Things can only get better (Starmer hopes) – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Worse than selling the gold, he announced in advance he was going to do it and tanked the price as a result.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!
Also his famous “investment” that was mostly in tax credits, with actual capital investment transferred to the current account by way of PFI. Mr Brown, current spending is never investment.2 -
"Rachmanesque"Shecorns88 said: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
How is Guy Hands company "Rachmanesque" ?
0 -
The parties of the left never have any plans for government. They exist to denegrate the parties of the right. The Lib Dems are even worse than Labour in this. In 2010 Cameron tried to negociate a plan for government. The Lib Dems had no opinion on anything and nothing to bring to the table at all. Then they spent five years attacking the government they were meant to be a part of. But, nemesis arrived in 2015.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.0 -
New incumbent of coursenoneoftheabove said:
Rebel or new incumbant?HYUFD said:UK diplomats meet rebel leader in Damascus
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd40pd1g7lo0 -
The outstanding Bridget Phillips on.
"I will not ban smacking on England until we've had time to assess that legislation in Wales and Scotland"
Thank God serious politics is back.
Launching new Child safety legislation today
Prompt action
Considered thoughtful assessment
After a plethora of short term incumbents in Education in past 14 years driven by dogma not careful consideration Phillipson has made an excellent start.0 -
How many pile-ons have we had with @HYUFD ?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 -
Or Swiss modelalgarkirk 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 -
Absolutely and however poor this Labour govt has been so far, and it really has not been a great start, the Previous administration certainly did not deserve another term in office. At the end it felt like the last days of the Brown administration.Sean_F said:
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).
But where this govt fails or does a poor job it should be called out.
0 -
...
Heretic!TimS said:
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 -
God it's dark today. Despite thinner cloud than yesterday, it's essentially the gloaming from dawn to dusk.1
-
Things don't seem to be going well for Russia at the moment. Kirillov would have been involved in both Salisbury poisonings and Syria according to expert on BBC News atm.0
-
Well, it was hardly "Rishi is great" on here before the GE, was it?Mexicanpete said:
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".
Perhaps, just perhaps, people veer not towards being anti-Labour, but anti-anything. It sometimes feel as though PB is predominantly filled with negativity towards lots of things - and not just politics. People rant, rather than rave.
It's just that Labour are in power, and are having to make decisions. That makes them a ripe target.0 -
Smacking on England ?
Either that was a typo, or it's a new thing I've not yet encountered.0 -
So why don't the politicians get it?TimS said:
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 slack0 -
Pro Rata that's possibly true. On here Starmer is supported by @Shecorns88 from a cohort of a thousand. In the greater population Starmer is supported by @Shecorns88 from a cohort of 67 million.HYUFD said:
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.1 -
Not methadone, narcan/Naloxone being given to all emergency services including Police but the drop also implies that there are fewer people starting a journey on fentanyl than there are exiting either through death or rehab.Nigelb said:
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 -
Ukranian security services are claiming ‘credit’ for the scooter bomb that killed two senior Russian military officers in Moscow this morning.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/17/bomb-kills-senior-russian-general-igor-kirillov-moscow/0 -
At least Starmer is in a better position than Trudeau. Looks as if the Liberals are finally in their death throes.0
-
Thatcher created a housing crisis for generations by selling off Council Houses at disgusting low prices to buy votes.TimS said:
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 slack
Anyone remember Dame Shirley Porter.
Then exacerbated the damage Ten fold by not allowing Councils to rebuild with even meagre proceeds.
State intervention NOW for the precise and logical reasons you state would be very welcome
Country first
Politics second.
Not just new builds.
Please please lets reinvigorate our failing and broken High Streets and suburbs by moving empty suitable Commercial Properties in to decent affordable social housing.
Optimise the services and utilities available.
Buy up empty failing and closed old Holiday Parks and do the same thing
Get Britain building
Country first
Politics second
2 -
On BlackBeltBarrister, I've dropped this on Twitter and Bluesky.
BBB is in the habit of responding to tweets - at least to me, and I'm hardly high-profile. I'll post any reply.
I think the @blackbeltbarrister.bsky.social is losing it a little on his Youtube channel. I know a number of ex-viewers.
IMO he's going down the @mattgoodwin.bsky.social pandering-to-the-marginal-Right rabbithole, and losing his objectivity.
Some recent titles are listed in the pic below.
https://bsky.app/profile/mattwardman.bsky.social/post/3ldip3zq6k2251 -
The government has not had the most promising of starts, but a little perspective is sometimes in order - we'll run out of suitable descriptors for 4-5 years in when things actually start going to hell otherwise.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 know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.0
-
Looks as if yesterday's Letby story was less well founded than the headlines suggested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.1 -
If any senior politician reads the comment section on any blog I hope they lose their jobs for poor judgement. I doubt any do.williamglenn said:I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
0 -
You can come back in 2028 or 2029 and acknowledge your lack of visionMexicanpete said:
Pro Rata that's possibly true. On here Starmer is supported by @Shecorns88 from a cohort of a thousand. In the greater population Starmer is supported by @Shecorns88 from a cohort of 67 million.HYUFD said:
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.0 -
It shouldn't have merited a news conference. Convicted person continues to seek means of overturning conviction is not significant news until any new attempts are tested in court. But the sensational nature of the events means every new thing (and plenty of things that are not new) gets attention.algarkirk said:Looks as if yesterday's Letby story was less well founded than the headlines suggested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.1 -
The point I was making was that it doesn’t matter what Labour do, some people will ALWAYS oppose them.
