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

Mexicanpete said:

...

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

Alanbrooke said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

One of your less imaginative "Reeves is shit" posts.

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.

Is taking the democratic option ever the height of folly? Interesting that you think so.

We are first and foremost a Parliamentary democracy. Parliament is sovereign. I thought you Conservatives were great advocates of Parliamentary sovereignty.

Anyway, if it is democracy by referenda you prefer, perhaps we should have another plebiscite to see if we have changed our minds now we are more aware of the facts. You can't wait for the next GE because you believe the nation has changed it's mind, but after 11 years of Brexit we are not allowed to change our minds*. Democracy has spoken.

*OK the rejoin referendum ship has sailed off into the sunset, but you see my point.

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

Alanbrooke said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

One of your less imaginative "Reeves is shit" posts.

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.

Is taking the democratic option ever the height of folly? Interesting that you think so.

We are first and foremost a Parliamentary democracy. Parliament is sovereign. I thought you Conservatives were great advocates of Parliamentary sovereignty.

Anyway, if it is democracy by referenda you prefer, perhaps we should have another plebiscite to see if we have changed our minds now we are more aware of the facts. You can't wait for the next GE because you believe the nation has changed it's mind, but after 11 years of Brexit we are not allowed to change our minds*. Democracy has spoken.

*OK the rejoin referendum ship has sailed off into the sunset, but you see my point.

Why has the rejoin referendum ship sailed off into the sunset? Apart from the advocates of the rejoin not having the guts to advocate it?

As someone who voted Remain, I've got no time for the politicians who cowered between “I can’t vote for it” and “I can’t vote against it”.

Grow a pair and advocate a policy.

carnforth said:

Malmesbury said:

Roger said:

bondegezou said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

bondegezou said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

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.

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 !

The regulators understand the industry?

Bloody hell, they've hid that well.

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.

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

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)!

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.

Annexe Monaco. Much easier.

Malmesbury said:

carnforth said:

Malmesbury said:

Roger said:

bondegezou said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

bondegezou said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

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.

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 !

The regulators understand the industry?

Bloody hell, they've hid that well.

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.

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

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)!

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.

Annexe Monaco. Much easier.

Think big or go home.

“My plan for growth is to double the country….”

carnforth said:

Malmesbury said:

carnforth said:

Malmesbury said:

Roger said:

bondegezou said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

bondegezou said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

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.

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 !

The regulators understand the industry?

Bloody hell, they've hid that well.

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.

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

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)!

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.

Annexe Monaco. Much easier.

Think big or go home.

“My plan for growth is to double the country….”

Well, we could more than double the Irish part. ***ducks***

Malmesbury said:

Roger said:

bondegezou said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

bondegezou said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

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.

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 !

The regulators understand the industry?

Bloody hell, they've hid that well.

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.

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

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)!

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.

Mexicanpete said:

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

Alanbrooke said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

One of your less imaginative "Reeves is shit" posts.

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.

Is taking the democratic option ever the height of folly? Interesting that you think so.

We are first and foremost a Parliamentary democracy. Parliament is sovereign. I thought you Conservatives were great advocates of Parliamentary sovereignty.

Anyway, if it is democracy by referenda you prefer, perhaps we should have another plebiscite to see if we have changed our minds now we are more aware of the facts. You can't wait for the next GE because you believe the nation has changed it's mind, but after 11 years of Brexit we are not allowed to change our minds*. Democracy has spoken.

*OK the rejoin referendum ship has sailed off into the sunset, but you see my point.

Why has the rejoin referendum ship sailed off into the sunset? Apart from the advocates of the rejoin not having the guts to advocate it?

As someone who voted Remain, I've got no time for the politicians who cowered between “I can’t vote for it” and “I can’t vote against it”.

Grow a pair and advocate a policy.

Would those "bloody foreigners" want us back?

Fishing said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

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.

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 !

The regulators understand the industry?

Bloody hell, they've hid that well.

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.

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.

