Russian reformer, but they never seem to last long before chaos then tyranny resume.Sandpit said:Sad news about Mikhael Gorbachev overnight. RIP, one of the good guys who did everything to bring about peace.
Sadly, his last memories of Russia will have been those of war.
The collapse of the Iron curtain in 1989-90 was a world changing moment, and Gorbachev was key to it going off relatively peacefully. We in the West squandered the possibility of a reformed Russia, preferring a corrupt oligarchy until that turned sour. The best thing that we did was to bring Eastern Europe into the EU, into the mainstream of European society, and soon to be joined by Ukraine and Georgia.
RIP Gorbachev. His legacy lives on in much of Eastern Europe now, but the fact that Gorbachev is viewed as a traitor now by Russia's leaders is part of why the Cold War should no longer be considered past tense regrettably.2 -
Thread on the Scottish Fiscal Commission Demographics Report:
https://twitter.com/scotfax/status/15646879898836828180 -
The point is the changing nature of the world economy - and the very obvious way in which developed countries' R&D spending has grown in recent years, while ours hasn't. That's likely as significant as the absolute levels.eek said:
And???? that's been the case since time immemorial...Nigelb said:This is not good.
The comparison with S Korea is particularly telling. And note, they still have significant heavy industry, too.
Depressed by how terribly Britain comes out of this chart comparing r&d spending...
https://mobile.twitter.com/bibivanderzee/status/1564854226345508866
Throwing cheap labour at problems is not exactly unknown in China, and yet...0 -
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.2 -
Scotland is slowly disappearing infront of our very eyes, but this report has just been quietly dropped to the public on a Tuesday afternoon.CarlottaVance said:Thread on the Scottish Fiscal Commission Demographics Report:
https://twitter.com/scotfax/status/1564687989883682818
0 -
I think Mike is right about this, 100%. I think there is a very good chance that Johnson returns to lead the Tories, perhaps after some time out of parliament. He may even be PM again.0
-
"analysts at Goldman Sachs said that inflation is at risk of peaking at more than 22pc in Britain if the energy costs continue to rocket."
Telegrph0 -
Yes, I think Rishi must be new to this politics game. One of the papers, possibly the Telegraph, said that was the moment his team instantly knew put the kybosh on his campaign.Foxy said:
Thanks for these updates. It is useful to have them available in the archives to look at what people were thinking at the time. There are some who are only wise after the event.DecrepiterJohnL said:Betfair next prime minister
1.06 Liz Truss 94%
17 Rishi Sunak 6%
Next Conservative leader
1.06 Liz Truss 94%
17 Rishi Sunak 6%
I don't see much value here.
My mum voted Truss. The deciding thing apparently was when Sunak said at one hustings that if he was in his Twenties again, he would stay in California. She saw it as disloyal. A bit ironic though, as my folks did emigrate to the States themselves, albeit in their thirties!
Absent any new information, you would expect Truss's price to fall steadily over the next week. However, as votes are counted, there is a risk of inside information leaking into the market (iirc this happened last time) so tread carefully.
0 -
Slight movement to Liz Truss this morning (not that there is much room for large swings that way)DecrepiterJohnL said:Betfair next prime minister
1.06 Liz Truss 94%
17 Rishi Sunak 6%
Next Conservative leader
1.06 Liz Truss 94%
17 Rishi Sunak 6%
Betfair next prime minister
1.05 Liz Truss 95%
17 Rishi Sunak 6%
Next Conservative leader
1.05 Liz Truss 95%
17.5 Rishi Sunak 6%0 -
And like the nuclear power discussion we spend our time regretting past underinvestment and bemoaning how expensive new investment is, paving the way for future regret about yet more underinvestment.eek said:
And???? that's been the case since time immemorial...Nigelb said:This is not good.
The comparison with S Korea is particularly telling. And note, they still have significant heavy industry, too.
Depressed by how terribly Britain comes out of this chart comparing r&d spending...
https://mobile.twitter.com/bibivanderzee/status/1564854226345508866
It's a point I've made here for years - we throw cheap labour at problems rather than investing money because the Government does not provide sufficient incentive (100% corporate tax rebates minimum) on investment...
I do think the R&D record is a little - but only a little - distorted by the services (particularly financial services) focus of the economy though. Innovation in financial instruments or insurance products, or fashion or children’s TV, doesn’t get into the R&D stats.