They have made many mistakes but some people are only criticise.
The Tories didn’t do a lot of good things but I am prepared to say where they did. Namely, BDUK and the SRN. Both projects carried on by Labour without change.
I don’t have an issue with @Taz opposing what Labour do. He’s not a Tory who always opposes. I don’t have an issue with most of the Tories here opposing.
But there are a select few who only oppose. They’ve clearly not got over the fact they lost yet. It just makes the site a bit dull, that’s all.
I am struggling to understand how anyone can conclude this government are worse than the last one. Who cut HS2 out of spite.2 -
Perish the thought that they took the advice on here.kle4 said:
If any senior politician reads the comment section on any blog I hope they lose their jobs for poor judgement. I doubt any do.williamglenn said:I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
We'd end up with draconian rules forcing businesses to accept shillings and groats, 40mph limits in residential streets across our nation's neighbourhoods, an abolition of all planning rules and censorship of the tube scene in Darkest Hour.0 -
It's a bit more focused than your last point.JosiasJessop said:
Well, it was hardly "Rishi is great" on here before the GE, was it?Mexicanpete said:
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".
Perhaps, just perhaps, people veer not towards being anti-Labour, but anti-anything. It sometimes feel as though PB is predominantly filled with negativity towards lots of things - and not just politics. People rant, rather than rave.
It's just that Labour are in power, and are having to make decisions. That makes them a ripe target.
The last Government under Sunak was derided for stuff like canning HS2 and the laughable Rwanda scheme but there were still as many advocates as there were detractors. And that is OK. At peak Johnson meltdown, lots were laughing at him, but he still had a decent number of fanbois. And that's fine. There is a visceral hatred displayed on here for Starmer and Reeves and I don't mind, I don't know or care for them, but I did believe I was allowed to comment if I disagreed with a narrative, likewise my critiques of Trump, but check out all my "flags" from the week before last. It suggests dissent will be punished.
If I don't like reading all the "Reeves is shit" posts I agree I am more than welcome to f*** off.1 -
Final day of the Post Office Inquiry. They're on a break at the moment, starting again at 11:25.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eSzFjErirQ2 -
It sounds very much like they’re trying to build up a media ‘narrative’ ahead of an appeal, rather than actually bring forward any new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the original trial.kle4 said:
It shouldn't have merited a news conference. Convicted person continues to seek means of overturning conviction is not significant news until any new attempts are tested in court. But the sensational nature of the events means every new thing (and plenty of things that are not new) get attention.algarkirk said:Looks as if yesterday's Letby story was less well founded than the headlines suggested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.0 -
"But there are a select few who only oppose."BatteryCorrectHorse said:The point I was making was that it doesn’t matter what Labour do, some people will ALWAYS oppose them.
They have made many mistakes but some people are only criticise.
The Tories didn’t do a lot of good things but I am prepared to say where they did. Namely, BDUK and the SRN. Both projects carried on by Labour without change.
I don’t have an issue with @Taz opposing what Labour do. He’s not a Tory who always opposes. I don’t have an issue with most of the Tories here opposing.
But there are a select few who only oppose. They’ve clearly not got over the fact they lost yet. It just makes the site a bit dull, that’s all.
I am struggling to understand how anyone can conclude this government are worse than the last one. Who cut HS2 out of spite.
You sorta make the point I made below: some people criticise everyone and everything. They criticised the last government, and now they are criticising this one. For some (not all), it's not a case of being anti-Labour: it's a case of just wanting to grumble.
0 -
I've never posted on here under any name or alias.williamglenn said:I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
I tried many times to register but the platform didn't send set up messages for a while to Gmail accounts
TSE did refer to this issue at the time.
I tried again a while back and the mail arrived.
0 -
I’m not sure I really agree. They have got all of the bad news out the way early. It’s obvious they hope in a year there’s a load of good news around the NMW, immigration etc and people will forgive them. Look at the focus groups as a hint.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 them0 -
You have a different one every year? What a good idea.Pulpstar said:0 -
It's a better time waster than Westminster Whatsapp groupskle4 said:
If any senior politician reads the comment section on any blog I hope they lose their jobs for poor judgement. I doubt any do.williamglenn said:I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
.
We'd end up with draconian rules forcing businesses to accept shillings and groats, 40mph limits in residential streets across our nation's neighbourhoods, an abolition of all planning rules and censorship of the tube scene in Darkest Hour.
Dubloons. I demand dubloons.
1 -
For an insight into judgment, look at all the people now who supported Johnson at the time as a brilliant PM that would govern for a decade. I can’t remember how many times I was laughed at for saying SKS would be PM and Johnson wouldn’t last.
These same people now tell us SKS is a dud.
