Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future… – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    Nigelb said:

    No, it really doesn’t.
    You should start with those regulated, and ask them what the problems are.

    But jeez, what on earth is OFGEM likely to contribute to the debate ?

    The other two make slightly more sense. Though as we all know, planning is the area of regulation most ripe for change, as it has likely cost our economy hundreds of billions over the last couple of decades.
    But again, asking the planners is starting at the wrong end of the problem.
    The report doesn't say that the government aren't asking anyone else. This isn't an either/or situation. This letter was to the regulators. The government will, I suspect as it is normal practice, ask others for input as well.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197

    Handy medical tip.

    Any paper cuts on your finger tips can be quickly discovered by groping around in a jar of vinegar to grab the last remaining pickled onion.

    I always have a bottle of malt vinegar on hand to treat minor cuts and scratches. Very effective against infection.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,546
    Cyclefree said:

    It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?
    What's weird is that there are plenty of Labour-affiliated (or sympathetic) think tanks doing exactly this.

    Take the new economics foundation for example. It is of course possible to vehemently disagree with their prescription that we should change the fiscal rules to allow greater borrow to finance massive green investment. But at least they have a plan.

    I don't understand why Labour haven't found and used their pet think tank. It's like they are trying and failing to reinvent the wheel.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,831
    Nigelb said:

    Having failed to enter (I think I just missed it), I am not going to mock BJO, as I'd quite possibly have tied with him.
    At least you wouldn’t have done any worse….
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,189

    You are still just making things up. Evidence should be rooted in reality, not fantasy. There is no evidence for any of your speculation.

    The increased Greenland defence spending was planned before Trump said anything. The timing of its announcement was just coincidental.
    Yes I am making things up, otherwise known as speculating, you utter tosspiece, I HAVE SAID THAT'S WHAT I AM DOING. Unless I am passing off my thoughts as proven fact, I am doing what every other PBer does, all the time. Not being party to either Trump's brain or private negotiations, that's all we can do.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,109
    Some online are suggesting a UK-Canada economic and defence union.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,822
    maxh said:

    What's weird is that there are plenty of Labour-affiliated (or sympathetic) think tanks doing exactly this.

    Take the new economics foundation for example. It is of course possible to vehemently disagree with their prescription that we should change the fiscal rules to allow greater borrow to finance massive green investment. But at least they have a plan.

    I don't understand why Labour haven't found and used their pet think tank. It's like they are trying and failing to reinvent the wheel.
    Not surprising given the way they are so reliant on spokes people.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,990

    Handy medical tip.

    Any paper cuts on your finger tips can be quickly discovered by groping around in a jar of vinegar to grab the last remaining pickled onion.

    Sounds like a Viz Top Tip!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    maxh said:

    What's weird is that there are plenty of Labour-affiliated (or sympathetic) think tanks doing exactly this.

    Take the new economics foundation for example. It is of course possible to vehemently disagree with their prescription that we should change the fiscal rules to allow greater borrow to finance massive green investment. But at least they have a plan.

    I don't understand why Labour haven't found and used their pet think tank. It's like they are trying and failing to reinvent the wheel.
    It seems largely performative, as a sop to business after an unpopular budget.
    Brainchild of this guy (private equity type), reportedly.
    https://www.spears500.com/adviser/16830/varun-chandra
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,558
    Foxy said:

    Similarly every year my department has to come up with 4% savings as part of the "Cost Improvement Programme" each year.

    Asking bodies to look at what they are doing and considering savings and efficiencies is pretty standard management practice.
    So if you identify ways to save 8%, you only implement half, and keep the rest in your back pocket until next year.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,831
    Nigelb said:

    I always have a bottle of malt vinegar on hand to treat minor cuts and scratches. Very effective against infection.
    I guess it is harder to get a cut or scratch to an arm when its hand is busy carrying a bottle of vinegar?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,871
    "The Russian shadow fleet tanker seized for damaging the Estlink-2 cable in the Baltic Sea had spy equipment for tracking NATO ships and aircrafts installed on it.

    The hi-tech equipment on board was abnormal for a merchant ship and consumed more power from the ship’s generator, leading to repeated blackouts"

    https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1872706762513760586

    and

    https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1151955/Russia-linked-cable-cutting-tanker-seized-by-Finland-was-loaded-with-spying-equipment
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    Interesting paper.

    Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Cryptic Lineages using Publicly Available Whole Genome Wastewater Sequencing Data

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.12.24.24319568v1
    .. Surprisingly, seven of the mutations that appeared convergently in cryptic lineages were reversions to sequences that were highly conserved in SARS-CoV-2-related bat Sarbecoviruses. The apparent reversion to bat Sarbecovirus sequences suggests that SARS-CoV-2 adaptation to replicate efficiently in respiratory tissues preceded the COVID-19 pandemic….

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,558
    Nigelb said:

    I always have a bottle of malt vinegar on hand to treat minor cuts and scratches. Very effective against infection.
    Would balsamic glaze work?

