Things can only get better (Starmer hopes) – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Big drop is US overdose deaths during the last twelve months.
https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1868747796486275226
Mainly the synthetic opioids, but a significant decrease in deaths from other drugs, too.0 -
The last election for the Liberals pre-Trudeau they got 34 seats, perhaps he's just trying to return them to the same point for whoever follows him?stodge said:Apologies if this has been covered but Trudeau’s Liberals have suffered a Sunakian drubbing in a federal by election in the beautifully named Cloverdale - Langley City riding.
The riding was unexpectedly lost by the Conservatives in the 2021 election but Tamara Jensen, the unsuccessful Conservative candidate, has had their revenge on the Liberals turning a 3-point loss into a 49-point lead on a 26% swing.
That’s about double the swing in the current federal polling which shows the Conservatives set to win a landslide at the next election on a swing of 12-13% from the September 2021 election.0 -
Something for Trump to take credit for in due course.Nigelb said:Big drop is US overdose deaths during the last twelve months.
https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1868747796486275226
Mainly the synthetic opioids, but a significant decrease in deaths from other drugs, too.0 -
There is time for Kier to turn things around, but of course, he won't!
This only ends one way - Which is Labout being ejected in 2029.
What we don't know is who will be replacing them!0 -
I'd go for 1). I think Labour did start with some goodwill.Foxy said:How much is down to the flat-footed approach of Starmer and Reeves?
How much down to a volatile electorate, who oppose and criticise everything?
And how much down to starting with no political capital (and no financial capital either)?
I don't think Labour have got the hang of comms from govt. Previously there was a tory cockup every week which made them look good.
I think in the modern era, they have to be interesting to cut through.
And currently they're too technocratic to get a hearing.1 -
The problem is that Reeves ruled out every other tax increase and refused to actually backtrack and increase one of the taxes she promised not to increase.Pulpstar said:
I don't think Hunt would have specifically raised employer NI. Other taxes, maybe but not E'er NI to the crippling degree Reeves has.BatteryCorrectHorse said:I feel like we’ve forgotten that if the Tories had been re-elected, they too would be raising taxes.
The irony is that she could have done so if she waited until March because by then Trump’s demand to increase military spending would be a vague justification1 -
An awful lot of us wanted to be inside the single market but either outside the EU or suitably detached from its long term ambitionsalgarkirk said:
This illustrates the insoluble problem. Both being in and out of the EU is, for the UK, highly unsatisfactory.theProle said:
The problem is that the EU regulations are often very poorly thought out and badly written. Most stuff we make is not for export, but internal consumption. No-one has ever disputed that to export to the EU we would have to meet their standards (their gaff, their rules!), the issue is that because their standards are often stupid and ultimately wealth destroying (e.g. I've spent many thousands of pounds and wasted countless hours completely pointlessly to comply with bits of the Pressure Equipment Directive which are plain wrong) we shouldn't be applying them for products made in the UK for UK consumption. That savings from regulating UK stuff intelligently* should be vastly more than the quoted £3 billion costs to exporters. If Starmer takes us back into compliance with all EU regulations, he's even more stupid that I thought he was.Dopermean said:
If companies want to export to the EU then they'll have to comply with EU standards, you can see it with the quiet abandonment of the UK standard mark prior to the GE. EU standards are a global recognised standard that are cited in technical specifications, you can have your own mark but it'll have to be equivalent to a global standard and thus becomes redundant, Any deviation just creates inefficiency.RochdalePioneers said:
Cue the populist right / mad Tories foaming on about how this would be the End Of Britain. True patriots will pay the stupidity tax.TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah.
Downing Street has refused to rule out returning Britain to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for the first time since Brexit as the price of Sir Keir Starmer’s reset with the bloc.
At a meeting this week ministers from the European Union are expected to demand that the government agrees to follow new and existing European law on food and agricultural standards as part of an improved trade deal.
Britain would also be obliged to follow rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in specific areas as part of a new trade and co-operation agreement.
Both issues were a red line for the former Conservative government when the original trade and co-operation agreement was signed. It resulted in the imposition of new checks and restrictions on UK exports to the EU that are believed to have cost the economy £3 billion a year.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/uk-could-return-to-eu-laws-as-keir-starmer-seeks-trade-deal-s7dfl5p92
*This does require that we regulate intelligently - unfortunately the last government mainly just transposed EU directives into UK law anyway, rather than considering them on their merits.
Very few were given the choices they wanted in 2016. What most wanted was this. Best: an EU which had been shaped differently by the UK being given referendums earlier. Second best: A reformed EU.
The first was unsayable by mainstream politicos, as they had all been complicit in this epic fail. The second, we concluded, was not going to happen.0 -
It’s terrible that Sir Keir is set to lose a majority. In 2029.
Tories still yet to come to terms with the fact they’ve actually lost. Focus groups as reported last night are still waiting for delivery.
It is delivery that matters. If Labour deliver stuff, they’ll get re-elected. People might not like SKS’s strategy - I myself am sceptical about some of it - but he’s following one. People just don’t like it.5 -
Thank-you. It's more than I month ago so I forgot what had gone across my desk.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes.MattW said:Good morning everyone, and thanks for the header.
Being Canadian by common acclamation, do we have a way of betting on Canadian politics sensibly?
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/11/16/the-conservatives-are-the-1-10-favourites-to-win-the-next-general-election/
I should be the next leader of the Conservative Party
.
If there's value this morning I'd say it's possibly the Liberals at 11/1 for the next Election. But it's volatile !2 -
...
No, Doctors, Nurses, Bobbies on the beat. Not quite there yet but heading in the right direction.noneoftheabove said:
Staff christmas parties? Centralise purchasing of stationery? Am I nearly there yet?eek said:
So you've saved £100-500m. now where are the rest of the savings coming from?noneoftheabove said:
Red tape, bureaucracy and diversity officers? Surely that is easily enough?eek said:
love to know what they would actually have cut - because they had run out of never-never options and the banks would need to see something actually being done...Alanbrooke said:
LOLBatteryCorrectHorse said:I feel like we’ve forgotten that if the Tories had been re-elected, they too would be raising taxes.
yes, but I dont think it would have been by £40 billion.0 -
Well he will need a few of those.kle4 said:
Something for Trump to take credit for in due course.Nigelb said:Big drop is US overdose deaths during the last twelve months.
https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1868747796486275226
Mainly the synthetic opioids, but a significant decrease in deaths from other drugs, too.0 -
Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.
But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?0 -
See my point about waiting - all she needed was a decent justification.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.
But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?
The next election is 2028/9 she had 3 years during which the tax increases would have been forgotten during which time things may have improved to ensure people forgot about them.
Get all you bad news dealt with early is something this government is failing to do and it’s going to bite them3 -
Gosh: a prissy, unimaginative and bossy lawyer is not popular!
One for the No Shit, Sherlock! award.0 -
That looks like another positive trend under Mr Biden for which Mr Trump will try and take credit.Nigelb said:Big drop is US overdose deaths during the last twelve months.
https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1868747796486275226
Mainly the synthetic opioids, but a significant decrease in deaths from other drugs, too.0 -
This coincides with liberal cities giving up on "harm reduction" strategies and shifting resources back to prevention. Though too early to say it's the cause though.Nigelb said:Big drop is US overdose deaths during the last twelve months.
https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1868747796486275226
Mainly the synthetic opioids, but a significant decrease in deaths from other drugs, too.1 -
Lawyers are the best, look at this chart.AnthonyT said:Gosh: a prissy, unimaginative and bossy lawyer is not popular!