2 -
Agree, I'll see if I can back up with data later.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.
Your second paragraph is interesting. I have this feeling that as a region/country becomes less significant as a part of the whole, the more likely it will feel left out. Scotland used to be a much more important to part of the UK (Scots regiments in Empire/the Wars, Scottish monarchy, Glasgow as workshop of the world etc) and this relative decline had led to indy sentiment.
Perhaps exacerbated by the fact North Sea oil didn't really revitalise Scotland (and now Aberdeen is less expensive than Dundee....)1 -
Any population projection fifty years into the future is just a random guess.CarlottaVance said:
Yes - it’s -0.1% on a per head basis:Eabhal said:
That GDP figure reflects the falling population, though. Per capita it's much closer.CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564538506487160833
Per year. For 50 years.
Or is that the last 50 ?0 -
The "private sector" being subsidiaries of the French or Chinese governments.rcs1000 said:
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.0 -
Oh, I’m starting to warm to him.Luckyguy1983 said:
He's also allowed the civil service to shunt the Cumbria coal mine into the repair yard. What an utterly useless [wordthatgetsyoubanned]TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
The coal mine was an example of a very small project with an ability to do orders of magnitude greater damage to British soft power or influence on developing world environmental policies than it would ever generate either in GDP, energy security or indeed carbon emissions.1 -
A forecast would be a guess.Nigelb said:
Any population projection fifty years into the future is just a random guess.CarlottaVance said:
Yes - it’s -0.1% on a per head basis:Eabhal said:
That GDP figure reflects the falling population, though. Per capita it's much closer.CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564538506487160833
Per year. For 50 years.
Or is that the last 50 ?
A projection is just that - it projects current trends into the future. It assumes no nuclear war, aliens, civil war etc0 -
Much less iffy than GDP growth projections. A full generation is already baked in and the fertility rate does not change suddenly.Nigelb said:
Any population projection fifty years into the future is just a random guess.CarlottaVance said:
Yes - it’s -0.1% on a per head basis:Eabhal said:
That GDP figure reflects the falling population, though. Per capita it's much closer.CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564538506487160833
Per year. For 50 years.
Or is that the last 50 ?
0 -
For the former, what difference does that make?No_Offence_Alan said:
The "private sector" being subsidiaries of the French or Chinese governments.rcs1000 said:
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.
We should be wary of the Chinese, but if a subsidiary of the French are putting up the money they're doing so for private sector purposes, not for public sector purposes. They're seeking to make a profit, by being efficient, they're not seeking to do so in order to further the agenda of politicians, unions, civil servants or other "stakeholders".
If anyone can do it more efficiently than the French firm, then they're welcome to create a company and put up the investment themselves. If they can't, then the French subsidiary doing so is the private sector working properly.0 -
Sounds a stale custom in more ways than one.Fishing said:
Probably. And the resulting shavings are given to the poor on ye tenth Sundaye after Candlemas.ydoethur said:
So what shape are they? Do we actually have somebody cutting bread into circles?Fishing said:Did anybody know about this mad if completely harmless tradition?
"In the documentary Secrets of the Royal Kitchen, former royal chef Graham Newbould revealed: "The royals never have square sandwiches because tradition has it that anyone presenting them with pointed-edged food is trying to overthrow the throne of England."
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/the-queen-royals-pointy-food-24886506?fbclid=IwAR0J2xF5SuYD7n_YkIsN79pA_yNxAv1H2IXjKGCup2GOIQt6u3qYGtmQlyw0 -
GDP projections are based on productivity assumptions too. And who knows on that one.geoffw said:
Much less iffy than GDP growth projections. A full generation is already baked in and the fertility rate does not change suddenly.Nigelb said:
Any population projection fifty years into the future is just a random guess.CarlottaVance said:
Yes - it’s -0.1% on a per head basis:Eabhal said:
That GDP figure reflects the falling population, though. Per capita it's much closer.CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564538506487160833
Per year. For 50 years.
Or is that the last 50 ?
The last decade has been quite problematic for that.0 -
"The economy is about to go to hell in a handcart, with hundreds of thousands of households reduced to penury and aggregate demand hammered by soaring energy bills, yet neither of the candidates has anything worthwhile to say about it."