    (Asking for a friend.)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,990

    Maybe he should invite Ukraine to become an American state.
    Trump's more likely to invite Russia...
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054

    Yes I am making things up, otherwise known as speculating, you utter tosspiece, I HAVE SAID THAT'S WHAT I AM DOING. Unless I am passing off my thoughts as proven fact, I am doing what every other PBer does, all the time. Not being party to either Trump's brain or private negotiations, that's all we can do.
    It's one thing to speculate based on available facts. It's another thing to just make up a whole scenario based on nothing except your desire to justify Trump's actions.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    IanB2 said:

    I guess it is harder to get a cut or scratch to an arm when its hand is busy carrying a bottle of vinegar?
    On hand, not in. :smile:
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting paper.

    Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Cryptic Lineages using Publicly Available Whole Genome Wastewater Sequencing Data

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.12.24.24319568v1
    .. Surprisingly, seven of the mutations that appeared convergently in cryptic lineages were reversions to sequences that were highly conserved in SARS-CoV-2-related bat Sarbecoviruses. The apparent reversion to bat Sarbecovirus sequences suggests that SARS-CoV-2 adaptation to replicate efficiently in respiratory tissues preceded the COVID-19 pandemic….

    Nice.

    The observation that SARS-CoV-2 contains at least seven distinct substitutions that convergently changed to the sequence found in enteric Sarbecoviruses suggests a strong conditional selective pressure to maintain the Sarbecovirus consensus sequence at these positions. The fact that SARS-CoV-2 had changes at each of these positions when it began circulating in humans suggests that SARS-CoV-2 had replicated in a non-enteric environment for a long enough period of time to allow these substitutions to persist and become fixed in the viral genomes that started the COVID-19 pandemic.

    To translate, it didn't just jump from a bat to a human, but was circulating as a respiratory virus in some intermediate species (which is all consistent with a wet market origin).
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,707
    ydoethur said:

    I think we have a late winner for Freudian slip of the year.
    Good thinking Batman - let's get the Management Consultants in, instead of anyone who understands the industry !
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,313

    Nice.

    The observation that SARS-CoV-2 contains at least seven distinct substitutions that convergently changed to the sequence found in enteric Sarbecoviruses suggests a strong conditional selective pressure to maintain the Sarbecovirus consensus sequence at these positions. The fact that SARS-CoV-2 had changes at each of these positions when it began circulating in humans suggests that SARS-CoV-2 had replicated in a non-enteric environment for a long enough period of time to allow these substitutions to persist and become fixed in the viral genomes that started the COVID-19 pandemic.

    To translate, it didn't just jump from a bat to a human, but was circulating as a respiratory virus in some intermediate species (which is all consistent with a wet market origin).
    That little shit in Gotham City is to blame?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,822
    MattW said:

    Good thinking Batman - let's get the Management Consultants in, instead of anyone who understands the industry !
    The regulators understand the industry?

    Bloody hell, they've hid that well.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,822
    Omnium said:

    That little shit in Gotham City is to blame?
    Well, according to @MattW that's me.

    Please nobody tell Leon!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,606
    Omnium said:

    Apparently Starmer is making an appeal to the regulators of various industries as to their bright ideas for the future. It's very lawyerly. Doesn't he realise that the people that can't make it in any given industry are precisely those that are employed by the regulators?
    The ones in the private sector have skived off so aren't there to open the letters sent to them and tell us about them?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,313
    ydoethur said:

    Well, according to @MattW that's me.

    Please nobody tell Leon!
    You get a nice car (we can get Dura to actually fix it), you get a nice searchlight, and you get the assistance of a man in odd attire (well that's TSE all over) - what's not to like?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,407

    Some online are suggesting a UK-Canada economic and defence union.

    Does that mean war with Trumpistan?

    Best have control of Greenland first!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,461
    Nigelb said:

    Some of the last places I’d be seeking ideas.
    To be fair, they haven’t asked the DfE.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,461
    Omnium said:

    Apparently Starmer is making an appeal to the regulators of various industries as to their bright ideas for the future. It's very lawyerly. Doesn't he realise that the people that can't make it in any given industry are precisely those that are employed by the regulators?
    But only after they tried teaching in that industry :-)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,407

    So if you identify ways to save 8%, you only implement half, and keep the rest in your back pocket until next year.
    We do over achieve our CIP target most years, but any excess over the 4% can be invested in the department rather than central funds, so we don't generally hold it over to next year.

    We managed about a million off the pharmacy budget this year, as patent expiry allowed us to substitute cheaper generics in some roles
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,959
    edited December 2024
    So Starmer and co having not done their homework are asking the less able kids in the class to do it for them....

    Not having anybody who has setup or run a proper business in cabinet is rather showing.
  • IanB2 said:

    Enough with the self-congratulation; just tell us what’s going to happen next year?
    Well, I'm currently ranked about 6,000,000th out of 11,000,000 players in the Premier League Fantasy Football, so don't ask me for football tips.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,956

    Some online are suggesting a UK-Canada economic and defence union.

    We could call it NATO....

    In passing, can NATO operate without the permission of the President of the USA?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,756

    So Starmer and co having not done their homework are asking the less able kids in the class to do it for them....

    Not having anybody who has setup or run a proper business in cabinet is rather showing.