Do I think SKS has had a poor start. Yes. Is it entirely his fault? I’m afraid I don’t think so.4 -
Leon is in the Cabinet? Well I never...williamglenn said:I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
0 -
It was an extremely long and complicated trial. That doesn't absolutely guarantee the end result was correct, but it should probably make people more wary of being persuaded by very brief one line explanations of why it all cannot be true that get floated about the internet as gotchas.Sandpit said:
It sounds very much like they’re trying to build up a media ‘narrative’ ahead of an appeal, rather than actually bring forward any new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the original trial.kle4 said:
It shouldn't have merited a news conference. Convicted person continues to seek means of overturning conviction is not significant news until any new attempts are tested in court. But the sensational nature of the events means every new thing (and plenty of things that are not new) get attention.algarkirk said:Looks as if yesterday's Letby story was less well founded than the headlines suggested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.0 -
The mysterious doctor who killed one of babies himself but kept quiet about it appears to be new. And what about the exculpatory statistical evidence? Are they still going with that or has it been quietly dropped?algarkirk said:Looks as if yesterday's Letby story was less well founded than the headlines suggested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.0 -
Dipping in and out of reporting it feels like the general 'defence' is that it was a complete basketcase of incompetence from top to bottom, but I presume any report will be a tad more nuanced than that.Andy_JS said:Final day of the Post Office Inquiry. They're on a break at the moment, starting again at 11:25.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eSzFjErirQ1 -
Does the fact one of his supporters has about six identities shift the average at all?HYUFD said:
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.1 -
You tell him Leon*...Shecorns88 said:
I've never posted on here under any name or alias.williamglenn said:I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
I tried many times to register but the platform didn't send set up messages for a while to Gmail accounts
TSE did refer to this issue at the time.
I tried again a while back and the mail arrived.
* I don't believe that. I suspect the reference is to Heatherner and Mystic Rose. They were both posters I really liked. Mystic was particularly helpful during the 2020 Presidential election. If you are all Leon's alter ego I much prefer his alter egos.
0 -
The difference now is that the hope has gone. I was on the more critical end of the spectrum of Starmer before the election, but I can tell now that I subconsciously had an implicit belief that there was a lot more there that they weren't showing. And there isn't. No hidden depths.Sean_F said:
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).
The Tories have learnt nothing useful from their defeat. The Lib Dems seem absent. Farage is as good at agitprop as ever, but RefUK are the answer to the question: "How do you make the government of Liz Truss look competent and able?"
So there's no hope of things improving.2 -
Letby’s lawyer was lying, shock.
Expert refutes he 'changed his mind' in Letby case
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo
That’s surely got to be a matter for the SRA and Bar Standards Board, even if they haven’t made any application yet?0 -
That scraping noise is the West Bridgford Maquis sharpening the inherited Victorinox Oyster Shuckers they have left over from 1972...Anabobazina said:Good to see local government (potentially) being sorted out. It’s an abject mess in most places. Two-tier councils are pointless, and cities like Nottingham and Manchester have ludicrously tight boundaries that make no geographical sense and should have been expanded decades ago.
JFDI.2 -
Much of the potential honeymoon was lost to Frockgate – which was Currygate on steroids.BatteryCorrectHorse said:
I’m not sure I really agree. They have got all of the bad news out the way early. It’s obvious they hope in a year there’s a load of good news around the NMW, immigration etc and people will forgive them. Look at the focus groups as a hint.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
What Labour was guilty of was naivety. The episode has gone down in the public consciousness as politicians' wives spending taxpayers' cash on glamorous outfits.
Of course, taxpayers didn't pay a penny as the wardrobe was funded by a Labour donor, but that got lost in the maelstrom due to a combination of press hyperbole and Labour's amateurish media management at the time.1 -
That would scupper HY's theories as they cancel each other out. Totting up, wouldn't that put Starmer on minus 5 out of the 6 identities?ydoethur said:
Does the fact one of his supporters has about six identities shift the average at all?HYUFD said:
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.0 -
An interesting piece about shop keepers making Citizens' Arrests to try and bring shoplifting under control:
'I've carried out more than 50 citizen's arrests'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8v11xq3pyo1 -
I'm just keeping my head down atm.Mexicanpete said:
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 -
You never have to pay it back. You roll it over and grow it. Nothing inconsistent with that. You need to keep the growth in debt roughly in line with the growth in your GDP. It would be calamitous for the economy to pay it all back!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?
1 -
I think they will be trying to get the CCRC to look at it first. But even if they have nothing much really, for now they have to look as if they are progressing, so that the client and the campaigners have something to look at.Sandpit said:
It sounds very much like they’re trying to build up a media ‘narrative’ ahead of an appeal, rather than actually bring forward any new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the original trial.kle4 said:
It shouldn't have merited a news conference. Convicted person continues to seek means of overturning conviction is not significant news until any new attempts are tested in court. But the sensational nature of the events means every new thing (and plenty of things that are not new) get attention.algarkirk said:Looks as if yesterday's Letby story was less well founded than the headlines suggested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.