"The casualties are going to be off the scale if nothing is done."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/30/tories-have-forgotten-how-do-serious-economics/0 -
That's a rather odd argument. Do you use it against German soft power and their influence on developing world environmental policies, given Germany's vastly greater use of much worse types of coal?TimS said:
Oh, I’m starting to warm to him.Luckyguy1983 said:
He's also allowed the civil service to shunt the Cumbria coal mine into the repair yard. What an utterly useless [wordthatgetsyoubanned]TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
The coal mine was an example of a very small project with an ability to do orders of magnitude greater damage to British soft power or influence on developing world environmental policies than it would ever generate either in GDP, energy security or indeed carbon emissions.2 -
Given the twin factors of climate change and the growth in renewables, I would guess it will look silly in around ten years time, let alone fifty.Eabhal said:
A forecast would be a guess.Nigelb said:
Any population projection fifty years into the future is just a random guess.CarlottaVance said:
Yes - it’s -0.1% on a per head basis:Eabhal said:
That GDP figure reflects the falling population, though. Per capita it's much closer.CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564538506487160833
Per year. For 50 years.
Or is that the last 50 ?
A projection is just that - it projects current trends into the future. It assumes no nuclear war, aliens, civil war etc
0 -
...
3 -
Which is why the Scottish Government has a pro-migration policy being thwarted by the parochial jingoism south of the wall. Its another of the "unless something is done to address this, the arguments for independence go stronger" points. We need to fix the union if we are to stay together.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.0 -
Congratulations for passing Economics 1ANigelb said:
Given the twin factors of climate change and the growth in renewables, I would guess it will look silly in around ten years time, let alone fifty.Eabhal said:
A forecast would be a guess.Nigelb said:
Any population projection fifty years into the future is just a random guess.CarlottaVance said:
Yes - it’s -0.1% on a per head basis:Eabhal said:
That GDP figure reflects the falling population, though. Per capita it's much closer.CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564538506487160833
Per year. For 50 years.
Or is that the last 50 ?
A projection is just that - it projects current trends into the future. It assumes no nuclear war, aliens, civil war etc 0 -
Good morninggeoffw said:
Scotland is slowly disappearing infront of our very eyes, but this report has just been quietly dropped to the public on a Tuesday afternoon.CarlottaVance said:Thread on the Scottish Fiscal Commission Demographics Report:
https://twitter.com/scotfax/status/1564687989883682818
I am sure our SNP friends will reject this comment but I am increasingly of the opinion Sturgeon wants out and is working on a pathway to achieve this without loss of face
The prospect of indyref2 happening in the next few years is highly unlikely and while I am not a fan she is a consummate politician and will be looking into the future which frankly is a nightmare for all politicians.
An easier life beckons outside politics
And labour latest announcement to help business is to increase the tax on Amazon
They clearly have no idea of the scale of the crisis facing businesses which in one estimate said 170 billion would be needed to insulate them from this crisis
Labour produce superficially popular announcements but when examined they just do not address the scale of the problem and their spokesperson also refused to outline what they would do in six months when energy bills head to £6,0000 -
I do think that having much less of a say has been a driving force behind Nationalism. No one likes to be ignored or be irrelevant. Ask NI. But the Scotfax thread is interesting. As he/she correctly states this is a massive story with huge implications but quite clearly the Scottish government doesn't want to talk about it.Eabhal said:
Agree, I'll see if I can back up with data later.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.
Your second paragraph is interesting. I have this feeling that as a region/country becomes less significant as a part of the whole, the more likely it will feel left out. Scotland used to be a much more important to part of the UK (Scots regiments in Empire/the Wars, Scottish monarchy, Glasgow as workshop of the world etc) and this relative decline had led to indy sentiment.
Perhaps exacerbated by the fact North Sea oil didn't really revitalise Scotland (and now Aberdeen is less expensive than Dundee....)
One of his more startling statistics is that over that 50 years the UK population is expected to drop by 1.2m, 900k of which will be Scots!0 -
No, but immigration rates can.geoffw said:
Much less iffy than GDP growth projections. A full generation is already baked in and the fertility rate does not change suddenly.Nigelb said:
Any population projection fifty years into the future is just a random guess.CarlottaVance said:
Yes - it’s -0.1% on a per head basis:Eabhal said:
That GDP figure reflects the falling population, though. Per capita it's much closer.CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564538506487160833
Per year. For 50 years.