    Total shitshow, Reeves really is appalling.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,537
    edited December 2024
    Foxy said:

    We do over achieve our CIP target most years, but any excess over the 4% can be invested in the department rather than central funds, so we don't generally hold it over to next year.

    We managed about a million off the pharmacy budget this year, as patent expiry allowed us to substitute cheaper generics in some roles
    For one horrible moment I read that as patient expiry.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    ClippP said:

    We could call it NATO....

    In passing, can NATO operate without the permission of the President of the USA?
    Yes. At core, NATO says if one member is attacked (under certain criteria), then the others will come to its aid. If say Bulgaria is attacked, then say Spain should come to Bulgaria's aid, etc. Spain is acting as a sovereign country. The actions of the US President are irrelevant. See: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

    In practice, many joint NATO operations include US forces and would be complicated by the US withdrawing. But NATO joint operations aren't the core of the alliance. France was long a member of NATO while opting out of all joint operations.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,766
    edited December 2024
    MattW said:

    It seems to me to be quite in order to ask regulators how regulation can be improved; they are the ones who are closest to their industries or sectors.

    And it seems that it is in the remit:

    Most of Britain's economic regulators already have a Growth Duty enshrined in their statute, having come into effect in March 2017 under the Deregulation Act of two years earlier.
    Regulators in general have two jobs: (1) stop bad stuff happening; (2) ensure a transparent level playing field for a particular market. Regulators doing those two things gives producers and consumers the confidence to participate in the activity and you may see growth as a consequence. Rachel Reeves should only be interested in the effectiveness regulators. I find it slightly surprising a former Bank of England employee clearly has no idea what regulators are there to do
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,313

    Total shitshow, Reeves really is appalling.
    In my view your ire is misplaced. I think she's great. Her big problem is that Labour's economic thinking is so hopeless. What made little sense in the 19th century makes even less sense now.

    The big villains in all this though are the Tories. How hard can it be to be in government and actually do some governing?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,559
    Sean_F said:

    It’s hard to see the behaviour of Justices Alito and Thomas as not being highly improper, on the part of judges. That’s not a matter of partisanship.
    "Two judges bad" is not the same as "entire court illegitimate", which is what the Dems want people to think.
  • Total shitshow, Reeves really is appalling.
    Conservative Cabinets had several former entrepreneurs, including Nadhim Zahawi, Jeremy Hunt and Jacob Rees-Mogg. I cannot see it was much help in ending waste or stimulating growth.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,632
    Omnium said:

    Apparently Starmer is making an appeal to the regulators of various industries as to their bright ideas for the future. It's very lawyerly. Doesn't he realise that the people that can't make it in any given industry are precisely those that are employed by the regulators?
    I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulators. But they tend not to be experts in "what causes growth?". It's like asking librarians on tips to improve numeracy.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    FF43 said:

    Regulators in general have two jobs: (1) stop bad stuff happening; (2) ensure a transparent level playing field for a particular market. Regulators doing those two things gives producers and consumers the confidence to participate in the activity and you may see growth as a consequence. Rachel Reeves should only be interested in the effectiveness regulators. I find it slightly surprising a former Bank of England employee clearly has no idea what regulators are there to do
    Here's the FCA website, https://www.fca.org.uk/about/what-we-do/the-fca Under "Our role", it states, "Financial markets must be honest, competitive and fair so consumers get a fair deal. We work to ensure these markets work well for individuals, for businesses, and for the growth and competitiveness of the UK economy."

    Note the use of the word "growth". The FCA believes growth is part of its role. Maybe Reeves has a better idea than you do!

    Let's move on to the CMA. Top of their website is https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/driving-growth-how-the-cma-is-rising-to-the-challenge , which is a speech entitled from Nov 2024 entitled "Driving growth: how the CMA is rising to the challenge" by Sarah Cardell, the CMA's Chief Executive. Again, the CMA believes growth is parts of its role.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    Driver said:

    "Two judges bad" is not the same as "entire court illegitimate", which is what the Dems want people to think.
    Again, if you wilfully ignore the reporting about other Justices, that looks to be a you-problem.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,313
    edited December 2024

    Here's the FCA website, https://www.fca.org.uk/about/what-we-do/the-fca Under "Our role", it states, "Financial markets must be honest, competitive and fair so consumers get a fair deal. We work to ensure these markets work well for individuals, for businesses, and for the growth and competitiveness of the UK economy."

    Note the use of the word "growth". The FCA believes growth is part of its role. Maybe Reeves has a better idea than you do!