One for the No Shit, Sherlock! award.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/10/20/the-scale-of-the-tory-challenge-and-why-being-a-lawyer-helps-jenrick/
0 -
The silly bugger has chosen a strategy that makes nobody happy. Look at his EU strategy: the few remaining brexiteers hate it and the pro-EU crowd hate it.... That is some god damn achievment. That seems to be the template for everything starmer does.0
-
Don’t disagree, but that’s all gone now. The issue for those advocating we align with the EU and ECJ is that the gains are marginal, but the risks quite high. We can already see it is taking silly positions on things like AI, and other major divergences are foreseeable. All that makes any long term alignment unsustainable, and we know we will never join the EU now. That’s a given because of the Euro, Schengen, etc.eek said:
An awful lot of us wanted to be inside the single market but either outside the EU or suitably detached from its long term ambitionsalgarkirk said:
This illustrates the insoluble problem. Both being in and out of the EU is, for the UK, highly unsatisfactory.theProle said:
The problem is that the EU regulations are often very poorly thought out and badly written. Most stuff we make is not for export, but internal consumption. No-one has ever disputed that to export to the EU we would have to meet their standards (their gaff, their rules!), the issue is that because their standards are often stupid and ultimately wealth destroying (e.g. I've spent many thousands of pounds and wasted countless hours completely pointlessly to comply with bits of the Pressure Equipment Directive which are plain wrong) we shouldn't be applying them for products made in the UK for UK consumption. That savings from regulating UK stuff intelligently* should be vastly more than the quoted £3 billion costs to exporters. If Starmer takes us back into compliance with all EU regulations, he's even more stupid that I thought he was.Dopermean said:
If companies want to export to the EU then they'll have to comply with EU standards, you can see it with the quiet abandonment of the UK standard mark prior to the GE. EU standards are a global recognised standard that are cited in technical specifications, you can have your own mark but it'll have to be equivalent to a global standard and thus becomes redundant, Any deviation just creates inefficiency.RochdalePioneers said:
Cue the populist right / mad Tories foaming on about how this would be the End Of Britain. True patriots will pay the stupidity tax.TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah.
Downing Street has refused to rule out returning Britain to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for the first time since Brexit as the price of Sir Keir Starmer’s reset with the bloc.
At a meeting this week ministers from the European Union are expected to demand that the government agrees to follow new and existing European law on food and agricultural standards as part of an improved trade deal.
Britain would also be obliged to follow rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in specific areas as part of a new trade and co-operation agreement.
Both issues were a red line for the former Conservative government when the original trade and co-operation agreement was signed. It resulted in the imposition of new checks and restrictions on UK exports to the EU that are believed to have cost the economy £3 billion a year.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/uk-could-return-to-eu-laws-as-keir-starmer-seeks-trade-deal-s7dfl5p92
*This does require that we regulate intelligently - unfortunately the last government mainly just transposed EU directives into UK law anyway, rather than considering them on their merits.
Very few were given the choices they wanted in 2016. What most wanted was this. Best: an EU which had been shaped differently by the UK being given referendums earlier. Second best: A reformed EU.
The first was unsayable by mainstream politicos, as they had all been complicit in this epic fail. The second, we concluded, was not going to happen.
4 -
I feel reasonably at home in the Lib Dems, with the occasional grumble (usually about opportunistic NIMBYism or specific unintelligent policy positions). I know we'll never be the government but I'm happy to be one of the 13% as it makes not a blind bit of difference in any elections where I live anyway.algarkirk said:
There is a downside as well to a lack of loyalty to political brands. Firstly because it displays the inadequacy of the brands themselves in conveying a philosophy, principle and policy deal which is credible, achievable and distinctive. Secondly it suggests they are all somehow the same. Thirdly it gives extra space to a Trumpian demagogue to work.TimS said:
I think the public is rather just not particularly loyal to any one political brand at the moment. That's kind of encouraging if it means we're a less partisan country. Quite the contrast with the US.carnforth said:
The odd part is he didn't really promise much - so it's not broken promises as such.FF43 said:We're seeing the anti incumbent effect when Starmer hasn't had time to be an incumbent.
Anti incumbent in advance as it were
The public must be particularly febrile these days.
Meanwhile the Lib Dems continue to "pootle along"/"languish" in the low double digits as if the election never happened. The least volatile support base of all.
I think many on PB feel homeless politically. I am one, after a lifetime of moderate Tory support. I think this is sub optimal.
It's like opting for the country cottage at the end of Game of Life, rather than attempting the millionaire's mansion.0 -
I see the Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has now resigned before Trudeau could demote her.MattW said:
Thank-you. It's more than I month ago so I forgot what had gone across my desk.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes.MattW said:Good morning everyone, and thanks for the header.
Being Canadian by common acclamation, do we have a way of betting on Canadian politics sensibly?
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/11/16/the-conservatives-are-the-1-10-favourites-to-win-the-next-general-election/
I should be the next leader of the Conservative Party .
If there's value this morning I'd say it's possibly the Liberals at 11/1 for the next Election. But it's volatile !
She wanted to prepare Canada for a trade war coming with Trump's US next year and has already been trashed on social media by Trump, while Trudeau wanted a spending splurge.
If Trudeau resigns or is pushed she would likely be his replacement now
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-freeland-post-1.74122700 -
With 6% less than Corbyn got in 2017 and just 1% more than Corbyn got in 2019. Labour now under 30% in almost all polls due to white working class voters lost to ReformTheScreamingEagles said:
Lawyers are the best, look at this chart.AnthonyT said:Gosh: a prissy, unimaginative and bossy lawyer is not popular!
One for the No Shit, Sherlock! award.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/10/20/the-scale-of-the-tory-challenge-and-why-being-a-lawyer-helps-jenrick/0 -
Worth remembering the Conservatives returned to office after a long hiatus with overt promises to substantially reduce spending.
Starmer and Labour could have promised tax rises and gained a political mandate to do so. The Conservatives were destined to be kicked out and had atrocious, and persistently atrocious, polling.5 -
Yes. I have no doubt they would have been. Even if it was a smaller majority than they get.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.
But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?2 -
I disagree about this. He's managing to keep EU policy off the grid. Europe as an issue helps no major party but it helps Reform, the Lib Dems and the SNP. Treading an unsatisfactory but largely boring middle path on EU relations is probably the most politically sensible thing to do.Cleitophon said:The silly bugger has chosen a strategy that makes nobody happy. Look at his EU strategy: the few remaining brexiteers hate it and the pro-EU crowd hate it.... That is some god damn achievment. That seems to be the template for everything starmer does.
I say probably, because as we saw with Boris and his 2019 pitch, there is an outside chance that embracing re-entry as a divisive rallying call would see Labour climb up the polls against a split Eurosceptic right.2 -
The Norway option was always the best available, and still is.biggles said:
Don’t disagree, but that’s all gone now. The issue for those advocating we align with the EU and ECJ is that the gains are marginal, but the risks quite high. We can already see it is taking silly positions on things like AI, and other major divergences are foreseeable. All that makes any long term alignment unsustainable, and we know we will never join the EU now. That’s a given because of the Euro, Schengen, etc.eek said:
An awful lot of us wanted to be inside the single market but either outside the EU or suitably detached from its long term ambitionsalgarkirk said:
This illustrates the insoluble problem. Both being in and out of the EU is, for the UK, highly unsatisfactory.theProle said:
The problem is that the EU regulations are often very poorly thought out and badly written. Most stuff we make is not for export, but internal consumption. No-one has ever disputed that to export to the EU we would have to meet their standards (their gaff, their rules!), the issue is that because their standards are often stupid and ultimately wealth destroying (e.g. I've spent many thousands of pounds and wasted countless hours completely pointlessly to comply with bits of the Pressure Equipment Directive which are plain wrong) we shouldn't be applying them for products made in the UK for UK consumption. That savings from regulating UK stuff intelligently* should be vastly more than the quoted £3 billion costs to exporters. If Starmer takes us back into compliance with all EU regulations, he's even more stupid that I thought he was.Dopermean said:
If companies want to export to the EU then they'll have to comply with EU standards, you can see it with the quiet abandonment of the UK standard mark prior to the GE. EU standards are a global recognised standard that are cited in technical specifications, you can have your own mark but it'll have to be equivalent to a global standard and thus becomes redundant, Any deviation just creates inefficiency.RochdalePioneers said:
Cue the populist right / mad Tories foaming on about how this would be the End Of Britain. True patriots will pay the stupidity tax.TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah.
Downing Street has refused to rule out returning Britain to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for the first time since Brexit as the price of Sir Keir Starmer’s reset with the bloc.
At a meeting this week ministers from the European Union are expected to demand that the government agrees to follow new and existing European law on food and agricultural standards as part of an improved trade deal.
Britain would also be obliged to follow rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in specific areas as part of a new trade and co-operation agreement.
Both issues were a red line for the former Conservative government when the original trade and co-operation agreement was signed. It resulted in the imposition of new checks and restrictions on UK exports to the EU that are believed to have cost the economy £3 billion a year.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/uk-could-return-to-eu-laws-as-keir-starmer-seeks-trade-deal-s7dfl5p92
*This does require that we regulate intelligently - unfortunately the last government mainly just transposed EU directives into UK law anyway, rather than considering them on their merits.