Or is that the last 50 ?
Which probably accounts for much of the last few decades disparity between England and Scotland ?0 -
"We in the West squandered the possibility of a reformed Russia"Foxy said:
A rare Russian reformer, but they never seem to last long before chaos then tyranny resume.Sandpit said:Sad news about Mikhael Gorbachev overnight. RIP, one of the good guys who did everything to bring about peace.
Sadly, his last memories of Russia will have been those of war.
The collapse of the Iron curtain in 1989-90 was a world changing moment, and Gorbachev was key to it going off relatively peacefully. We in the West squandered the possibility of a reformed Russia, preferring a corrupt oligarchy until that turned sour. The best thing that we did was to bring Eastern Europe into the EU, into the mainstream of European society, and soon to be joined by Ukraine and Georgia.
Russia's failure is f-all to do with us. In many ways the west bent over backwards to try to help Russia. From everything from cooperation in the ISS and space, to the dismantling of nuclear subs. to opening markets.
The oligarchy occurred because Russia allowed it to occur.3 -
EDF is a StateCo. The exact kind of company you said wasn't possible to be a success due it being state owned. Whilst it is Not Good that we are once again in hoc to foreign governments for energy, it does show us the way forward.BartholomewRoberts said:
For the former, what difference does that make?No_Offence_Alan said:
The "private sector" being subsidiaries of the French or Chinese governments.rcs1000 said:
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.
We should be wary of the Chinese, but if a subsidiary of the French are putting up the money they're doing so for private sector purposes, not for public sector purposes. They're seeking to make a profit, by being efficient, they're not seeking to do so in order to further the agenda of politicians, unions, civil servants or other "stakeholders".
If anyone can do it more efficiently than the French firm, then they're welcome to create a company and put up the investment themselves. If they can't, then the French subsidiary doing so is the private sector working properly.
Nuclear power costs £lots which puts it out of reach of the free market. It is a political football so is largely out of reach of political viability. So create BritZap, allow it to borrow money at government rates to invest in a multi-decade mandate to provide power for the middle of the century. Instead of having a foreign StateCo do this, why not have our own?2 -
While I believe in Scottish independence this point by you is very silly.RochdalePioneers said:
Which is why the Scottish Government has a pro-migration policy being thwarted by the parochial jingoism south of the wall. Its another of the "unless something is done to address this, the arguments for independence go stronger" points. We need to fix the union if we are to stay together.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.
Migration to Scotland is low because people don't want to emigrate to Scotland, by and large, not because of an absence of migration to the UK. Emigration from the rest of the world to the UK is still running at extremely high levels.
If the Scottish Government truly wants a pro-migration policy then they have two ways they could be seeking to address why people don't want to emigrate to Scotland as much as they want to emigrate to England and work to fix that problem. That is entirely within their own hands, but blaming London is far easier than actually doing their own job.0 -
Nobody has clear answers because the path through this is obvious. But opposition parties only having a partial answer is not going to drive them back to voting for a Tory Government who have demonstrated they have no ideas or understanding or compassion.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good morninggeoffw said:
Scotland is slowly disappearing infront of our very eyes, but this report has just been quietly dropped to the public on a Tuesday afternoon.CarlottaVance said:Thread on the Scottish Fiscal Commission Demographics Report:
https://twitter.com/scotfax/status/1564687989883682818
I am sure our SNP friends will reject this comment but I am increasingly of the opinion Sturgeon wants out and is working on a pathway to achieve this without loss of face
The prospect of indyref2 happening in the next few years is highly unlikely and while I am not a fan she is a consummate politician and will be looking into the future which frankly is a nightmare for all politicians.
An easier life beckons outside politics
And labour latest announcement to help business is to increase the tax on Amazon
They clearly have no idea of the scale of the crisis facing businesses which in one estimate said 170 billion would be needed to insulate them from this crisis
Labour produce superficially popular announcements but when examined they just do not address the scale of the problem and their spokesperson also refused to outline what they would do in six months when energy bills head to £6,0000 -
"Sizewell C was granted planning permission in July but is awaiting a formal government decision of whether to buy a stake in the plant and unlock private funding for a project whose costs are estimated at £20 billion to £30 billion. A final decision on how much taxpayers will put in, expected to be about £6 billion, is due next year, giving Truss an opportunity to reappraise the project."Carnyx said:
Doiesn't that leave open the salient question (they "approved financing") of how much public money will be injected as well, now or later during operation?JosiasJessop said:
I cannot read the Times article, but the Guardian implies it's private funding, so probably arranged as you say:rcs1000 said:
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.