    Let's move on to the CMA. Top of their website is https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/driving-growth-how-the-cma-is-rising-to-the-challenge , which is a speech entitled from Nov 2024 entitled "Driving growth: how the CMA is rising to the challenge" by Sarah Cardell, the CMA's Chief Executive. Again, the CMA believes growth is parts of its role.
    It's all very well them saying who they hope to employ. If you in fact have ever met the people they actually employ then you'll appreciate the problem.
  • Cookie said:

    I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulators. But they tend not to be experts in "what causes growth?". It's like asking librarians on tips to improve numeracy.
    The problem is if they asked those responsible for producing the growth they won't like the answers e.g. beep beep beep NI rise, beep beep beep business rates, ....
  • If I was going to ask regulators questions, it would be some tough ones about how they have been failing to do their jobs properly.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,559

    Trump's more likely to invite Russia...
    если не можешь их победить, присоединяйся к ним (but which way round?)
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054

    The problem is if they asked those responsible for producing the growth they won't like the answers e.g. beep beep beep NI rise, beep beep beep business rates, ....
    They have asked those responsible for producing growth. There have been public calls for evidence to which anyone could respond, e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/financial-services-growth-and-competitiveness-strategy and https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/invest-2035-the-uks-modern-industrial-strategy/invest-2035-the-uks-modern-industrial-strategy
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,606
    edited December 2024
    Cookie said:

    I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulators. But they tend not to be experts in "what causes growth?". It's like asking librarians on tips to improve numeracy.
    Eh? Libraries *are* a place to go to for that. This is the first return on Google, pretty much.

    https://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/14012/mathematics/57/numeracy
    https://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/14012/mathematics
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054

    If I was going to ask regulators questions, it would be some tough ones about how they have been failing to do their jobs properly.

    Again, it's not an either/or. Asking them for ideas on growth does not preclude asking them other questions, or other oversight activities.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,766
    Omnium said:

    Apparently Starmer is making an appeal to the regulators of various industries as to their bright ideas for the future. It's very lawyerly. Doesn't he realise that the people that can't make it in any given industry are precisely those that are employed by the regulators?
    I have dealt a fair amount with regulators. I don't recognise this.

    Regulators and business have different agendas (and there can often be different agendas within a business and between regulators). It's a tension that needs to be managed. For example in financial services, business will always want to sell higher risk products because they are more profitable. Regulators can remove risk by banning everything but there wouldn't be an industry left to regulate in that case. Meanwhile the people pushing the higher risk products should also recognize the importance of the long term survival of the institution they work at.

    In the end it's a negotiation.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,959
    edited December 2024

    They have asked those responsible for producing growth. There have been public calls for evidence to which anyone could respond, e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/financial-services-growth-and-competitiveness-strategy and https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/invest-2035-the-uks-modern-industrial-strategy/invest-2035-the-uks-modern-industrial-strategy
    This call for evidence ran from 14 November 2024 to 11:59pm on 12 December 2024.

    LOL, less than a month consultation period, that received no serious exposure, they aren't serious...

    We saw what a shit show their growth summit was. Some new rip-off priced EV charging stations at service stations was the headline grabber.
  • I am still puzzling about why these librarians are being employed by councils on tips. Is it because they have closed the libraries and it is cheaper to redeploy them than pay redundancy,?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,189

    Nice.

    The observation that SARS-CoV-2 contains at least seven distinct substitutions that convergently changed to the sequence found in enteric Sarbecoviruses suggests a strong conditional selective pressure to maintain the Sarbecovirus consensus sequence at these positions. The fact that SARS-CoV-2 had changes at each of these positions when it began circulating in humans suggests that SARS-CoV-2 had replicated in a non-enteric environment for a long enough period of time to allow these substitutions to persist and become fixed in the viral genomes that started the COVID-19 pandemic.

    To translate, it didn't just jump from a bat to a human, but was circulating as a respiratory virus in some intermediate species (which is all consistent with a wet market origin).
    Except it is far more consistent with gain of function research, the aim of which is to make diseases more transmissible and deadly (for reasons). In fact, doesn't each knocking around of the virus from species to species actually make the wet market theory less plausible, in a 'tornado blows through a haystack, makes a thatched cottage' sort of way?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054

    This call for evidence ran from 14 November 2024 to 11:59pm on 12 December 2024

    LOL, less than a month consultation period, they aren't serious...
    Most PBers can fire off a dozen posts a day explaining how to fix the country in a few easy steps. A month seems plenty of time, particularly if the answers are as simple as you suggest (NI, business rates)!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,959
    edited December 2024

    Most PBers can fire off a dozen posts a day explaining how to fix the country in a few easy steps. A month seems plenty of time, particularly if the answers are as simple as you suggest (NI, business rates)!
    There weren't my suggestions for serious growth strategy, they were the the response they will get from business about fixing the shit show they have created in a few months that has made the situation far worse.

    And to put proper proposal together, not that businesses are sitting proactively searching the sort of website you showed, yes it takes a) awareness that the government is looking for that b) buy in, after you just f##ked them and c) then it does take time to put together a coherent set of ideas.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054

    Except it is far more consistent with gain of function research, the aim of which is to make diseases more transmissible and deadly (for reasons). In fact, doesn't each knocking around of the virus from species to species actually make the wet market theory less plausible, in a 'tornado blows through a haystack, makes a thatched cottage' sort of way?
    No. That paper was written by people who know what they're doing and they write, "had replicated in a non-enteric environment for a long enough period of time". They don't write "had been changed through gain of function research".

    You are, for a third time, just randomly making up things you want to be true.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,189

    Most PBers can fire off a dozen posts a day explaining how to fix the country in a few easy steps. A month seems plenty of time, particularly if the answers are as simple as you suggest (NI, business rates)!
    I am fully prepared to have my 'easy steps' proven to be facile and silly in the event, but the 'easy steps' (get off businesses backs, ensure energy is cheap, incentivise work, disincentivise dinghy migration) never actually get tried. Why don't we do the easy solutions, and if they prove as risible as you seem to think, move over to complex ones.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,080

    So Starmer and co having not done their homework are asking the less able kids in the class to do it for them....