Very few were given the choices they wanted in 2016. What most wanted was this. Best: an EU which had been shaped differently by the UK being given referendums earlier. Second best: A reformed EU.
The first was unsayable by mainstream politicos, as they had all been complicit in this epic fail. The second, we concluded, was not going to happen.2 -
Probably, but they were never going to risk it.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.
But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?0 -
FPT:
I'd say Daniel ShenSmith ie BBB is following the Matt Goodwin track.Taz said:
I used to watch his Youtube channel quite regularly. It was good and informative. However this is merely how Youtube now operates. Sensationalist headlines to drive clicks.JosiasJessop said:
I used to watch a YouTube channel called 'BlackBeltBarrister' (*). As a non-lawyer, I felt he gave interesting and informed commentary on a few legal issues of interest. I enjoyed it.Shecorns88 said:
The issue though is the MSM has basically written off any reference back / investigation / proper analysis of the 14 years of Tory Government and especially the toxic years since 2019 as old news and simply and ruthlessly attacked the NEW Government literally since Friday 5th July (I'll never forget a scowling Rigby outside No 10 that morning), and blamed labour for anything and everything that needs sorting literally from that date.Cicero said:
Not just pointless but actually toxic. However bad Labour are or even become, the Tories were the worst government in modern history, and on some measures the worst since the Cabal.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Labour is making systemic change. At least unlike the last lot, they are doing things.
We can say all day how bad they are but the Tories really were utterly pointless in the end.
NO PM has ever had a more hostile and totally unfair reception in to No 10.
Their negativity lies slander and denial of the crisis he inherited like a self professing doom loop!
Since the election though, he has become rabidly anti-government, with clickbait titles. The last few videos:
"Which of these is worse?" with pictures of Starmer and Lammy.
"This could bring them down!" (TV licensing)
"None of this adds up" (Reeves)
"I was right" (Starmer)
"This must be EMBARASSING" (Reeves)
"How many will it takre" (Starmer)
etc
I am not a Labour supporter, and have not been massively impressed with Starmer's first few months in power. But the BBB channel has become unwatchable due to an utter lack of balance and, sadly, insight. My opinion of him has changed from him being a thoughtful guy who makes insightful comments, to him being an utter nutcase. I wouldn't trust him with giving me an opinion on what to eat at McDonalds, let alone anything legal.
He gets hundreds of thousands of views, and seemingly more than he did before the election, which I think must be why he does it. I'm no longer a viewer of his, sadly.
(Again; it's not the fact he's attacking Labour; it's the consistency of his attacks compared to attacks on the previous government, and the utter lack of any balance or insight.)
(*) Someone else mentioned this the other week...
I used to follow a couple of finance channels. They used to be fine then it would be "TESLA stock to go to Zero - Act Now" and you would click on the link and it would be nothing of the sort.
I suspect it says more about the audience for this than the content makers.
0 -
To be able to get the bad news dealt with early requires a new government to be properly prepared and to have some courage.eek said:
See my point about waiting - all she needed was a decent justification.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.
But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?
The next election is 2028/9 she had 3 years during which the tax increases would have been forgotten during which time things may have improved to ensure people forgot about them.
Get all you bad news dealt with early is something this government is failing to do and it’s going to bite them
This government generally, and Reeves in particular, failed on both counts.0 -
Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?0
-
Hypothetical so there is no way to be sure.algarkirk said:
The Norway option was always the best available, and still is.biggles said:
Don’t disagree, but that’s all gone now. The issue for those advocating we align with the EU and ECJ is that the gains are marginal, but the risks quite high. We can already see it is taking silly positions on things like AI, and other major divergences are foreseeable. All that makes any long term alignment unsustainable, and we know we will never join the EU now. That’s a given because of the Euro, Schengen, etc.eek said:
An awful lot of us wanted to be inside the single market but either outside the EU or suitably detached from its long term ambitionsalgarkirk said:
This illustrates the insoluble problem. Both being in and out of the EU is, for the UK, highly unsatisfactory.theProle said:
The problem is that the EU regulations are often very poorly thought out and badly written. Most stuff we make is not for export, but internal consumption. No-one has ever disputed that to export to the EU we would have to meet their standards (their gaff, their rules!), the issue is that because their standards are often stupid and ultimately wealth destroying (e.g. I've spent many thousands of pounds and wasted countless hours completely pointlessly to comply with bits of the Pressure Equipment Directive which are plain wrong) we shouldn't be applying them for products made in the UK for UK consumption. That savings from regulating UK stuff intelligently* should be vastly more than the quoted £3 billion costs to exporters. If Starmer takes us back into compliance with all EU regulations, he's even more stupid that I thought he was.Dopermean said:
If companies want to export to the EU then they'll have to comply with EU standards, you can see it with the quiet abandonment of the UK standard mark prior to the GE. EU standards are a global recognised standard that are cited in technical specifications, you can have your own mark but it'll have to be equivalent to a global standard and thus becomes redundant, Any deviation just creates inefficiency.RochdalePioneers said:
Cue the populist right / mad Tories foaming on about how this would be the End Of Britain. True patriots will pay the stupidity tax.TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah.
Downing Street has refused to rule out returning Britain to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for the first time since Brexit as the price of Sir Keir Starmer’s reset with the bloc.
At a meeting this week ministers from the European Union are expected to demand that the government agrees to follow new and existing European law on food and agricultural standards as part of an improved trade deal.
Britain would also be obliged to follow rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in specific areas as part of a new trade and co-operation agreement.
Both issues were a red line for the former Conservative government when the original trade and co-operation agreement was signed. It resulted in the imposition of new checks and restrictions on UK exports to the EU that are believed to have cost the economy £3 billion a year.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/uk-could-return-to-eu-laws-as-keir-starmer-seeks-trade-deal-s7dfl5p92
*This does require that we regulate intelligently - unfortunately the last government mainly just transposed EU directives into UK law anyway, rather than considering them on their merits.
Very few were given the choices they wanted in 2016. What most wanted was this. Best: an EU which had been shaped differently by the UK being given referendums earlier. Second best: A reformed EU.
The first was unsayable by mainstream politicos, as they had all been complicit in this epic fail. The second, we concluded, was not going to happen.0 -
UK diplomats meet rebel leader in Damascus
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd40pd1g7lo0 -
Yes, I watched a few following a recommendation; and while there is a point in much of what he says, it gives an appearance of being ultra critical of everything the government does without much nuance or balance.MattW said:FPT:
I'd say Daniel ShenSmith ie BBB is following the Matt Goodwin track.Taz said:
I used to watch his Youtube channel quite regularly. It was good and informative. However this is merely how Youtube now operates. Sensationalist headlines to drive clicks.JosiasJessop said:
I used to watch a YouTube channel called 'BlackBeltBarrister' (*). As a non-lawyer, I felt he gave interesting and informed commentary on a few legal issues of interest. I enjoyed it.Shecorns88 said:
The issue though is the MSM has basically written off any reference back / investigation / proper analysis of the 14 years of Tory Government and especially the toxic years since 2019 as old news and simply and ruthlessly attacked the NEW Government literally since Friday 5th July (I'll never forget a scowling Rigby outside No 10 that morning), and blamed labour for anything and everything that needs sorting literally from that date.Cicero said:
Not just pointless but actually toxic. However bad Labour are or even become, the Tories were the worst government in modern history, and on some measures the worst since the Cabal.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Labour is making systemic change. At least unlike the last lot, they are doing things.
We can say all day how bad they are but the Tories really were utterly pointless in the end.
NO PM has ever had a more hostile and totally unfair reception in to No 10.
Their negativity lies slander and denial of the crisis he inherited like a self professing doom loop!
Since the election though, he has become rabidly anti-government, with clickbait titles. The last few videos:
"Which of these is worse?" with pictures of Starmer and Lammy.
"This could bring them down!" (TV licensing)
"None of this adds up" (Reeves)
"I was right" (Starmer)
"This must be EMBARASSING" (Reeves)
"How many will it takre" (Starmer)
etc
I am not a Labour supporter, and have not been massively impressed with Starmer's first few months in power. But the BBB channel has become unwatchable due to an utter lack of balance and, sadly, insight. My opinion of him has changed from him being a thoughtful guy who makes insightful comments, to him being an utter nutcase. I wouldn't trust him with giving me an opinion on what to eat at McDonalds, let alone anything legal.