"The prime minister and the chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, approved financing for the construction of two new reactors known as Sizewell C, enabling private funding of about £20-30bn to be raised."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/21/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-funding-approved-despite-tory-split
Very complicated to assess whether a deal like this is going to be value for money... but probably a good thing to get more nuclear.1 -
Yet another hack totally ignoring the £37,000,000,000 in support, that’s already been announced by the government.rottenborough said:"The economy is about to go to hell in a handcart, with hundreds of thousands of households reduced to penury and aggregate demand hammered by soaring energy bills, yet neither of the candidates has anything worthwhile to say about it."
"The casualties are going to be off the scale if nothing is done."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/30/tories-have-forgotten-how-do-serious-economics/
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-support-scheme-explainer
It’s fair to argue that it’s not enough, or that there’s no support yet for small businesses - but to ignore it completelty it totally disengenuous. We wonder why there’s so little trust in the media.2 -
And the "two ways" are …?BartholomewRoberts said:
While I believe in Scottish independence this point by you is very silly.RochdalePioneers said:
Which is why the Scottish Government has a pro-migration policy being thwarted by the parochial jingoism south of the wall. Its another of the "unless something is done to address this, the arguments for independence go stronger" points. We need to fix the union if we are to stay together.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.
Migration to Scotland is low because people don't want to emigrate to Scotland, by and large, not because of an absence of migration to the UK. Emigration from the rest of the world to the UK is still running at extremely high levels.
If the Scottish Government truly wants a pro-migration policy then they have two ways they could be seeking to address why people don't want to emigrate to Scotland as much as they want to emigrate to England and work to fix that problem. That is entirely within their own hands, but blaming London is far easier than actually doing their own job.
0 -
I categorically never said that StateCo's are "never" a success due to being state owned, I said they're rarely a success, EDF is the diamond in the rough.RochdalePioneers said:
EDF is a StateCo. The exact kind of company you said wasn't possible to be a success due it being state owned. Whilst it is Not Good that we are once again in hoc to foreign governments for energy, it does show us the way forward.BartholomewRoberts said:
For the former, what difference does that make?No_Offence_Alan said:
The "private sector" being subsidiaries of the French or Chinese governments.rcs1000 said:
Ummm ...TheScreamingEagles said:So why is Boris Johnson set to approve spending £30 billion on a nuclear power plant but will leave how many poor people will freeze to death to Truss?
Boris Johnson is poised to give approval this week for a nuclear power station costing up to £30 billion as ministers close in on a deal to reopen Britain’s biggest gas storage facility.
The prime minister is preparing to announce an in-principle agreement to offer funding to the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk before he leaves office, despite concerns about creating a multibillion-pound spending commitment for Liz Truss, the frontrunner to succeed him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ready-to-sign-off-on-30bn-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-fnnjds2ls
Normally the way this works is that the government agrees to buy electricity on a fixed price contract, and then the private sector puts up the money to build the plant.
We should be wary of the Chinese, but if a subsidiary of the French are putting up the money they're doing so for private sector purposes, not for public sector purposes. They're seeking to make a profit, by being efficient, they're not seeking to do so in order to further the agenda of politicians, unions, civil servants or other "stakeholders".
If anyone can do it more efficiently than the French firm, then they're welcome to create a company and put up the investment themselves. If they can't, then the French subsidiary doing so is the private sector working properly.
Nuclear power costs £lots which puts it out of reach of the free market. It is a political football so is largely out of reach of political viability. So create BritZap, allow it to borrow money at government rates to invest in a multi-decade mandate to provide power for the middle of the century. Instead of having a foreign StateCo do this, why not have our own?
Survivorship bias means that EDF has outlasted all the other StateCo's in that sector because it is good at its job and knows what it is doing.