    Not having anybody who has setup or run a proper business in cabinet is rather showing.

    2025 is going to be interesting. I was a tad shocked to see a sign around my area with “f*ck Starmer” graffiti on it.

  • I am fully prepared to have my 'easy steps' proven to be facile and silly in the event, but the 'easy steps' (get off businesses backs, ensure energy is cheap, incentivise work, disincentivise dinghy migration) never actually get tried. Why don't we do the easy solutions, and if they prove as risible as you seem to think, move over to complex ones.
    This, to me, sums up why Labour haven't got the first fucking clue about business and it's effect on the economy. Instead of asking businesses what is needed for growth our public sector obsessed government thinks it is regulators that have the answers ffs
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,996
    Cookie said:

    I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulators. But they tend not to be experts in "what causes growth?". It's like asking librarians on tips to improve numeracy.
    Isn't it more like asking a librarian to write a novel? In that they will know all the books/tools and what's good or bad, so in theory might be good - and sometimes are if offered the chance. In this case, no one will know that 'Regulation 2.C subsection 4.8' is one that has no impact but costs businesses to comply with better than a regulator or the company lawyers/consultants hired to know this stuff.

    However, there maybe a reason they are a librarian/regulator and not a novellist or entrepreneur in that have different motivations in life and work, or skills that means they aren't necessarily great at doing the thing they are an expert in reviewing themselves.

    So the key is finding those who are. The librarians whose knowledge of literature combines with the motivation and skill to write, or the person working for a regulator with the motivation to design the ones they enforce better.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,554

    The problem is if they asked those responsible for producing the growth they won't like the answers e.g. beep beep beep NI rise, beep beep beep business rates, ....
    So some six months after coming to power, about 2 years after it was obvious that they would be in power and after a Budget which has raised taxes on businesses and employment, the Labour government decides to ask for ideas for growth.

    As for the FCA's role, its role is to make sure financial markets work well for growth. Its job is not to create that growth. Asking it to promote growth creates an obvious conflict of interest with its main job which is to ensure that the financial sector does not behave in a way which leads to excessive and badly managed risk-taking which inhibits or damages growth and which causes harm to those financial markets and to consumers. There is a tension there. The last time a government took the brakes off those markets, weakened regulation and the power of regulators to keep them in check we ended up with the GFC, for which we are still paying.

    Judging by the way Reeves and Siddiq are talking to City regulators, they seem intent on repeating the mistakes of the last Labour government.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,959
    edited December 2024
    Cyclefree said:

    So some six months after coming to power, about 2 years after it was obvious that they would be in power and after a Budget which has raised taxes on businesses and employment, the Labour government decides to ask for ideas for growth.

    As for the FCA's role, its role is to make sure financial markets work well for growth. Its job is not to create that growth. Asking it to promote growth creates an obvious conflict of interest with its main job which is to ensure that the financial sector does not behave in a way which leads to excessive and badly managed risk-taking which inhibits or damages growth and which causes harm to those financial markets and to consumers. There is a tension there. The last time a government took the brakes off those markets, weakened regulation and the power of regulators to keep them in check we ended up with the GFC, for which we are still paying.

    Judging by the way Reeves and Siddiq are talking to City regulators, they seem intent on repeating the mistakes of the last Labour government.
    It is chalk and cheese vs 1997 Labour. You can disagree about the Blair policies, but they change into government with a clear plan of action leveraging a load of research by the likes of the IPPR.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,189

    No. That paper was written by people who know what they're doing and they write, "had replicated in a non-enteric environment for a long enough period of time". They don't write "had been changed through gain of function research".

    You are, for a third time, just randomly making up things you want to be true.
    On the contrary, it is you who is desperately imputing conclusions about the origins of the pandemic to a paper that absolutely does not draw them,
    wisely sticking to scientific observation. Quite why you are mischievously misrepresenting someone's work in this way is a matter I wouldn't like to speculate upon.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,907

    Total shitshow, Reeves really is appalling.
    Utterly useless. Job and growth killing budget.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,907
    Cyclefree said:

    So some six months after coming to power, about 2 years after it was obvious that they would be in power and after a Budget which has raised taxes on businesses and employment, the Labour government decides to ask for ideas for growth.

    As for the FCA's role, its role is to make sure financial markets work well for growth. Its job is not to create that growth. Asking it to promote growth creates an obvious conflict of interest with its main job which is to ensure that the financial sector does not behave in a way which leads to excessive and badly managed risk-taking which inhibits or damages growth and which causes harm to those financial markets and to consumers. There is a tension there. The last time a government took the brakes off those markets, weakened regulation and the power of regulators to keep them in check we ended up with the GFC, for which we are still paying.

    Judging by the way Reeves and Siddiq are talking to City regulators, they seem intent on repeating the mistakes of the last Labour government.
    The whole govt in waiting line that labour span and the friendly media happily recycled has been exposed to be a lie.