I think this will run and run. My suspicion is that there are experts (lawyers and medics) who conscientiously think that there may have been flaws in the trial process, but many fewer who think a real injustice has been done. Further that the CCRC/Court of Appeal won't move unless it is clear that the prosecution/judicial aspects of the trial were deeply flawed. I don't think the defence tactics will become an issue. If I am wrong, then it will become an interesting fight.0 -
Still think that whole affair was overblown.Anabobazina said:
Much of the potential honeymoon was lost to Frockgate – which was Currygate on steroids.BatteryCorrectHorse said:
I’m not sure I really agree. They have got all of the bad news out the way early. It’s obvious they hope in a year there’s a load of good news around the NMW, immigration etc and people will forgive them. Look at the focus groups as a hint.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
What Labour was guilty of was naivety. The episode has gone down in the public consciousness as politicians' wives spending taxpayers' cash on glamorous outfits.
Of course, taxpayers didn't pay a penny as the wardrobe was funded by a Labour donor, but that got lost in the maelstrom due to a combination of press hyperbole and Labour's amateurish media management at the time.
A Labour donor was apparently buying influence by…supporting Labour policies?
The Tories as usual opposed it but only when they were out of government.
And that’s the thing, they had 14 years to make change. They did sod all. That is by far the most powerful weapon Labour has against them. And they will deploy it just as Osborne did.
Starmer is just doing Cameronism in reverse.1 -
Just a reminder that if we had a surplus instead of a debt then we wouldn't be spending a fortune in debt interest payments but receiving income that way as a creditor.0
-
Dino: The Colonel doesn't think we're nice people, Luigi.Taz said:
"Rachmanesque"Shecorns88 said: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
How is Guy Hands company "Rachmanesque" ?
Luigi: We're your buddies, Colonel.
Dino: We want to look after you.
Colonel: Look after me?
Luigi: We can guarantee you that not a single armored division will get done over for fifteen bob a week.0 -
How's that project about growth in debt and GDP getting on so far?Barnesian said:
You never have to pay it back. You roll it over and grow it. Nothing inconsistent with that. You need to keep the growth in debt roughly in line with the growth in your GDP. It would be calamitous for the economy to pay it all back!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 -
Philosophical post: What smoking cigarettes was to the 20th century, doom-scrolling on smartphones is to the 21st. Discuss.2
-
Actually I think WFA was much more impactful in destroying Labours honeymoon than frockgate.BatteryCorrectHorse said:For an insight into judgment, look at all the people now who supported Johnson at the time as a brilliant PM that would govern for a decade. I can’t remember how many times I was laughed at for saying SKS would be PM and Johnson wouldn’t last.
These same people now tell us SKS is a dud.
Do I think SKS has had a poor start. Yes. Is it entirely his fault? I’m afraid I don’t think so.1 -
Also the Green Belt. There is a fair chunk of the Green Belt ripe for development that should be a no brainer. Not rolling green countryside, which is what people automatically assume the Green Belt is.Shecorns88 said:
Thatcher created a housing crisis for generations by selling off Council Houses at disgusting low prices to buy votes.TimS said:
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 slack
Anyone remember Dame Shirley Porter.
Then exacerbated the damage Ten fold by not allowing Councils to rebuild with even meagre proceeds.
State intervention NOW for the precise and logical reasons you state would be very welcome
Country first
Politics second.
Not just new builds.
Please please lets reinvigorate our failing and broken High Streets and suburbs by moving empty suitable Commercial Properties in to decent affordable social housing.
Optimise the services and utilities available.
Buy up empty failing and closed old Holiday Parks and do the same thing
Get Britain building
Country first
Politics second
Stuff like old car parks, old factories and the like. Been plenty of pics on twitter. Build on them and build up too.
This is one area where I like what Labour are doing. Focussing on build build build. There are still problems holding up building such as Nutrient Neutrality demands.
Just get on with building.2 -
A noxious habit imported from America?Andy_JS said:Philosophical post: What smoking cigarettes was to the 20th century, doom-scrolling on smartphones is to the 21st. Discuss.
0 -
Quite a large disparity, which somewhat undercuts the criticism of the government's failure at public sector wage restraint.
Given our sub-anaemic growth, not good news.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/dec/17/uk-pay-growth-interest-rate-cut-manufacturing-sector
...The rise in pay for factory workers to 6% meant the split between civil servants and private sector employees widened. Annual average regular earnings growth was 5.4% for the private sector and 4.3% for the public sector, the ONS said...2 -
Had Labour backtracked on their income tax promise, every other post on PB would be complaining about how Labour lied. For months, probably years.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.3 -
The line between consumption and investment isn't clear tbf. There's an argument for just looking at borrowing as borrowing. You can't frig it then.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.
And my point on rates does draw on hindsight. In practice I don't think the government is in the business of forecasting where rates are going when they borrow. That would be more of a "trading" concept. I think they more just meet the liquidity needs and try to create a balanced maturity profile. I've never worked for the Treasury or the BOE though so perhaps there's more to it.0 -
Debt is levelling out at about 100% of GDP which is fine.algarkirk said:
How's that project about growth in debt and GDP getting on so far?Barnesian said:
You never have to pay it back. You roll it over and grow it. Nothing inconsistent with that. You need to keep the growth in debt roughly in line with the growth in your GDP. It would be calamitous for the economy to pay it all back!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?