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.

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

Alanbrooke said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

One of your less imaginative "Reeves is shit" posts.

Still, to the point.

Hard to argue against.

ydoethur said:

Omnium said:

bondegezou said:

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).

That little shit in Gotham City is to blame?

Well, according to @MattW that's me.

Please nobody tell Leon!

Foxy said:

bondegezou said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

It is a foundation of politics to the right of the centre that regulation impedes growth, so presumably looking at what regulators do (or don't do) should be relevant to a growth agenda. If you're going to make changes in this area, then it makes sense to get input first from the regulators. So, I don't see what's so terrible about this.

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.

Gardenwalker said:

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

Luckyguy1983 said:

Taz said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

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.

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 !

The regulators understand the industry?

Bloody hell, they've hid that well.

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.

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.

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.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Taz said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

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.

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 !

The regulators understand the industry?

Bloody hell, they've hid that well.

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.

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.

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.

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/ronxyz00/status/1872647183578845492

Former Trump ambassador to Denmark on Greenland: The idea that little Denmark can afford to defend Greenland is preposterous. They can't afford to defend and develop it... What President Trump is suggesting is common sense solution.

I have seen the future and it's four years of Donald Trump spouting rubbish which all the people seeking to curry favour with him pretend is the wisdom of Solomon.

Quite often he spouts rubbish which is jumped on by a pack of crazed commentators saying 'SEEEEEEE!!' like this Greenland thing, and he does something completely different.

And do you think that’s a good thing? Do you think going on about Greenland like this has made the US or the world a better place?

I think it was probably a classic Trump shakedown - Denmark was perhaps uming and ahing over a lucrative US defence contract, and now after Trump's guff about Greenland, they will sign. I don't approve of it or think it's a good thing, but those of us who adore the US and want everyone to spend money keeping its defence companies in plentiful employment should be delighted.

Trump is all about the US balance of payments and their defence companies especially. He will do the same to us when it's our turn (he'll probably enjoy it especially because it's the loathed Starmer), but happily we will not be able to discern any difference, as we have always had the chequebook out with pen hovering where the US is concerned anyway.

You’ve just made that up out of thin air. There is zero evidence of any such Danish-US defence contract.

Yes, I have made it up, as I clearly state when I use the word 'perhaps'.

However, I doubt it's far from the truth. Wasn't the new runway they have promised to build designed for F16s (or similar, I don’t know the makes)? Perhaps they will need a couple of F16s to go on them. Either way, I strongly suspect a large portion of that £1.5bn in Greenland defence spending will be tinkling into US coffers, so Trump will be happy. And everyone else will read it as 'humiliated Trump backs down on Greenland threats'.

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.

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?

The impression (apologies if this is wrong) is of a person faced with a pile of madness digging his way into it determined to locate a shiny lump of method.

carnforth said:

Taz said:

The Guardian is still on board with the chancellor and the economy.

Don’t despair, it says.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/28/the-observer-view-on-the-uk-economy-dont-despair-signs-of-growth-are-emerging

"the downside of living in a country with an extraordinarily one-sided media is that it becomes ever harder not to be affected by the dissing-the-Labour-government-at-every-turn lens through which it sees the world."

An appropriate start for a columnist, not a broadsheet leader.

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Taz said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

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.

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 !

The regulators understand the industry?

Bloody hell, they've hid that well.

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.

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.

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.

I still have a soft spot for Sunak.

I don't think he was so bad. Good guy.

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

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

Up for it.

Get Canada into the EU with the UK. The Biggest trading block in the World

Driver said:

carnforth said:

Taz said:

The Guardian is still on board with the chancellor and the economy.

Don’t despair, it says.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/28/the-observer-view-on-the-uk-economy-dont-despair-signs-of-growth-are-emerging

"the downside of living in a country with an extraordinarily one-sided media is that it becomes ever harder not to be affected by the dissing-the-Labour-government-at-every-turn lens through which it sees the world."