    You have a business team who have never run a business and who have mainly worked on NGO’s, quangos and charities.

    The Tories were poor and deserved to lose.

    This lot are just as bad.

    Never felt to pessimistic about our future as a nation.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,563
    ...

    Total shitshow, Reeves really is appalling.
    One of your less imaginative "Reeves is shit" posts.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,766

    Here's the FCA website, https://www.fca.org.uk/about/what-we-do/the-fca Under "Our role", it states, "Financial markets must be honest, competitive and fair so consumers get a fair deal. We work to ensure these markets work well for individuals, for businesses, and for the growth and competitiveness of the UK economy."

    Note the use of the word "growth". The FCA believes growth is part of its role. Maybe Reeves has a better idea than you do!

    Let's move on to the CMA. Top of their website is https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/driving-growth-how-the-cma-is-rising-to-the-challenge , which is a speech entitled from Nov 2024 entitled "Driving growth: how the CMA is rising to the challenge" by Sarah Cardell, the CMA's Chief Executive. Again, the CMA believes growth is parts of its role.
    That speech was entirely about ensuring level playing fields, greater transparency and increasing confidence in participation, exactly as I said. If she wants to sprinkle the word "growth" into her speech to keep the government happy and out of her hair, fair enough. But she doesn't mention any specific action to achieve it.

    I think there are questions for the government about risk appetite. What appetite do governments have for bad things potentially happening due to the absence of a control or intervention? But these are highly specific policy questions. It doesn't get addressed by a CoE pontificating on growth.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,398
    edited December 2024

    It is chalk and cheese vs 1997 Labour. You can disagree about the Blair policies, but they change into government with a clear plan of action leveraging a load of research by the likes of the IPPR.
    Yes, although their 1997 clear plan of action for the first two years was basically doing what the Conservatives would have done, with a few exceptions at the margin like giving the BofE operational independence, devastating the pension funds and raiding the privatised utilities.

    Damaging, but not as disastrous as it later became till they suddenly ran out of other people's money in 2009.

    On the whole, I think it's better that Starmer had no plan, because any roadmap this former Corbyn pal and the economic cretins he surrounds himself with had would almost certainly have been catastrophic, and he has the huge majority to implement it.

    Talk about monkeys with guns. Pointed straight at the economy.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,990

    ...

    One of your less imaginative "Reeves is shit" posts.
    Still, to the point.

    Hard to argue against.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,398
    Cyclefree said:

    So some six months after coming to power, about 2 years after it was obvious that they would be in power and after a Budget which has raised taxes on businesses and employment, the Labour government decides to ask for ideas for growth.

    As for the FCA's role, its role is to make sure financial markets work well for growth. Its job is not to create that growth. Asking it to promote growth creates an obvious conflict of interest with its main job which is to ensure that the financial sector does not behave in a way which leads to excessive and badly managed risk-taking which inhibits or damages growth and which causes harm to those financial markets and to consumers. There is a tension there. The last time a government took the brakes off those markets, weakened regulation and the power of regulators to keep them in check we ended up with the GFC, for which we are still paying.
    It wasn't so much that the financial regulators, here and in the US, didn't have powers, it was that they were staggeringly complacent and incompetent and didn't use the powers they had effectively.

    And having met and worked alongside tenth-raters like Lord Useless Turner and Callum McCarthy the amazing thing was that the whole show lasted as long as it did.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,561

    It is chalk and cheese vs 1997 Labour. You can disagree about the Blair policies, but they change into government with a clear plan of action leveraging a load of research by the likes of the IPPR.
    The economic situation is also chalk and cheese.

    in 1997 Blair had and economy 5 years away from the most recent recession and didn't have to make any major tax rises. The Major government had been steadying the ship quite well and they weren't going to stick to the budget constraints they'd set themselves (which Brown ultimately did do for the first 2 years).

    this year we are recovering from two major shocks (Covid and the Energy crisis) and had a previous government which, through Johnson, Truss and Sunak, had been running the economy through their own best interests. Like or dislike the NI cut it was mostly done to cause Labour issues rather than because it was the right tax to cut.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,558

    2025 is going to be interesting. I was a tad shocked to see a sign around my area with “f*ck Starmer” graffiti on it.

    Slightly less subtle than the "Free the sausages" graffiti we had in the town centre.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,563

    Still, to the point.

    Hard to argue against.
    I'll agree, not the most sure-footed of starts, but four and a half years to pull it around.

    Let us pray this Government doesn't call a ludicrous referendum to impose economic sanctions on ourselves. That would be the height of folly.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,822

    2025 is going to be interesting. I was a tad shocked to see a sign around my area with “f*ck Starmer” graffiti on it.

    How did they close enough to graffiti your - ahem - area with this instruction?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,103
    Sean_F said:

    I think Frank Herbert was wrong, and Hannah Arendt and Christopher Browning were right.

    Evil leaders are very rarely dark messiahs; they're ordinary men (and sometimes women), who quite suddenly find themselves in a position to do great harm, for their own gain, and they rationalise it to themselves. No doubt Assad persuaded himself that he was trying to make things better, when he took over from his father, and each act of cruelty was a necessary evil/for the greater good. And, of course, he found himself in charge of a multi-million pound property portfolio.
    .....We all live in
    A Bashar Assad home
    A Bashar Assad Home
    A Bashar Assad Home
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295

    Nice.