A typical UK household would be happy to have net debt including mortgages equal to annual income. So would a company. I know the government figures are large numbers but the prinicple is the same. Actually, the government can also print money unlike a household or company.
1 -
I think it's good news. We've been in a low wage spiral and therefore not spending anywhere near enough on technology. It's easier to automate in manufacturing than services, so if manufacturing pay is rising then that implies some companies are or will be making the right investment decisions.Nigelb said:Quite a large disparity, which somewhat undercuts the criticism of the government's failure at public sector wage restraint.
Given our sub-anaemic growth, not good news.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/dec/17/uk-pay-growth-interest-rate-cut-manufacturing-sector
...The rise in pay for factory workers to 6% meant the split between civil servants and private sector employees widened. Annual average regular earnings growth was 5.4% for the private sector and 4.3% for the public sector, the ONS said...
It also implies that the impact of the forthcoming NI changes isn't yet being factored into pay settlements, though there is probably a lag there.0 -
Again, that was bonkers. The WFA was a daft bung - a Gordon Brown freebie - that is without justification and should have been abolished long ago. Reeves is right to stick to her guns.GIN1138 said:
Actually I think WFA was much more impactful in destroying Labours honeymoon than frockgate.BatteryCorrectHorse said:For an insight into judgment, look at all the people now who supported Johnson at the time as a brilliant PM that would govern for a decade. I can’t remember how many times I was laughed at for saying SKS would be PM and Johnson wouldn’t last.
These same people now tell us SKS is a dud.
Do I think SKS has had a poor start. Yes. Is it entirely his fault? I’m afraid I don’t think so.2 -
One difference from us is that they didn't squander their North Sea Oil proceeds.algarkirk said:
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.
Another is that the political class (mostly) want to be in the EU anyway but the referendum failed, and the current status quo seems to be an acceptable compromise (and they are in Schengen). As a smaller country they are more used to having to fall in line with others anyway.0 -
An overrated CoE imo but he still makes most current pols look like midgets.Sandpit said:
Worse than selling the gold, he announced in advance he was going to do it and tanked the price as a result.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!
Also his famous “investment” that was mostly in tax credits, with actual capital investment transferred to the current account by way of PFI. Mr Brown, current spending is never investment.0 -
Nah, somebody using a smartphone isn’t going to give me cancer.Andy_JS said:Philosophical post: What smoking cigarettes was to the 20th century, doom-scrolling on smartphones is to the 21st. Discuss.
0 -
He will be sued into oblivion, fairly shortly.MattW said:An interesting piece about shop keepers making Citizens' Arrests to try and bring shoplifting under control:
'I've carried out more than 50 citizen's arrests'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8v11xq3pyo0 -
Okay, so which shop is it that’s got their Easter eggs on sale before Christmas?
https://x.com/libertylester/status/1868666786549490089
Price tags are in £ so it’s a UK shop.0 -
We have a couple of automation projects currently on hold due to current business conditions, we need to apply to corporate head office for funding, however once funding is available we will be full speed ahead with them.TimS said:
I think it's good news. We've been in a low wage spiral and therefore not spending anywhere near enough on technology. It's easier to automate in manufacturing than services, so if manufacturing pay is rising then that implies some companies are or will be making the right investment decisions.Nigelb said:Quite a large disparity, which somewhat undercuts the criticism of the government's failure at public sector wage restraint.
Given our sub-anaemic growth, not good news.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/dec/17/uk-pay-growth-interest-rate-cut-manufacturing-sector
...The rise in pay for factory workers to 6% meant the split between civil servants and private sector employees widened. Annual average regular earnings growth was 5.4% for the private sector and 4.3% for the public sector, the ONS said...
It also implies that the impact of the forthcoming NI changes isn't yet being factored into pay settlements, though there is probably a lag there.
I expect there to be a lag as many of these pay awards coming through now will have been negotiated and agreed prior to the budget. It is next years awards that will be interesting.0 -
It's now also the norm in almost all large developed economies, except the parsimonious Germany and the less public-funded South Korea. Well North of 100% in the US, France, Italy and Canada, and over 200% in Japan. So we have the second lowest debt:gdp ratio in the G7.Barnesian said:
Debt is levelling out at about 100% of GDP which is fine.algarkirk said:
How's that project about growth in debt and GDP getting on so far?Barnesian said:
You never have to pay it back. You roll it over and grow it. Nothing inconsistent with that. You need to keep the growth in debt roughly in line with the growth in your GDP. It would be calamitous for the economy to pay it all back!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?
A typical UK household would be happy to have net debt including mortgages equal to annual income. So would a company. I know the government figures are large numbers but the prinicple is the same. Actually, the government can also print money unlike a household or company.0 -
They couldn't break that pledge. The argument with more legs is whether they should have made it. I understand why they did whilst wishing they hadn't.bondegezou said:
Had Labour backtracked on their income tax promise, every other post on PB would be complaining about how Labour lied. For months, probably years.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.4 -
On the consumption vs investment - whenever this comes up, politicians redefine investment to mean “all the spending I want”.kinabalu said:
The line between consumption and investment isn't clear tbf. There's an argument for just looking at borrowing as borrowing. You can't frig it then.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.