He gets hundreds of thousands of views, and seemingly more than he did before the election, which I think must be why he does it. I'm no longer a viewer of his, sadly.
(Again; it's not the fact he's attacking Labour; it's the consistency of his attacks compared to attacks on the previous government, and the utter lack of any balance or insight.)
(*) Someone else mentioned this the other week...
I used to follow a couple of finance channels. They used to be fine then it would be "TESLA stock to go to Zero - Act Now" and you would click on the link and it would be nothing of the sort.
I suspect it says more about the audience for this than the content makers.0 -
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
0 -
True, but the state in which you are within the SM trade relationship and not within the political 'ever closer union' is the closest available, even if not very close, to the views of a plurality of UK voters.noneoftheabove said:
Hypothetical so there is no way to be sure.algarkirk said:
The Norway option was always the best available, and still is.biggles said:
Don’t disagree, but that’s all gone now. The issue for those advocating we align with the EU and ECJ is that the gains are marginal, but the risks quite high. We can already see it is taking silly positions on things like AI, and other major divergences are foreseeable. All that makes any long term alignment unsustainable, and we know we will never join the EU now. That’s a given because of the Euro, Schengen, etc.eek said:
An awful lot of us wanted to be inside the single market but either outside the EU or suitably detached from its long term ambitionsalgarkirk said:
This illustrates the insoluble problem. Both being in and out of the EU is, for the UK, highly unsatisfactory.theProle said:
The problem is that the EU regulations are often very poorly thought out and badly written. Most stuff we make is not for export, but internal consumption. No-one has ever disputed that to export to the EU we would have to meet their standards (their gaff, their rules!), the issue is that because their standards are often stupid and ultimately wealth destroying (e.g. I've spent many thousands of pounds and wasted countless hours completely pointlessly to comply with bits of the Pressure Equipment Directive which are plain wrong) we shouldn't be applying them for products made in the UK for UK consumption. That savings from regulating UK stuff intelligently* should be vastly more than the quoted £3 billion costs to exporters. If Starmer takes us back into compliance with all EU regulations, he's even more stupid that I thought he was.Dopermean said:
If companies want to export to the EU then they'll have to comply with EU standards, you can see it with the quiet abandonment of the UK standard mark prior to the GE. EU standards are a global recognised standard that are cited in technical specifications, you can have your own mark but it'll have to be equivalent to a global standard and thus becomes redundant, Any deviation just creates inefficiency.RochdalePioneers said:
Cue the populist right / mad Tories foaming on about how this would be the End Of Britain. True patriots will pay the stupidity tax.TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah.
Downing Street has refused to rule out returning Britain to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for the first time since Brexit as the price of Sir Keir Starmer’s reset with the bloc.
At a meeting this week ministers from the European Union are expected to demand that the government agrees to follow new and existing European law on food and agricultural standards as part of an improved trade deal.
Britain would also be obliged to follow rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in specific areas as part of a new trade and co-operation agreement.
Both issues were a red line for the former Conservative government when the original trade and co-operation agreement was signed. It resulted in the imposition of new checks and restrictions on UK exports to the EU that are believed to have cost the economy £3 billion a year.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/uk-could-return-to-eu-laws-as-keir-starmer-seeks-trade-deal-s7dfl5p92
*This does require that we regulate intelligently - unfortunately the last government mainly just transposed EU directives into UK law anyway, rather than considering them on their merits.
Very few were given the choices they wanted in 2016. What most wanted was this. Best: an EU which had been shaped differently by the UK being given referendums earlier. Second best: A reformed EU.
The first was unsayable by mainstream politicos, as they had all been complicit in this epic fail. The second, we concluded, was not going to happen.0 -
Rebel or new incumbant?HYUFD said:UK diplomats meet rebel leader in Damascus
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd40pd1g7lo0 -
It does appear that they’ve managed to burn through a disproportionate of political capital, compared to the amount of money raised for the Treasury.eek said:
See my point about waiting - all she needed was a decent justification.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.
But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?
The next election is 2028/9 she had 3 years during which the tax increases would have been forgotten during which time things may have improved to ensure people forgot about them.
Get all you bad news dealt with early is something this government is failing to do and it’s going to bite them
It would have been way easier to say that the last government left a totally unsustainable budget, so income tax was unavoidably going up to 22% and 42% for the duration of this Parliament, and that they were planning to undo the rises ahead of the next election.
Yes they’d have taken the immediate hit, but instead they’ve managed to piss off a load of specific groups (pensioners, farmers etc) who can organise themselves, while making every other group think they might be next.1 -
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.0 -
I agree wholeheartedly. I use to watch and like him but not anymore. I would suggest he is moving towards the Maga/reform conspiracy theory audience. I find his comments about the TV licence very similar.algarkirk said:
Yes, I watched a few following a recommendation; and while there is a point in much of what he says, it gives an appearance of being ultra critical of everything the government does without much nuance or balance.MattW said:FPT:
I'd say Daniel ShenSmith ie BBB is following the Matt Goodwin track.Taz said:
I used to watch his Youtube channel quite regularly. It was good and informative. However this is merely how Youtube now operates. Sensationalist headlines to drive clicks.JosiasJessop said:
I used to watch a YouTube channel called 'BlackBeltBarrister' (*). As a non-lawyer, I felt he gave interesting and informed commentary on a few legal issues of interest. I enjoyed it.Shecorns88 said:
The issue though is the MSM has basically written off any reference back / investigation / proper analysis of the 14 years of Tory Government and especially the toxic years since 2019 as old news and simply and ruthlessly attacked the NEW Government literally since Friday 5th July (I'll never forget a scowling Rigby outside No 10 that morning), and blamed labour for anything and everything that needs sorting literally from that date.Cicero said:
Not just pointless but actually toxic. However bad Labour are or even become, the Tories were the worst government in modern history, and on some measures the worst since the Cabal.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Labour is making systemic change. At least unlike the last lot, they are doing things.
We can say all day how bad they are but the Tories really were utterly pointless in the end.
NO PM has ever had a more hostile and totally unfair reception in to No 10.
Their negativity lies slander and denial of the crisis he inherited like a self professing doom loop!
Since the election though, he has become rabidly anti-government, with clickbait titles. The last few videos:
"Which of these is worse?" with pictures of Starmer and Lammy.
"This could bring them down!" (TV licensing)
"None of this adds up" (Reeves)
"I was right" (Starmer)
"This must be EMBARASSING" (Reeves)
"How many will it takre" (Starmer)
etc
I am not a Labour supporter, and have not been massively impressed with Starmer's first few months in power. But the BBB channel has become unwatchable due to an utter lack of balance and, sadly, insight. My opinion of him has changed from him being a thoughtful guy who makes insightful comments, to him being an utter nutcase. I wouldn't trust him with giving me an opinion on what to eat at McDonalds, let alone anything legal.
He gets hundreds of thousands of views, and seemingly more than he did before the election, which I think must be why he does it. I'm no longer a viewer of his, sadly.
(Again; it's not the fact he's attacking Labour; it's the consistency of his attacks compared to attacks on the previous government, and the utter lack of any balance or insight.)
(*) Someone else mentioned this the other week...
I used to follow a couple of finance channels. They used to be fine then it would be "TESLA stock to go to Zero - Act Now" and you would click on the link and it would be nothing of the sort.
I suspect it says more about the audience for this than the content makers.
0 -
FPT:
I'd say Daniel ShenSmith ie BBB is following the Matt Goodwin track, but is being driven heavily by wanting his one million subs (currently 600k or so).Taz said:
I used to watch his Youtube channel quite regularly. It was good and informative. However this is merely how Youtube now operates. Sensationalist headlines to drive clicks.JosiasJessop said:
I used to watch a YouTube channel called 'BlackBeltBarrister' (*). As a non-lawyer, I felt he gave interesting and informed commentary on a few legal issues of interest. I enjoyed it.Shecorns88 said:
The issue though is the MSM has basically written off any reference back / investigation / proper analysis of the 14 years of Tory Government and especially the toxic years since 2019 as old news and simply and ruthlessly attacked the NEW Government literally since Friday 5th July (I'll never forget a scowling Rigby outside No 10 that morning), and blamed labour for anything and everything that needs sorting literally from that date.Cicero said:
Not just pointless but actually toxic. However bad Labour are or even become, the Tories were the worst government in modern history, and on some measures the worst since the Cabal.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Labour is making systemic change. At least unlike the last lot, they are doing things.
We can say all day how bad they are but the Tories really were utterly pointless in the end.