Why not create BritZap? Because BritZap won't be as efficient as EDF. If you have a way of making a firm more efficient than EDF then do so in the private sector without state involvement, if you can't, then EDF is the better option.0 -
Its not being thwarted by jingoism. Not only is recorded immigration currently at record levels (I emphasise the word "recorded" because we frankly have no idea how many EU citizens moved here, not even to the nearest couple of million) but rUk does not need immigration as much as Scotland because it is simply not facing this demographic time bomb.RochdalePioneers said:
Which is why the Scottish Government has a pro-migration policy being thwarted by the parochial jingoism south of the wall. Its another of the "unless something is done to address this, the arguments for independence go stronger" points. We need to fix the union if we are to stay together.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.
Scotland does have a pro immigration stance, and rightly so, but it makes no difference when the Scottish government shows so little interest in the Scottish economy and Nicola's eyes glaze over when economics is mentioned.
As I have said before on here a government that was serious about independence would be doing all within its considerable range of powers to attract new businesses to Scotland, to improve rather than damage our tax competitiveness, to overcome the infrastructure issues that impede investment and to improve our education systems so that we have the skilled workforce of tomorrow. If the SG was doing these things and the jobs were being created people would come to fill those jobs. But it is so much easier to whine and blame the Tories.8 -
From what I've read on the subject I think you could argue that if anything the West got too involved in transforming Russia. The abrupt switch to a market economy caused a lot of trouble and damage that the crooks were able to exploit, as they were the people with the capital and connections. Russia might have been better off with a much slower change, even if that meant the remnants of the Communist Party had clinged on to power for another decade or so.BartholomewRoberts said:I don't think we chose to squander Russia, we tried for many years to bring Russia in from the cold, and we succeeded as you say with most of Eastern Europe. Unfortunately Russia's leaders chose that a gangster state would be better for them than the path of freedom. That wasn't our choice.
2 -
The UK - Aka “England” - has some of the most liberal immigration policies on earth. We dished out 1m visas last yearRochdalePioneers said:
Which is why the Scottish Government has a pro-migration policy being thwarted by the parochial jingoism south of the wall. Its another of the "unless something is done to address this, the arguments for independence go stronger" points. We need to fix the union if we are to stay together.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.
If 99.9% of these people settle south of Berwick you must look to other reasons than “parochial jingoism”
2 -
Sorry I wrote that sentence badly. Two ways to get more migrants.geoffw said:
And the "two ways" are …?BartholomewRoberts said:
While I believe in Scottish independence this point by you is very silly.RochdalePioneers said:
Which is why the Scottish Government has a pro-migration policy being thwarted by the parochial jingoism south of the wall. Its another of the "unless something is done to address this, the arguments for independence go stronger" points. We need to fix the union if we are to stay together.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.
Migration to Scotland is low because people don't want to emigrate to Scotland, by and large, not because of an absence of migration to the UK. Emigration from the rest of the world to the UK is still running at extremely high levels.
If the Scottish Government truly wants a pro-migration policy then they have two ways they could be seeking to address why people don't want to emigrate to Scotland as much as they want to emigrate to England and work to fix that problem. That is entirely within their own hands, but blaming London is far easier than actually doing their own job.
1: (What Rochdale suggested) Go independent and have own immigration policy.
2: (My alternative) Address why people don't want to emigrate to Scotland and get more migrants as the UK already is doing.
Going independent isn't the only way to have more immigration, if people from the rest of the world wanted to migrate to Scotland then Scotland could be receiving many more migrants under the existing immigration framework.
Why fewer people want to emigrate to Scotland than England, even proportionately, is a question that the Scottish Government studiously ignores.2 -
Perhaps if Scotland had seen much more immigration then similar concerns as have occurred in places in England would have happened there too. Many ‘native’ English, for whatever that means, are not so much racist, but have concerns about the rapidity of change of culture, life etc in their places of origin. With such a slow trickle into Scotland, similar changes have not happened. Perhaps remember that when decrying the racists of England.RochdalePioneers said:
Which is why the Scottish Government has a pro-migration policy being thwarted by the parochial jingoism south of the wall. Its another of the "unless something is done to address this, the arguments for independence go stronger" points. We need to fix the union if we are to stay together.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.2 -
The UK has been London and SE-centric for a long time. Like so many graduates I found myself in London and could easily have been there for the long term had I not largely hated the experience. The pull to where the money is affects Scots and Welsh and NornIrish as much as it did this Lancastrian.BartholomewRoberts said:
While I believe in Scottish independence this point by you is very silly.RochdalePioneers said:
Which is why the Scottish Government has a pro-migration policy being thwarted by the parochial jingoism south of the wall. Its another of the "unless something is done to address this, the arguments for independence go stronger" points. We need to fix the union if we are to stay together.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.