And my point on rates does draw on hindsight. In practice I don't think the government is in the business of forecasting where rates are going when they borrow. That would be more of a "trading" concept. I think they more just meet the liquidity needs and try to create a balanced maturity profile. I've never worked for the Treasury or the BOE though so perhaps there's more to it.0 -
I think - I hope - that almost regardless of political decisions there is a backlog of automation that businesses across most sectors are going to have to catch up on in the next few years. The technology is out there. The trouble is so many have blown their tech budgets on S4Hana implementations.Taz said:
We have a couple of automation projects currently on hold due to current business conditions, we need to apply to corporate head office for funding, however once funding is available we will be full speed ahead with them.TimS said:
I think it's good news. We've been in a low wage spiral and therefore not spending anywhere near enough on technology. It's easier to automate in manufacturing than services, so if manufacturing pay is rising then that implies some companies are or will be making the right investment decisions.Nigelb said:Quite a large disparity, which somewhat undercuts the criticism of the government's failure at public sector wage restraint.
Given our sub-anaemic growth, not good news.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/dec/17/uk-pay-growth-interest-rate-cut-manufacturing-sector
...The rise in pay for factory workers to 6% meant the split between civil servants and private sector employees widened. Annual average regular earnings growth was 5.4% for the private sector and 4.3% for the public sector, the ONS said...
It also implies that the impact of the forthcoming NI changes isn't yet being factored into pay settlements, though there is probably a lag there.
I expect there to be a lag as many of these pay awards coming through now will have been negotiated and agreed prior to the budget. It is next years awards that will be interesting.
Where I am we're certainly massively upping the amount of investment spending that goes into technology rather than just hiring more senior people.0 -
If factory wages are going up due to automation/productivity increases then that should come through in economic growth. We are not seeing that at the moment, perhaps we will..TimS said:
I think it's good news. We've been in a low wage spiral and therefore not spending anywhere near enough on technology. It's easier to automate in manufacturing than services, so if manufacturing pay is rising then that implies some companies are or will be making the right investment decisions.Nigelb said:Quite a large disparity, which somewhat undercuts the criticism of the government's failure at public sector wage restraint.
Given our sub-anaemic growth, not good news.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/dec/17/uk-pay-growth-interest-rate-cut-manufacturing-sector
...The rise in pay for factory workers to 6% meant the split between civil servants and private sector employees widened. Annual average regular earnings growth was 5.4% for the private sector and 4.3% for the public sector, the ONS said...
It also implies that the impact of the forthcoming NI changes isn't yet being factored into pay settlements, though there is probably a lag there.0 -
Though there is the issue of the religious belief in commercial units on the ground floor of anything built near a high street.Taz said:
Also the Green Belt. There is a fair chunk of the Green Belt ripe for development that should be a no brainer. Not rolling green countryside, which is what people automatically assume the Green Belt is.Shecorns88 said:
Thatcher created a housing crisis for generations by selling off Council Houses at disgusting low prices to buy votes.TimS said:
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 slack
Anyone remember Dame Shirley Porter.
Then exacerbated the damage Ten fold by not allowing Councils to rebuild with even meagre proceeds.
State intervention NOW for the precise and logical reasons you state would be very welcome
Country first
Politics second.
Not just new builds.
Please please lets reinvigorate our failing and broken High Streets and suburbs by moving empty suitable Commercial Properties in to decent affordable social housing.
Optimise the services and utilities available.
Buy up empty failing and closed old Holiday Parks and do the same thing
Get Britain building
Country first
Politics second
Stuff like old car parks, old factories and the like. Been plenty of pics on twitter. Build on them and build up too.
This is one area where I like what Labour are doing. Focussing on build build build. There are still problems holding up building such as Nutrient Neutrality demands.
Just get on with building.
In Chiswick (high income, lots of footfall), we have units being built into new developments, while previous units have stood empty for years.0 -
Looks to be a petrol station SparSandpit said:Okay, so which shop is it that’s got their Easter eggs on sale before Christmas?
https://x.com/libertylester/status/1868666786549490089
Price tags are in £ so it’s a UK shop.
Also they are slacking I mentioned my first Crème Egg over a week ago1 -
Brexit boost for Britain from Estonia.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-tech-start-up-opens-uk-headquarters-in-boost-for-industry
An Estonian tech start up manufacturing low-cost air defence missiles is expected to open a new UK headquarters, delivering on the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change.
Defence company Frankenburg Technologies is planning to open a new office in London initially employing upwards of 50 people, in a boost for the UK defence sector.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: "Frankenburg Technologies’ vote of confidence in the UK is another signal that our plan is working, which is why I am focused on how we can continue to make the UK a magnet for foreign investment, greater growth and innovation."0 -
Max 14.5W/m2 measured so far today. 33 minutes to local solar noon. Was up to 205W/m2 about an hour after local noon yesterday.TimS said:God it's dark today. Despite thinner cloud than yesterday, it's essentially the gloaming from dawn to dusk.