NO PM has ever had a more hostile and totally unfair reception in to No 10.
Their negativity lies slander and denial of the crisis he inherited like a self professing doom loop!
Since the election though, he has become rabidly anti-government, with clickbait titles. The last few videos:
"Which of these is worse?" with pictures of Starmer and Lammy.
"This could bring them down!" (TV licensing)
"None of this adds up" (Reeves)
"I was right" (Starmer)
"This must be EMBARASSING" (Reeves)
"How many will it takre" (Starmer)
etc
I am not a Labour supporter, and have not been massively impressed with Starmer's first few months in power. But the BBB channel has become unwatchable due to an utter lack of balance and, sadly, insight. My opinion of him has changed from him being a thoughtful guy who makes insightful comments, to him being an utter nutcase. I wouldn't trust him with giving me an opinion on what to eat at McDonalds, let alone anything legal.
He gets hundreds of thousands of views, and seemingly more than he did before the election, which I think must be why he does it. I'm no longer a viewer of his, sadly.
(Again; it's not the fact he's attacking Labour; it's the consistency of his attacks compared to attacks on the previous government, and the utter lack of any balance or insight.)
(*) Someone else mentioned this the other week...
I used to follow a couple of finance channels. They used to be fine then it would be "TESLA stock to go to Zero - Act Now" and you would click on the link and it would be nothing of the sort.
I suspect it says more about the audience for this than the content makers.
Before he followed there was an audience bleed over from the likes of certain motor channels of the anti-LTN stripe, and others I would characterise as Far-Right adjacent ie Reform / Musk type rhetoric, but with which verdict some PBers would disagree.
One guy who dove into this particular swamp the other day was an "American reacts" channel called Tyler Rumple. He chose to do a TLDR News segment * on "Why Starmer is so unpopular", and had a lot of people telling him to check out things like Tousi TV, and so on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y75n5Jm0PNw
His previous one was looking at UK adverts, including the Smash Aliens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1hMcFFTvCA
* TLDR are from a setup called Nebula, who are reputable but this particular channel feels to me like auto-collated boiled down talking points with no context.1 -
Yes they will struggle to retain the votes of the few hundred farmers who voted Labour this year next time around.Sandpit said:
It does appear that they’ve managed to burn through a disproportionate of political capital, compared to the amount of money raised for the Treasury.eek said:
See my point about waiting - all she needed was a decent justification.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.
But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?
The next election is 2028/9 she had 3 years during which the tax increases would have been forgotten during which time things may have improved to ensure people forgot about them.
Get all you bad news dealt with early is something this government is failing to do and it’s going to bite them
It would have been way easier to say that the last government left a totally unsustainable budget, so income tax was unavoidably going up to 22% and 42% for the duration of this Parliament, and that they were planning to undo the rises ahead of the next election.
Yes they’d have taken the immediate hit, but instead they’ve managed to piss off a load of specific groups (pensioners, farmers etc) who can organise themselves, while making every other group think they might be next.1 -
Totally disagree, that is worse than both of being fully in or fully out. Norway have to do as they're told, more or less. If we have to obey the rules, we should be inside the club setting them. Otherwise, stay out properly and set our own. That we haven't is the fault of the Brexiteers for not actually having any ideas.algarkirk said:
The Norway option was always the best available, and still is.biggles said:
Don’t disagree, but that’s all gone now. The issue for those advocating we align with the EU and ECJ is that the gains are marginal, but the risks quite high. We can already see it is taking silly positions on things like AI, and other major divergences are foreseeable. All that makes any long term alignment unsustainable, and we know we will never join the EU now. That’s a given because of the Euro, Schengen, etc.eek said:
An awful lot of us wanted to be inside the single market but either outside the EU or suitably detached from its long term ambitionsalgarkirk said:
This illustrates the insoluble problem. Both being in and out of the EU is, for the UK, highly unsatisfactory.theProle said:
The problem is that the EU regulations are often very poorly thought out and badly written. Most stuff we make is not for export, but internal consumption. No-one has ever disputed that to export to the EU we would have to meet their standards (their gaff, their rules!), the issue is that because their standards are often stupid and ultimately wealth destroying (e.g. I've spent many thousands of pounds and wasted countless hours completely pointlessly to comply with bits of the Pressure Equipment Directive which are plain wrong) we shouldn't be applying them for products made in the UK for UK consumption. That savings from regulating UK stuff intelligently* should be vastly more than the quoted £3 billion costs to exporters. If Starmer takes us back into compliance with all EU regulations, he's even more stupid that I thought he was.Dopermean said:
If companies want to export to the EU then they'll have to comply with EU standards, you can see it with the quiet abandonment of the UK standard mark prior to the GE. EU standards are a global recognised standard that are cited in technical specifications, you can have your own mark but it'll have to be equivalent to a global standard and thus becomes redundant, Any deviation just creates inefficiency.RochdalePioneers said:
Cue the populist right / mad Tories foaming on about how this would be the End Of Britain. True patriots will pay the stupidity tax.TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah.
Downing Street has refused to rule out returning Britain to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for the first time since Brexit as the price of Sir Keir Starmer’s reset with the bloc.
At a meeting this week ministers from the European Union are expected to demand that the government agrees to follow new and existing European law on food and agricultural standards as part of an improved trade deal.
Britain would also be obliged to follow rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in specific areas as part of a new trade and co-operation agreement.
Both issues were a red line for the former Conservative government when the original trade and co-operation agreement was signed. It resulted in the imposition of new checks and restrictions on UK exports to the EU that are believed to have cost the economy £3 billion a year.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/uk-could-return-to-eu-laws-as-keir-starmer-seeks-trade-deal-s7dfl5p92
*This does require that we regulate intelligently - unfortunately the last government mainly just transposed EU directives into UK law anyway, rather than considering them on their merits.
Very few were given the choices they wanted in 2016. What most wanted was this. Best: an EU which had been shaped differently by the UK being given referendums earlier. Second best: A reformed EU.
The first was unsayable by mainstream politicos, as they had all been complicit in this epic fail. The second, we concluded, was not going to happen.2 -
Indeed!Morris_Dancer said:Worth remembering the Conservatives returned to office after a long hiatus with overt promises to substantially reduce spending.
Starmer and Labour could have promised tax rises and gained a political mandate to do so. The Conservatives were destined to be kicked out and had atrocious, and persistently atrocious, polling.
If they'd actually been honest about their plans they may only have had a majority of 40 rather than 180 but would still have been perfectly workable and they would be a lot better placed now.0 -
Not the same but the fundamentals are similar.noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
More debt leads to higher interest payments at both national and household level.
And the higher the initial debt level the lower the scope for borrowing in an emergency.
Which leads to a requirement to reduce the debt level after an emergency so that there is scope for more borrowing if there is a future emergency.0 -
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.0 -
Maybe it shows that Labour are serious about tackling immigration.Alanbrooke said:Recession Reeves killing the jobs market
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/17/ftse-100-markets-latest-news-uk-vacancies-employment-wages/0 -
It just shows that generally this country elects Conservative governments, but when it swings against the Conservatives it REALLY swings against the Conservatives...TheScreamingEagles said:
Lawyers are the best, look at this chart.AnthonyT said:Gosh: a prissy, unimaginative and bossy lawyer is not popular!
One for the No Shit, Sherlock! award.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/10/20/the-scale-of-the-tory-challenge-and-why-being-a-lawyer-helps-jenrick/1 -
That would be exciting. But I think Starmer has at the top of his political priorities not losing the red wall to Reform so he's likely to steer clear of anything that smacks of undoing Brexit.TimS said:
I disagree about this. He's managing to keep EU policy off the grid. Europe as an issue helps no major party but it helps Reform, the Lib Dems and the SNP. Treading an unsatisfactory but largely boring middle path on EU relations is probably the most politically sensible thing to do.Cleitophon said:The silly bugger has chosen a strategy that makes nobody happy. Look at his EU strategy: the few remaining brexiteers hate it and the pro-EU crowd hate it.... That is some god damn achievment. That seems to be the template for everything starmer does.
I say probably, because as we saw with Boris and his 2019 pitch, there is an outside chance that embracing re-entry as a divisive rallying call would see Labour climb up the polls against a split Eurosceptic right.0 -
Yes, government investment should run counter-cyclical where possible.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
Boom-time investment is almost always more expensive, and in a recession borrowing usually gets cheaper for those with good credit ratings.