Migration to Scotland is low because people don't want to emigrate to Scotland, by and large, not because of an absence of migration to the UK. Emigration from the rest of the world to the UK is still running at extremely high levels.
If the Scottish Government truly wants a pro-migration policy then they have two ways they could be seeking to address why people don't want to emigrate to Scotland as much as they want to emigrate to England and work to fix that problem. That is entirely within their own hands, but blaming London is far easier than actually doing their own job.
0 -
Scotland has its own Government that could be working to make Scotland more attractive than London and the SE. If Sturgeon put half as much effort into creating a good business environment as she does into trying to blame the Tories, then maybe Edinburgh, Glasgow and elsewhere would be locations with good jobs that people would rather move to instead of London.RochdalePioneers said:BartholomewRoberts said:
While I believe in Scottish independence this point by you is very silly.RochdalePioneers said:
Which is why the Scottish Government has a pro-migration policy being thwarted by the parochial jingoism south of the wall. Its another of the "unless something is done to address this, the arguments for independence go stronger" points. We need to fix the union if we are to stay together.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.
Migration to Scotland is low because people don't want to emigrate to Scotland, by and large, not because of an absence of migration to the UK. Emigration from the rest of the world to the UK is still running at extremely high levels.
If the Scottish Government truly wants a pro-migration policy then they have two ways they could be seeking to address why people don't want to emigrate to Scotland as much as they want to emigrate to England and work to fix that problem. That is entirely within their own hands, but blaming London is far easier than actually doing their own job.
The UK has been London and SE-centric for a long time. Like so many graduates I found myself in London and could easily have been there for the long term had I not largely hated the experience. The pull to where the money is affects Scots and Welsh and NornIrish as much as it did this Lancastrian.BartholomewRoberts said:
While I believe in Scottish independence this point by you is very silly.RochdalePioneers said:
Which is why the Scottish Government has a pro-migration policy being thwarted by the parochial jingoism south of the wall. Its another of the "unless something is done to address this, the arguments for independence go stronger" points. We need to fix the union if we are to stay together.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.
Migration to Scotland is low because people don't want to emigrate to Scotland, by and large, not because of an absence of migration to the UK. Emigration from the rest of the world to the UK is still running at extremely high levels.
If the Scottish Government truly wants a pro-migration policy then they have two ways they could be seeking to address why people don't want to emigrate to Scotland as much as they want to emigrate to England and work to fix that problem. That is entirely within their own hands, but blaming London is far easier than actually doing their own job.8 -
Can't do much about those things in the decaying husk of the current union settlement. Create a new UK fit for the future with full home rule for each nation and maybe. As for infrastructure, I see way more investment in roads and rail and broadband than I did in England.DavidL said:
Its not being thwarted by jingoism. Not only is recorded immigration currently at record levels (I emphasise the word "recorded" because we frankly have no idea how many EU citizens moved here, not even to the nearest couple of million) but rUk does not need immigration as much as Scotland because it is simply not facing this demographic time bomb.RochdalePioneers said:
Which is why the Scottish Government has a pro-migration policy being thwarted by the parochial jingoism south of the wall. Its another of the "unless something is done to address this, the arguments for independence go stronger" points. We need to fix the union if we are to stay together.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.
Scotland does have a pro immigration stance, and rightly so, but it makes no difference when the Scottish government shows so little interest in the Scottish economy and Nicola's eyes glaze over when economics is mentioned.
As I have said before on here a government that was serious about independence would be doing all within its considerable range of powers to attract new businesses to Scotland, to improve rather than damage our tax competitiveness, to overcome the infrastructure issues that impede investment and to improve our education systems so that we have the skilled workforce of tomorrow. If the SG was doing these things and the jobs were being created people would come to fill those jobs. But it is so much easier to whine and blame the Tories.0 -
Well one of them would be independence.geoffw said:
And the "two ways" are …?BartholomewRoberts said:
While I believe in Scottish independence this point by you is very silly.RochdalePioneers said:
Which is why the Scottish Government has a pro-migration policy being thwarted by the parochial jingoism south of the wall. Its another of the "unless something is done to address this, the arguments for independence go stronger" points. We need to fix the union if we are to stay together.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.