0 -
Because Ground floor flats facing directly on to the pavement can’t be sold or rented for love nor money and drag down the value of the entire block of flats.Malmesbury said:
Though there is the issue of the religious belief in commercial units on the ground floor of anything built near a high street.Taz said:
Also the Green Belt. There is a fair chunk of the Green Belt ripe for development that should be a no brainer. Not rolling green countryside, which is what people automatically assume the Green Belt is.Shecorns88 said:
Thatcher created a housing crisis for generations by selling off Council Houses at disgusting low prices to buy votes.TimS said:
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 slack
Anyone remember Dame Shirley Porter.
Then exacerbated the damage Ten fold by not allowing Councils to rebuild with even meagre proceeds.
State intervention NOW for the precise and logical reasons you state would be very welcome
Country first
Politics second.
Not just new builds.
Please please lets reinvigorate our failing and broken High Streets and suburbs by moving empty suitable Commercial Properties in to decent affordable social housing.
Optimise the services and utilities available.
Buy up empty failing and closed old Holiday Parks and do the same thing
Get Britain building
Country first
Politics second
Stuff like old car parks, old factories and the like. Been plenty of pics on twitter. Build on them and build up too.
This is one area where I like what Labour are doing. Focussing on build build build. There are still problems holding up building such as Nutrient Neutrality demands.
Just get on with building.
In Chiswick (high income, lots of footfall), we have units being built into new developments, while previous units have stood empty for years.
It’s cheaper to have an empty shop than try to put a flat there0 -
Genuine question: did Gordon suffer the greatest reputational tanking in British political history? Hard to believe now, but at the time pundits and politicians from both the Left and Right spoke of him as a genius-messiah figure (Tony Blair being a mere warm-up act) whose ascendency to PM would end politics as we know it. Now no one speaks highly of him at all. What went wrong?kinabalu said:
An overrated CoE imo but he still makes most current pols look like midgets.Sandpit said:
Worse than selling the gold, he announced in advance he was going to do it and tanked the price as a result.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!
Also his famous “investment” that was mostly in tax credits, with actual capital investment transferred to the current account by way of PFI. Mr Brown, current spending is never investment.0 -
That sounds like an excellent plan - cash, speed limits and noxious media.MattW said:
It's a better time waster than Westminster Whatsapp groupskle4 said:
If any senior politician reads the comment section on any blog I hope they lose their jobs for poor judgement. I doubt any do.williamglenn said:I know it's poor form to dox, but I can't help wondering if @Shecorns88 is a returning poster. If it's who I'm thinking of then we should think ourselves very lucky that she takes time away from her Cabinet responsibilities to post on here.
.
We'd end up with draconian rules forcing businesses to accept shillings and groats, 40mph limits in residential streets across our nation's neighbourhoods, an abolition of all planning rules and censorship of the tube scene in Darkest Hour.
Dubloons. I demand dubloons.
On serious note - if politicians floated their ideas here, they would have the obvious problems pointed out in 10 minutes.
I’ve said it before - OGH could make a fortune creating a private version of PB as a think tank/ideas tester.
Drop your idea in the piraña tank and see what happens….0 -
Yield today : 0.20 kwhLostPassword said:
Max 14.5W/m2 measured so far today. 33 minutes to local solar noon. Was up to 205W/m2 about an hour after local noon yesterday.TimS said:God it's dark today. Despite thinner cloud than yesterday, it's essentially the gloaming from dawn to dusk.
The brief peak was at 10:20 when my 4 KW system produced an entire 80 watts output.0 -
I'd assess it more likely she got away with some murders than she was convicted for ones she didn't do. And both those things could be true.algarkirk said:
I think they will be trying to get the CCRC to look at it first. But even if they have nothing much really, for now they have to look as if they are progressing, so that the client and the campaigners have something to look at.Sandpit said:
It sounds very much like they’re trying to build up a media ‘narrative’ ahead of an appeal, rather than actually bring forward any new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the original trial.kle4 said:
It shouldn't have merited a news conference. Convicted person continues to seek means of overturning conviction is not significant news until any new attempts are tested in court. But the sensational nature of the events means every new thing (and plenty of things that are not new) get attention.algarkirk said:Looks as if yesterday's Letby story was less well founded than the headlines suggested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo
Tentative conclusion: the new lawyers had to make a wave of publicity but actually their true position is less firm than they would like.
No explanation has yet been offered for the defence failing to call their expert witnesses. Until that is clarified, the obvious conclusion remains the front runner.
I think this will run and run. My suspicion is that there are experts (lawyers and medics) who conscientiously think that there may have been flaws in the trial process, but many fewer who think a real injustice has been done. Further that the CCRC/Court of Appeal won't move unless it is clear that the prosecution/judicial aspects of the trial were deeply flawed. I don't think the defence tactics will become an issue. If I am wrong, then it will become an interesting fight.
Grim for the victims families all this.0 -
My greenhouse maxed at 21°C yesterday. Unfortunately I missed it.LostPassword said:
Max 14.5W/m2 measured so far today. 33 minutes to local solar noon. Was up to 205W/m2 about an hour after local noon yesterday.TimS said:God it's dark today. Despite thinner cloud than yesterday, it's essentially the gloaming from dawn to dusk.