    The observation that SARS-CoV-2 contains at least seven distinct substitutions that convergently changed to the sequence found in enteric Sarbecoviruses suggests a strong conditional selective pressure to maintain the Sarbecovirus consensus sequence at these positions. The fact that SARS-CoV-2 had changes at each of these positions when it began circulating in humans suggests that SARS-CoV-2 had replicated in a non-enteric environment for a long enough period of time to allow these substitutions to persist and become fixed in the viral genomes that started the COVID-19 pandemic.

    To translate, it didn't just jump from a bat to a human, but was circulating as a respiratory virus in some intermediate species (which is all consistent with a wet market origin).
    This is no good. What you need to say (and preferably repeat several times whenever the topic arises) is along the lines of "ha, as if there could be any sentient being left on the planet who doesn't by now know for a stone cold fact that it came from the wet market."
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,561
    given it's the topic of the day there's a quiz on this sky new page. (https://news.sky.com/story/labour-or-liz-the-taxing-question-that-could-come-back-to-haunt-sir-keir-starmer-13280839)

    which were said by Liz Truss and who by this Labour Government...

    1. "We are rolling up our sleeves and removing red tape"
    2. "A red tape bonfire will encourage business investment and boost growth"
    3. "[Regulation of financial services] has gone too far"
    4. "Where [regulation] is stopping us building… then mark my words - we will get rid of it"
    5. "We needed to stop drifting in the direction of… more regulation, which was causing sluggish growth

    Answers in the link
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,240
    Omnium said:

    Apparently Starmer is making an appeal to the regulators of various industries as to their bright ideas for the future. It's very lawyerly. Doesn't he realise that the people that can't make it in any given industry are precisely those that are employed by the regulators?
    I don't think that is necessary true. Working for a regulator is not the same as working in business, in the latter your focus is mainly on making a profit in the former it is ensuring compliance with laws and regulations.

    Indeed you get more ex lawyers working for regulators than those who have worked in industry normally
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,563
    Cyclefree said:

    So some six months after coming to power, about 2 years after it was obvious that they would be in power and after a Budget which has raised taxes on businesses and employment, the Labour government decides to ask for ideas for growth.

    As for the FCA's role, its role is to make sure financial markets work well for growth. Its job is not to create that growth. Asking it to promote growth creates an obvious conflict of interest with its main job which is to ensure that the financial sector does not behave in a way which leads to excessive and badly managed risk-taking which inhibits or damages growth and which causes harm to those financial markets and to consumers. There is a tension there. The last time a government took the brakes off those markets, weakened regulation and the power of regulators to keep them in check we ended up with the GFC, for which we are still paying.

    Judging by the way Reeves and Siddiq are talking to City regulators, they seem intent on repeating the mistakes of the last Labour government.
    Let us hope that with his Musk millions Farage is already putting in place his formula for economic growth.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295
    Fishing said:

    It wasn't so much that the financial regulators, here and in the US, didn't have powers, it was that they were staggeringly complacent and incompetent and didn't use the powers they had effectively.

    And having met and worked alongside tenth-raters like Lord Useless Turner and Callum McCarthy the amazing thing was that the whole show lasted as long as it did.
    The target culture (ok'd from the very top) was to let the City rip because they made a shedload of (taxable) money and knew how to manage risk, it being their job. The latter turned out to be an "lol" assumption.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,822
    kinabalu said:

    This is no good. What you need to say (and preferably repeat several times whenever the topic arises) is along the lines of "ha, as if there could be any sentient being left on the planet who doesn't by now know for a stone cold fact that it came from the wet market."
    Does Leon count as a sentient being or as several of them?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,558
    I am often triggered by portmanteau words.

    It has just happened again...

    Coatigan.

    FFS.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,103

    Most PBers can fire off a dozen posts a day explaining how to fix the country in a few easy steps. A month seems plenty of time, particularly if the answers are as simple as you suggest (NI, business rates)!
    Rejoin the EU
    Join Schengen
    Join the Euro

    No Win No Fee.....

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295
    Fishing said:

    Yes, although their 1997 clear plan of action for the first two years was basically doing what the Conservatives would have done, with a few exceptions at the margin like giving the BofE operational independence, devastating the pension funds and raiding the privatised utilities.

    Damaging, but not as disastrous as it later became till they suddenly ran out of other people's money in 2009.

    On the whole, I think it's better that Starmer had no plan, because any roadmap this former Corbyn pal and the economic cretins he surrounds himself with had would almost certainly have been catastrophic, and he has the huge majority to implement it.