The problems are governments being unwilling to run a surplus during the good times, preferring instead to splash the cash, and the natural counter-cyclical increase on welfare that comes with higher unemployment. Welfare spending isn’t “investment”, looking at you Gordon Brown.1 -
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.1 -
Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.
So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.
A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.1 -
Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.another_richard said:
Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.
So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.
A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.0 -
They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got over by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.2 -
It "depends". The £2 Tn is sunk, so any additional borrowing ought at least try to produce a real pounds and pence return in the medium to long term. The thing is when Labour say they are borrowing to "invest" I'm not actually sure they mean that they are "investing" in assets that will produce an actual return.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
0 -
But to justify the increased investment spending governments need to cut the consumption spending.noneoftheabove said:
Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.another_richard said:
Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.
So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.
A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.
And that's where they need to show some political courage.1 -
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.2 -
The weirdo obsessions with 20mph zones, parking apps and forcing businesses to accept cash are little/nothing to do with Sir Keir. Group therapy, as I say.another_richard said:
They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got over by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.0 -
I disagree conceptually, they are separate things. The level of consumption spending and tax rates are a matter of choice and preference. Whether those stayed the same or changed I would still be in favour of borrowing to invest in housing and associated infrastructure.another_richard said:
But to justify the increased investment spending governments need to cut the consumption spending.noneoftheabove said:
Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.another_richard said:
Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.
So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.
A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.
And that's where they need to show some political courage.0 -
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.3 -
Which of course means absolutely nothing, except for any consequences in the short term of our ruling politicians feeling a bit of, very remote, pressureHYUFD said:
Which he will almost certainly lose at the next GE on current pollsnoneoftheabove said:
He already has one.HYUFD said:Disastrous poll for Starmer, he is now even more unpopular than Sunak and Brown.
Boris also may have had a net negative rating when he became PM but he had a 38% favourable rating, clearly enough to win a majority under FPTP. Starmer's 27% favourable rating now though is far below the level needed to win a majority0 -
I'm sorry to see that. His content used to be really good.MattW said:FPT:
I'd say Daniel ShenSmith ie BBB is following the Matt Goodwin track.Taz said:
I used to watch his Youtube channel quite regularly. It was good and informative. However this is merely how Youtube now operates. Sensationalist headlines to drive clicks.JosiasJessop said:
I used to watch a YouTube channel called 'BlackBeltBarrister' (*). As a non-lawyer, I felt he gave interesting and informed commentary on a few legal issues of interest. I enjoyed it.Shecorns88 said:
The issue though is the MSM has basically written off any reference back / investigation / proper analysis of the 14 years of Tory Government and especially the toxic years since 2019 as old news and simply and ruthlessly attacked the NEW Government literally since Friday 5th July (I'll never forget a scowling Rigby outside No 10 that morning), and blamed labour for anything and everything that needs sorting literally from that date.Cicero said:
Not just pointless but actually toxic. However bad Labour are or even become, the Tories were the worst government in modern history, and on some measures the worst since the Cabal.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Labour is making systemic change. At least unlike the last lot, they are doing things.
We can say all day how bad they are but the Tories really were utterly pointless in the end.
NO PM has ever had a more hostile and totally unfair reception in to No 10.
Their negativity lies slander and denial of the crisis he inherited like a self professing doom loop!
Since the election though, he has become rabidly anti-government, with clickbait titles. The last few videos:
"Which of these is worse?" with pictures of Starmer and Lammy.
"This could bring them down!" (TV licensing)
"None of this adds up" (Reeves)
"I was right" (Starmer)
"This must be EMBARASSING" (Reeves)
"How many will it takre" (Starmer)
etc
I am not a Labour supporter, and have not been massively impressed with Starmer's first few months in power. But the BBB channel has become unwatchable due to an utter lack of balance and, sadly, insight. My opinion of him has changed from him being a thoughtful guy who makes insightful comments, to him being an utter nutcase. I wouldn't trust him with giving me an opinion on what to eat at McDonalds, let alone anything legal.
He gets hundreds of thousands of views, and seemingly more than he did before the election, which I think must be why he does it. I'm no longer a viewer of his, sadly.
(Again; it's not the fact he's attacking Labour; it's the consistency of his attacks compared to attacks on the previous government, and the utter lack of any balance or insight.)
(*) Someone else mentioned this the other week...
I used to follow a couple of finance channels. They used to be fine then it would be "TESLA stock to go to Zero - Act Now" and you would click on the link and it would be nothing of the sort.
I suspect it says more about the audience for this than the content makers.1 -
Oh dear.. Mrs Jarvis doesn’t normally keep sheep in the front yard
1 -
That's just an excuse for always feeling entitled to borrow more to spend on your own 'pet projects'.noneoftheabove said:
I disagree conceptually, they are separate things. The level of consumption spending and tax rates are a matter of choice and preference. Whether those stayed the same or changed I would still be in favour of borrowing to invest in housing and associated infrastructure.another_richard said:
But to justify the increased investment spending governments need to cut the consumption spending.noneoftheabove said:
Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.another_richard said:
Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.
So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.
A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.
And that's where they need to show some political courage.
And what happens when everyone feels entitled to borrow more to spend on their own pet projects ?
When there has to be some reductions elsewhere it leads to rather more rigour in spending decisions.0 -
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.6 -
Unless you are 100% on message, happy clappy, about this labour govt there are a handful of people who deem you to be a Tory. Even if you have never voted for them in your life. It's like the Neocon Dubya view of nations, you're either with us or against us. A ridiculous mind set only deserving of being laughed at.another_richard said:
They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got over by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
Real life is not that black and white. People can vote for a Party and dislike some of what they do or recognise the stupidity of some of their policies.
Rachel Reeves stewardship so far has proven to be poor. It needs to be called out the damage being inflicted. Especially at the sharp end.1 -
Should we blame Gordon Brown?kinabalu said:
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.0 -
There is often less rigour in decisions when budgets are being cut. That is why we paying doctors £3,000 per overnight shift rather than giving them a pay rise. It is an absurd waste of money.another_richard said:
That's just an excuse for always feeling entitled to borrow more to spend on your own 'pet projects'.noneoftheabove said:
I disagree conceptually, they are separate things. The level of consumption spending and tax rates are a matter of choice and preference. Whether those stayed the same or changed I would still be in favour of borrowing to invest in housing and associated infrastructure.another_richard said:
But to justify the increased investment spending governments need to cut the consumption spending.noneoftheabove said:
Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.another_richard said:
Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.
So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.
A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.
And that's where they need to show some political courage.
And what happens when everyone feels entitled to borrow more to spend on their own pet projects ?
When there has to be some reductions elsewhere it leads to rather more rigour in spending decisions.0 -
Shecorns is criticised for their robotic, half-lobotomised, half-there-are-no-tanks-in-baghdad tone more than for the content.Mexicanpete said:
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.3 -
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...Mexicanpete said:
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly. 1 -
Just a look at the day in day out front pages shows how much this new govt. are struggling.Taz said:
Unless you are 100% on message, happy clappy, about this labour govt there are a handful of people who deem you to be a Tory. Even if you have never voted for them in your life. It's like the Neocon Dubya view of nations, you're either with us or against us. A ridiculous mind set only deserving of being laughed at.another_richard said:
They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got over by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
Real life is not that black and white. People can vote for a Party and dislike some of what they do or recognise the stupidity of some of their policies.
Rachel Reeves stewardship so far has proven to be poor. It needs to be called out the damage being inflicted. Especially at the sharp end.
You'd think they were 4 years 6 months into a term, not 6 months.
But life comes at your fast when you have to do something, rather than just oppose.1 -
We loaded up for consumption instead.kinabalu said:
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
The UK has had a cumulative balance of payments deficit of over a trillion quid during the last twenty years.
You could have a lot of investment for that.1 -
How much difference would that make, given that the debt will need to be refinanced later when interest rates will be higher?kinabalu said:
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.0 -
The problem with counter-cyclical investment is that the cycle itself a product of our efforts to tame it. It works in theory when the trade cycle is the result of some uncontrollable astronomical event (cf. the medieval harvest) but in the connected modern world it's confounded by 'other people'. When the US was superdominant we took our lead from Wall Street or Washington according to taste but other players are now eyeing the mighty dollar and thinking in terms of a new reserve currency backed by oil (and beyond US/European control).kinabalu said:
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
An interesting consequence of the rise of crypto-currencies is both their volatility and lack of central bank influence. Someone should write a PhD thesis on 'the potential use of cryptocurrency for economic demand management'. It may be very short but the consequences could be profound.1 -
I would just like to point out, whatever Herbie goes to Monte Carlo thinks, my politics are left of centre and I am not right wing and I voted Labour at the last election like every other election since the first one I voted in, 1987.JosiasJessop said:
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...Mexicanpete said:
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
1 -
Biggest impact government can make on balance of payments is to get loads of foreign students in.another_richard said:
We loaded up for consumption instead.kinabalu said:
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
The UK has had a cumulative balance of payments deficit of over a trillion quid during the last twenty years.