0 -
They are made condition of planning consent. There are designs to deal with the various issues.eek said:
Because Ground floor flats facing directly on to the pavement can’t be sold or rented for love nor money and drag down the value of the entire block of flats.Malmesbury said:
Though there is the issue of the religious belief in commercial units on the ground floor of anything built near a high street.Taz said:
Also the Green Belt. There is a fair chunk of the Green Belt ripe for development that should be a no brainer. Not rolling green countryside, which is what people automatically assume the Green Belt is.Shecorns88 said:
Thatcher created a housing crisis for generations by selling off Council Houses at disgusting low prices to buy votes.TimS said:
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 slack
Anyone remember Dame Shirley Porter.
Then exacerbated the damage Ten fold by not allowing Councils to rebuild with even meagre proceeds.
State intervention NOW for the precise and logical reasons you state would be very welcome
Country first
Politics second.
Not just new builds.
Please please lets reinvigorate our failing and broken High Streets and suburbs by moving empty suitable Commercial Properties in to decent affordable social housing.
Optimise the services and utilities available.
Buy up empty failing and closed old Holiday Parks and do the same thing
Get Britain building
Country first
Politics second
Stuff like old car parks, old factories and the like. Been plenty of pics on twitter. Build on them and build up too.
This is one area where I like what Labour are doing. Focussing on build build build. There are still problems holding up building such as Nutrient Neutrality demands.
Just get on with building.
In Chiswick (high income, lots of footfall), we have units being built into new developments, while previous units have stood empty for years.
It’s cheaper to have an empty shop than try to put a flat there
So we have boarded up spaces - in some cases, as built, for a decade.0 -
The merits of WFA can be debated but in the election Labour was clear they weren't coming for it, then their first major policy announcement was it's abolition.Anabobazina said:
Again, that was bonkers. The WFA was a daft bung - a Gordon Brown freebie - that is without justification and should have been abolished long ago. Reeves is right to stick to her guns.GIN1138 said:
Actually I think WFA was much more impactful in destroying Labours honeymoon than frockgate.BatteryCorrectHorse said:For an insight into judgment, look at all the people now who supported Johnson at the time as a brilliant PM that would govern for a decade. I can’t remember how many times I was laughed at for saying SKS would be PM and Johnson wouldn’t last.
These same people now tell us SKS is a dud.
Do I think SKS has had a poor start. Yes. Is it entirely his fault? I’m afraid I don’t think so.
It made Starmer and Reeves look cynical, deceitful and duplicitous and confirmed all the worst fears many people had about Starmer during his time as LOTO.
Combined at the same time with Frockgate, there's your reason for Labour's non-honeymoon.1 -
As with space technology, the days when every Proper defence project starts with a budget in the billions is dying. Actually delivering things we can afford is the new craziness…williamglenn said:Brexit boost for Britain from Estonia.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-tech-start-up-opens-uk-headquarters-in-boost-for-industry
An Estonian tech start up manufacturing low-cost air defence missiles is expected to open a new UK headquarters, delivering on the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change.
Defence company Frankenburg Technologies is planning to open a new office in London initially employing upwards of 50 people, in a boost for the UK defence sector.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: "Frankenburg Technologies’ vote of confidence in the UK is another signal that our plan is working, which is why I am focused on how we can continue to make the UK a magnet for foreign investment, greater growth and innovation."
You should hear the anger in certain quarters in the US. The latest is that the US Navy may contract with one of the new vendors for the boosters for the Trident replacement. It was bad enough, for the usual suspects, that they didn’t get a fat project to totally design from scratch.
Don’t worry though, I’m sure the U.K. will carry on for a bit…1 -
Spar has doughty defenders on PB. It's one of those extraordinary institutions taken for granted in most places at most times. But there are places, like Scottish islands, where Spar survives and thrives and provides a service like no other. For me, it can sell Easter eggs all year as long as it has a shop open every day and quite well stocked at Bunessan, Salen and Iona.eek said:
Looks to be a petrol station SparSandpit said:Okay, so which shop is it that’s got their Easter eggs on sale before Christmas?
https://x.com/libertylester/status/1868666786549490089
Price tags are in £ so it’s a UK shop.
Also they are slacking I mentioned my first Crème Egg over a week ago4 -
....
It looks awful and a faux moral case will be made every time an older person dies in a cold house. It is poor politics.Anabobazina said:
Again, that was bonkers. The WFA was a daft bung - a Gordon Brown freebie - that is without justification and should have been abolished long ago. Reeves is right to stick to her guns.GIN1138 said:
Actually I think WFA was much more impactful in destroying Labours honeymoon than frockgate.BatteryCorrectHorse said:For an insight into judgment, look at all the people now who supported Johnson at the time as a brilliant PM that would govern for a decade. I can’t remember how many times I was laughed at for saying SKS would be PM and Johnson wouldn’t last.
These same people now tell us SKS is a dud.
Do I think SKS has had a poor start. Yes. Is it entirely his fault? I’m afraid I don’t think so.
It is easy to criticise Labour. They have been timid in wealth taxation and slow to capture those who have fallen through the safety net.
The media and PB narrative however is how unfair that millionaire pensioners are losing the WFA and triple millionaire farmers are being taxed at half the rate of the rest of us when they die2