    Talk about monkeys with guns. Pointed straight at the economy.
    Could you not have squeezed a couple more right wing cliches about Labour into that post? Bit rushed, I sense.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295

    Again, it's not an either/or. Asking them for ideas on growth does not preclude asking them other questions, or other oversight activities.
    People do seem to be overreacting a tad.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,189

    It's one thing to speculate based on available facts. It's another thing to just make up a whole scenario based on nothing except your desire to justify Trump's actions.
    This is speculation based on the available facts. Other PBers (known as sensible posters for some reason) have speculated that Trump is mad, that he actually wants to invade Greenland and that Denmark is increasing its military spend there to stop the US invasion (an invasion which Trump has cunningly announced on Twitter). I am suggesting that he is adopting a bellicose maximalist stance, in order to apply pressure, for the purpose of filling the order books of US weapons manufacturers. I suspect his comments on Canada have the same motivation. I think that's sensible analysis based on his past actions, known preoccupations, stated priorities as President, and general style. I have no idea why you're losing your shit over this suggestion to the extent of seeming to find it personally unacceptable. It's odd frankly.

    It would also be quite helpful if you didn't argue in bad faith - how do my posts show a 'desire to justify Trump's actions' when I have stated that I disapprove of his actions?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,990

    I am often triggered by portmanteau words.

    It has just happened again...

    Coatigan.

    FFS.

    Coatimundi in a Cardigan?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,461
    ydoethur said:

    Does Leon count as a sentient being or as several of them?
    @Leon is an LLM, trained on The Horse & Hound.

    This Is Known.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,990

    I'll agree, not the most sure-footed of starts, but four and a half years to pull it around.

    Let us pray this Government doesn't call a ludicrous referendum to impose economic sanctions on ourselves. That would be the height of folly.
    Is taking the democratic option ever the height of folly? Interesting that you think so.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,189
    kinabalu said:

    This is no good. What you need to say (and preferably repeat several times whenever the topic arises) is along the lines of "ha, as if there could be any sentient being left on the planet who doesn't by now know for a stone cold fact that it came from the wet market."
    Except that would be moving from distorting the conclusions of the paper into outright fantasy. Bondegoozoo has at least had the sense to stay in the shallow end.
  • On topic:

    An AI version of renowned oracle Baba Vanga has unveiled a series of chilling predictions for 2025 and it's bad news for some of the world's most powerful leaders.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14231995/AI-version-Baba-Vanga-startling-2025-predictions.html


    Includes a Trump health scare.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,871

    Let us hope that with his Musk millions Farage is already putting in place his formula for economic growth.
    Yes, the economic growth of Farage's bank account is already planned for. ;)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,189
    Taz said:

    The whole govt in waiting line that labour span and the friendly media happily recycled has been exposed to be a lie.

    You have a business team who have never run a business and who have mainly worked on NGO’s, quangos and charities.

    The Tories were poor and deserved to lose.

    This lot are just as bad.

    Never felt to pessimistic about our future as a nation.
    I am completely the opposite - I've never been more optimistic. I'm glad that Labour have come in - imagine Rishi had limped on, we'd still have a poor Government, the case for Sir Blob would be becoming unanswerable (nobody would know how crap he was going to be - he'd still look like the sensible alternative), it would be the worst of all worlds. Labour are now consigning themselves the pedal bin of history, and we'll get a Reform Government with the Tories, or vice versa. Either is fine by me. Sunak did everyone a favour really.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,240
    edited December 2024
    Nigelb said:

    On current polls.

    I'm not saying it will happen, but Labour have an irreducible core, which I don't think is as true of the Tories.
    A panic run from Tory to RefUK - both MPs and base - is quite possible.

    What would you do, if it was clearly your best chance of another conservative-ish government ?
    Is it? If anything the Tories are already down to their core, pensioners and the private sector middle class who voted Leave, nearly half of whom would probably vote LD over Reform anyway (as would half the current Tory MPs go LD over Reform) but otherwise as long as the Conservative Party exists as an independent party they will stay in it.

    Whereas Reform has made more net gains from Labour than the Tories since the general election, especially from white working class voters who voted for Boris in 2019, Starmer in 2024 but are hardline anti immigration Leavers and already fed up with the government.

    For myself I will always vote Tory as long as it exists as an independent Conservative Party
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295

    Except that would be moving from distorting the conclusions of the paper into outright fantasy. Bondegoozoo has at least had the sense to stay in the shallow end.
    Yes. That there was a little Leon dig. Although he's not here so I suppose it was inappropriate and cowardly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,240

    I am completely the opposite - I've never been more optimistic. I'm glad that Labour have come in - imagine Rishi had limped on, we'd still have a poor Government, the case for Sir Blob would be becoming unanswerable (nobody would know how crap he was going to be - he'd still look like the sensible alternative), it would be the worst of all worlds. Labour are now consigning themselves the pedal bin of history, and we'll get a Reform Government with the Tories, or vice versa. Either is fine by me. Sunak did everyone a favour really.
    At the moment the most likely outcome next time is a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs but that might be just a bridge to a Tory and Reform government, unless Labour dump Starmer and replace him with someone more New Labour like Streeting
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295

    Is taking the democratic option ever the height of folly? Interesting that you think so.
    The American electorate have just answered that in the affirmative.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,461
    Roger said:

    Rejoin the EU
    Join Schengen
    Join the Euro

    No Win No Fee.....

    What about a really old fashioned policy?

    Single Market Kingdom with France.

    Implement the Treaty of Paris.

This discussion has been closed.