You could have a lot of investment for that.0 -
SKS and Labour are way less entertaining than the tory collapse was. From the 2022 Hartlegrad by-election it was just shit all the way down until Big Rish fucked everything up with the GE. We got a bit spoilt and this government does very little to stimulate our jaded palates.
The pb tories are full of more shit than a Christmas Goose though. As if more toryism were the answer to fucking anything. I'd rather have the Fukkers in power.2 -
Does it not also correlate with an increase in the availability of methadone for treating addicts ?MaxPB said:
This coincides with liberal cities giving up on "harm reduction" strategies and shifting resources back to prevention. Though too early to say it's the cause though.Nigelb said:Big drop is US overdose deaths during the last twelve months.
https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1868747796486275226
Mainly the synthetic opioids, but a significant decrease in deaths from other drugs, too.0 -
We are all PB Tories now, comrade!Taz said:
I would just like to point out, whatever Herbie goes to Monte Carlo thinks, my politics are left of centre and I am not right wing and I voted Labour at the last election like every other election since the first one I voted in, 1987.JosiasJessop said:
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...Mexicanpete said:
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
1 -
Of course you are right and the sooner we can rid the site of all these disrespectful off message centrist dad (and mum) posters the better the site becomes. I'd start with @Mexicanpete, @Shecorns88 Horse and Anabob. There are a handful of others that have no business being here either. Make PB Great Again!JosiasJessop said:
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...Mexicanpete said:
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.1 -
Exactly and the "govt in waiting" they presented themselves as has rather fallen apart with unforced error after unforced error and upthread Eek/Horse are exactly right about Reeves. She boxed herself in needlessly before the election making commitments not to raise certain taxes or go for the Triple Lock or change council tax bands.Mortimer said:
Just a look at the day in day out front pages shows how much this new govt. are struggling.Taz said:
Unless you are 100% on message, happy clappy, about this labour govt there are a handful of people who deem you to be a Tory. Even if you have never voted for them in your life. It's like the Neocon Dubya view of nations, you're either with us or against us. A ridiculous mind set only deserving of being laughed at.another_richard said:
They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got over by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
Real life is not that black and white. People can vote for a Party and dislike some of what they do or recognise the stupidity of some of their policies.
Rachel Reeves stewardship so far has proven to be poor. It needs to be called out the damage being inflicted. Especially at the sharp end.
You'd think they were 4 years 6 months into a term, not 6 months.
But life comes at your fast when you have to do something, rather than just oppose.
Should have simply said "no plans", got into office, done what is needed without hammering employers with a jobs tax, and took the short term hit as in 3 years time it will be a different picture.0 -
I'm amazed you can get that reading from what I wrote.Mexicanpete said:
Of course you are right and the sooner we can rid the site of all these disrespectful off message centrist dad (and mum) posters the better the site becomes. I'd start with @Mexicanpete, @Shecorns88 Horse and Anabob. There are a handful of others that have no business being here either. Make PB Great Again!JosiasJessop said:
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...Mexicanpete said:
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.1 -
This is convincing as Norway is a complete basket case.PJH said:
Totally disagree, that is worse than both of being fully in or fully out. Norway have to do as they're told, more or less. If we have to obey the rules, we should be inside the club setting them. Otherwise, stay out properly and set our own. That we haven't is the fault of the Brexiteers for not actually having any ideas.algarkirk said:
The Norway option was always the best available, and still is.biggles said:
Don’t disagree, but that’s all gone now. The issue for those advocating we align with the EU and ECJ is that the gains are marginal, but the risks quite high. We can already see it is taking silly positions on things like AI, and other major divergences are foreseeable. All that makes any long term alignment unsustainable, and we know we will never join the EU now. That’s a given because of the Euro, Schengen, etc.eek said:
An awful lot of us wanted to be inside the single market but either outside the EU or suitably detached from its long term ambitionsalgarkirk said:
This illustrates the insoluble problem. Both being in and out of the EU is, for the UK, highly unsatisfactory.theProle said:
The problem is that the EU regulations are often very poorly thought out and badly written. Most stuff we make is not for export, but internal consumption. No-one has ever disputed that to export to the EU we would have to meet their standards (their gaff, their rules!), the issue is that because their standards are often stupid and ultimately wealth destroying (e.g. I've spent many thousands of pounds and wasted countless hours completely pointlessly to comply with bits of the Pressure Equipment Directive which are plain wrong) we shouldn't be applying them for products made in the UK for UK consumption. That savings from regulating UK stuff intelligently* should be vastly more than the quoted £3 billion costs to exporters. If Starmer takes us back into compliance with all EU regulations, he's even more stupid that I thought he was.Dopermean said:
If companies want to export to the EU then they'll have to comply with EU standards, you can see it with the quiet abandonment of the UK standard mark prior to the GE. EU standards are a global recognised standard that are cited in technical specifications, you can have your own mark but it'll have to be equivalent to a global standard and thus becomes redundant, Any deviation just creates inefficiency.RochdalePioneers said:
Cue the populist right / mad Tories foaming on about how this would be the End Of Britain. True patriots will pay the stupidity tax.TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah.
Downing Street has refused to rule out returning Britain to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for the first time since Brexit as the price of Sir Keir Starmer’s reset with the bloc.
At a meeting this week ministers from the European Union are expected to demand that the government agrees to follow new and existing European law on food and agricultural standards as part of an improved trade deal.
Britain would also be obliged to follow rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in specific areas as part of a new trade and co-operation agreement.
Both issues were a red line for the former Conservative government when the original trade and co-operation agreement was signed. It resulted in the imposition of new checks and restrictions on UK exports to the EU that are believed to have cost the economy £3 billion a year.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/uk-could-return-to-eu-laws-as-keir-starmer-seeks-trade-deal-s7dfl5p92
*This does require that we regulate intelligently - unfortunately the last government mainly just transposed EU directives into UK law anyway, rather than considering them on their merits.
Very few were given the choices they wanted in 2016. What most wanted was this. Best: an EU which had been shaped differently by the UK being given referendums earlier. Second best: A reformed EU.
The first was unsayable by mainstream politicos, as they had all been complicit in this epic fail. The second, we concluded, was not going to happen.0 -
I'm a snowflake.JosiasJessop said:
I'm amazed you can get that reading from what I wrote.Mexicanpete said:
Of course you are right and the sooner we can rid the site of all these disrespectful off message centrist dad (and mum) posters the better the site becomes. I'd start with @Mexicanpete, @Shecorns88 Horse and Anabob. There are a handful of others that have no business being here either. Make PB Great Again!JosiasJessop said:
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...Mexicanpete said:
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
I'm right though aren't I? The PB GROTS campaign. "Get rid of traitorous scumbags".0 -
Of course.Mexicanpete said:
Should we blame Gordon Brown?kinabalu said:
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
He sold the gold!3 -
Ben Harp : ….Guess we must just have ourselves an asshole shortage, huh?malcolmg said:
One total arsehole gone , hopefully many to followTheScreamingEagles said:Come 2026, I will have served 15 years as an MSP. The time will be right for me to move on.
As the son of immigrants, I could never have imagined the incredible political journey I have been on. I feel blessed.
Thank you to all of those who have supported me over the years.
https://x.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1868930492059517379
Johnny Utah : [quietly] Not so far.0 -
There's a great routine by Stewart Lee about Clarkson and Brown, worth listening to, but a little blunt...kinabalu said:
Of course.Mexicanpete said:
Should we blame Gordon Brown?kinabalu said:
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
He sold the gold!