Migration to Scotland is low because people don't want to emigrate to Scotland, by and large, not because of an absence of migration to the UK. Emigration from the rest of the world to the UK is still running at extremely high levels.
If the Scottish Government truly wants a pro-migration policy then they have two ways they could be seeking to address why people don't want to emigrate to Scotland as much as they want to emigrate to England and work to fix that problem. That is entirely within their own hands, but blaming London is far easier than actually doing their own job.
It would mean, for example, that the SNP no longer had a monopoly on government.
An independent Scotland could join the EU - which would facilitate migration through freedom of movement.
It would also find it much easier to achieve full energy self sufficiency than would the UK as a whole, both in absolute terms, and in terms of the financing.
It would be a pretty tough first decade for any independent Scottish government - which if there is ever another referendum would be the basis of the No campaign - but it's entirely feasible. And if those population projections are anywhere near the reality, they make quite a compelling case for it.
Well done, @CarlottaVance .0 -
Is that not partly as each Scottish citizen gets two grand a year more U.K. government spend than those in England each year?RochdalePioneers said:
Can't do much about those things in the decaying husk of the current union settlement. Create a new UK fit for the future with full home rule for each nation and maybe. As for infrastructure, I see way more investment in roads and rail and broadband than I did in England.DavidL said:
Its not being thwarted by jingoism. Not only is recorded immigration currently at record levels (I emphasise the word "recorded" because we frankly have no idea how many EU citizens moved here, not even to the nearest couple of million) but rUk does not need immigration as much as Scotland because it is simply not facing this demographic time bomb.RochdalePioneers said:
Which is why the Scottish Government has a pro-migration policy being thwarted by the parochial jingoism south of the wall. Its another of the "unless something is done to address this, the arguments for independence go stronger" points. We need to fix the union if we are to stay together.DavidL said:
I would guess that we have a much smaller immigrant population than rUK and the propensity of immigrants to have larger families has kept the birth rate above replacement for rUk but not for us. The massive scale of immigration in England in particular has also kept the working age/total population ratio at a much healthier place.Eabhal said:
Quite a large chunk of net migration comes from RUK, too. A dilemma, from an indy perspective.DavidL said:
We are going to need a lot of immigration to offset that. A working population down to 56% would be beyond disastrous without a productivity miracle which has not shown any signs of existing yet. But how do we persuade any newcomers to stay here when the bright, shiny lights of London beckon??CarlottaVance said:WATCH: Our Chair, Professor Graeme Roy, discusses the key messages from our paper on trends in Scotland’s population and their effects on the economy and income tax, published this morning alongside our Fiscal Sustainability Report consultation paper.
https://twitter.com/scotfisccomm/status/1564540062146101248
In 50 years:
Scotland:
Population, -900,000 (-16%)
Working age population from 64%>56%, as a result
GDP -0.5% / year vs UK on average.
The bigger issue, imo, is that people have fewer kids in Scotland, even when taking account of our slightly older population compared with the UK. Why?
These have been longterm issues for Scotland. In the 1951 census the Scottish population was 5,095,969. It has not even grown 10% since then. In1951 the population of England was 41,164,356 and it is now 56,489,800 an increase of 37%. This has had political consequences. Scotland forms a significantly smaller proportion of MPs than it did 70 years ago. This trend looks set to continue.
Scotland does have a pro immigration stance, and rightly so, but it makes no difference when the Scottish government shows so little interest in the Scottish economy and Nicola's eyes glaze over when economics is mentioned.
As I have said before on here a government that was serious about independence would be doing all within its considerable range of powers to attract new businesses to Scotland, to improve rather than damage our tax competitiveness, to overcome the infrastructure issues that impede investment and to improve our education systems so that we have the skilled workforce of tomorrow. If the SG was doing these things and the jobs were being created people would come to fill those jobs. But it is so much easier to whine and blame the Tories.3 -
To be fair one of the two candidates is at least spot on with his observations about his opponents plans. He correctly observes they amount to an irrelevant damp squib.rottenborough said:"The economy is about to go to hell in a handcart, with hundreds of thousands of households reduced to penury and aggregate demand hammered by soaring energy bills, yet neither of the candidates has anything worthwhile to say about it."
"The casualties are going to be off the scale if nothing is done."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/30/tories-have-forgotten-how-do-serious-economics/2