1 -
Your comment is so over-the-top I'd be surprised if you had not just obtained the entirety of the world's helium supply...Mexicanpete said:
I'm a snowflake.JosiasJessop said:
I'm amazed you can get that reading from what I wrote.Mexicanpete said:
Of course you are right and the sooner we can rid the site of all these disrespectful off message centrist dad (and mum) posters the better the site becomes. I'd start with @Mexicanpete, @Shecorns88 Horse and Anabob. There are a handful of others that have no business being here either. Make PB Great Again!JosiasJessop said:
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...Mexicanpete said:
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
I'm right though aren't I? The PB GROTS campaign. "Get rid of traitorous scumbags". 1 -
Now is a particularly auspicious time for government to invest, because:noneoftheabove said:
I disagree conceptually, they are separate things. The level of consumption spending and tax rates are a matter of choice and preference. Whether those stayed the same or changed I would still be in favour of borrowing to invest in housing and associated infrastructure.another_richard said:
But to justify the increased investment spending governments need to cut the consumption spending.noneoftheabove said:
Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.another_richard said:
Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.
So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.
A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.
And that's where they need to show some political courage.
- The UK's creditworthiness relative to other major economies is quite solid, and the cost of debt is starting to fall / Sterling is getting a tad strong
- The UK's economy lacks spare infrastructure capacity and has done for ages, so there is very little risk of this triggering an investment bust and surplus capacity
- Other Western countries, with the exception of the US which is able to keep splurging because of its reserve currency, are not looking hugely investable at the moment. Japan is slowly picking itself up but France and Germany are in the doldrums, Italy remains difficult, Korea is politically volatile, China has surplus capacity, Saudi funds itself and Russia is off limits.
- Business investment remains low so there's an argument for government to step in to take up some of the slack2 -
Well the longer the better.LostPassword said:
How much difference would that make, given that the debt will need to be refinanced later when interest rates will be higher?kinabalu said:
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.0 -
Sorry! I didn't add you to my persona non grata list.kinabalu said:
Of course.Mexicanpete said:
Should we blame Gordon Brown?kinabalu said:
It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.noneoftheabove said:
The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.algarkirk said:
Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?noneoftheabove said:
It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
He sold the gold!1 -
A lifelong Labour voter.Taz said:
I would just like to point out, whatever Herbie goes to Monte Carlo thinks, my politics are left of centre and I am not right wing and I voted Labour at the last election like every other election since the first one I voted in, 1987.JosiasJessop said:
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...Mexicanpete said:
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.1 -
To an ordinary person paying attention what is unmistakeable is that we are borrowing £100 bn pa, and also paying interest of £100 bn pa on previously acquired debt. However you dress it up, it looks like we are borrowing to pay the interest, as once that is paid there is nothing left of what you borrowed. In the end there is only one sort of money.Pulpstar said:
It "depends". The £2 Tn is sunk, so any additional borrowing ought at least try to produce a real pounds and pence return in the medium to long term. The thing is when Labour say they are borrowing to "invest" I'm not actually sure they mean that they are "investing" in assets that will produce an actual return.algarkirk said:Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
Nor is there a plan to improve that fiscal picture. Is it possible that the fiscal emperor has no clothes?0 -
Of course if Labour had announced a rise in income tax, the end of the triple lock, and recalibration of council tax bands, the Mail, Telegraph, Times and commentators throughout the country, including on PB, would have been praising them for doing what is necessary.
Or, perhaps, those same critics would be piling on about starving pensioners, the devastating impact of a rise in income tax on growth and therefore living standards and jobs, and hard-working people being forced out of their homes because they can't afford the council tax.5 -
That’s indicative of the wider problem, that the whole lot of them come across as passengers led by events rather than leading the agenda, and being surprised that the policies they do announce aren’t simply welcomed by everyone.Taz said:
Exactly and the "govt in waiting" they presented themselves as has rather fallen apart with unforced error after unforced error and upthread Eek/Horse are exactly right about Reeves. She boxed herself in needlessly before the election making commitments not to raise certain taxes or go for the Triple Lock or change council tax bands.Mortimer said:
Just a look at the day in day out front pages shows how much this new govt. are struggling.Taz said:
Unless you are 100% on message, happy clappy, about this labour govt there are a handful of people who deem you to be a Tory. Even if you have never voted for them in your life. It's like the Neocon Dubya view of nations, you're either with us or against us. A ridiculous mind set only deserving of being laughed at.another_richard said:
They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got over by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
Real life is not that black and white. People can vote for a Party and dislike some of what they do or recognise the stupidity of some of their policies.
Rachel Reeves stewardship so far has proven to be poor. It needs to be called out the damage being inflicted. Especially at the sharp end.
You'd think they were 4 years 6 months into a term, not 6 months.
But life comes at your fast when you have to do something, rather than just oppose.
Should have simply said "no plans", got into office, done what is needed without hammering employers with a jobs tax, and took the short term hit as in 3 years time it will be a different picture.
They really need to get an Alistair Campbell back in to run the No.10 press operation, keeping everyone on the same page on a daily basis - notwithstanding that a much more fragmented media in the past 25 years makes that job considerably harder than it ever used to be.
Yes, they should have got all of the bad news out almost immediately (income tax up 2p, sorry but the last lot left a big mess, NI down 2p anyway so most won’t notice it) and now be concentrating on public policy rather than everyone the lack of fuel allowances about to drop on 10m pensioners’ doors.0 -
British Government takes MOD Housing Stock back off Rachmanesque Guy Hands Terra Firma 36000 properties for £6bn
Another unholy mess perpetrated by Major on 1996 and subject of Legal action after successive Tory Governments fecked it up still more.
Win for Servicemen
Win long term as will save MOD money
For Country
Not Party
Not short term bollocks
Long term planning
0 -
I did quite enjoy the dawn chorus comment though.JosiasJessop said:
Your comment is so over-the-top I'd be surprised if you had not just obtained the entirety of the world's helium supply...Mexicanpete said:
I'm a snowflake.JosiasJessop said:
I'm amazed you can get that reading from what I wrote.Mexicanpete said:
Of course you are right and the sooner we can rid the site of all these disrespectful off message centrist dad (and mum) posters the better the site becomes. I'd start with @Mexicanpete, @Shecorns88 Horse and Anabob. There are a handful of others that have no business being here either. Make PB Great Again!JosiasJessop said:
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...Mexicanpete said:
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
I'm right though aren't I? The PB GROTS campaign. "Get rid of traitorous scumbags".0 -
Imagine what an improved site we would have if every post was a "Reeves is shit" post. That has to be the aim for 2025.JosiasJessop said:
Your comment is so over-the-top I'd be surprised if you had not just obtained the entirety of the world's helium supply...Mexicanpete said:
I'm a snowflake.JosiasJessop said:
I'm amazed you can get that reading from what I wrote.Mexicanpete said:
Of course you are right and the sooner we can rid the site of all these disrespectful off message centrist dad (and mum) posters the better the site becomes. I'd start with @Mexicanpete, @Shecorns88 Horse and Anabob. There are a handful of others that have no business being here either. Make PB Great Again!JosiasJessop said:
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...Mexicanpete said:
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
I'm right though aren't I? The PB GROTS campaign. "Get rid of traitorous scumbags".0 -
Unlike you, of course.Anabobazina said:
A lifelong Labour voter.Taz said:
I would just like to point out, whatever Herbie goes to Monte Carlo thinks, my politics are left of centre and I am not right wing and I voted Labour at the last election like every other election since the first one I voted in, 1987.JosiasJessop said:
Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger...Mexicanpete said:
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
In general elections, I most certainly am and, although this govt has not really done anything to justify it I am quite happy with the performance of Luke Akehurst, who seems to be doing a good job locally so far, and have corresponded with him and his office a couple of times.
1 -
Nobody here had a good word to say about the last government, in the two years or so prior to the election. Nor did they deserve a good word.Taz said:
Unless you are 100% on message, happy clappy, about this labour govt there are a handful of people who deem you to be a Tory. Even if you have never voted for them in your life. It's like the Neocon Dubya view of nations, you're either with us or against us. A ridiculous mind set only deserving of being laughed at.another_richard said:
They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got over by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
Real life is not that black and white. People can vote for a Party and dislike some of what they do or recognise the stupidity of some of their policies.
Rachel Reeves stewardship so far has proven to be poor. It needs to be called out the damage being inflicted. Especially at the sharp end.
People simply complain about bad governments (which this one is, like the last one).2 -
I would say Starmer has more supporters on here percentage wise than he does amongst the general UK populationMexicanpete said:
No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.JosiasJessop said:
You must be reading a different forum....Anabobazina said:
Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.BatteryCorrectHorse said:Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo
Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.
Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.3