An appropriate start for a columnist, not a broadsheet leader.

Rings a bit hollow when the only media institution that actually matters is on the left.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

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

Up for it.

I am not sure we should be joining up with a country with a large bloc of French speaking insurrectionists.

carnforth said:

Taz said:

The Guardian is still on board with the chancellor and the economy.

Don’t despair, it says.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/28/the-observer-view-on-the-uk-economy-dont-despair-signs-of-growth-are-emerging

"the downside of living in a country with an extraordinarily one-sided media is that it becomes ever harder not to be affected by the dissing-the-Labour-government-at-every-turn lens through which it sees the world."

An appropriate start for a columnist, not a broadsheet leader.

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/ronxyz00/status/1872647183578845492

Former Trump ambassador to Denmark on Greenland: The idea that little Denmark can afford to defend Greenland is preposterous. They can't afford to defend and develop it... What President Trump is suggesting is common sense solution.

I have seen the future and it's four years of Donald Trump spouting rubbish which all the people seeking to curry favour with him pretend is the wisdom of Solomon.

Quite often he spouts rubbish which is jumped on by a pack of crazed commentators saying 'SEEEEEEE!!' like this Greenland thing, and he does something completely different.

And do you think that’s a good thing? Do you think going on about Greenland like this has made the US or the world a better place?

I think it was probably a classic Trump shakedown - Denmark was perhaps uming and ahing over a lucrative US defence contract, and now after Trump's guff about Greenland, they will sign. I don't approve of it or think it's a good thing, but those of us who adore the US and want everyone to spend money keeping its defence companies in plentiful employment should be delighted.

Trump is all about the US balance of payments and their defence companies especially. He will do the same to us when it's our turn (he'll probably enjoy it especially because it's the loathed Starmer), but happily we will not be able to discern any difference, as we have always had the chequebook out with pen hovering where the US is concerned anyway.

You’ve just made that up out of thin air. There is zero evidence of any such Danish-US defence contract.

Yes, I have made it up, as I clearly state when I use the word 'perhaps'.

However, I doubt it's far from the truth. Wasn't the new runway they have promised to build designed for F16s (or similar, I don’t know the makes)? Perhaps they will need a couple of F16s to go on them. Either way, I strongly suspect a large portion of that £1.5bn in Greenland defence spending will be tinkling into US coffers, so Trump will be happy. And everyone else will read it as 'humiliated Trump backs down on Greenland threats'.

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.

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?

The impression (apologies if this is wrong) is of a person faced with a pile of madness digging his way into it determined to locate a shiny lump of method.

Aren't you in danger of taking Trump's words as truth when you've previously called him a liar? He's not a neocon - why would he suddenly want to annexe Canada and Greenland? I'm suggesting you don't fall for his bullshit - but by all means fall for it if you wish.

No, I think he's a troll. No truth, no deep machinations.

Pagan2 said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

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

Up for it.

Get Canada into the EU with the UK. The Biggest trading block in the World

Why would canada want to join a failure like the eu?

algarkirk said:

carnforth said:

Taz said:

The Guardian is still on board with the chancellor and the economy.

Don’t despair, it says.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/28/the-observer-view-on-the-uk-economy-dont-despair-signs-of-growth-are-emerging

"the downside of living in a country with an extraordinarily one-sided media is that it becomes ever harder not to be affected by the dissing-the-Labour-government-at-every-turn lens through which it sees the world."

An appropriate start for a columnist, not a broadsheet leader.

But the argument is false. Two bits of evidence: The UK media I follow most is BBC, Guardian, Economist, New Statesman. From these non right wing sources it is quite possible to pick up plenty of criticisms of the government.

Secongly, SFAICS, during the last years of the Tory government I almost never noticed anyone giving them any support or sympathy at all.

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

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

Up for it.

Get Canada into the EU with the UK. The Biggest trading block in the World

Luckyguy1983 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Taz said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

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.

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 !

The regulators understand the industry?

Bloody hell, they've hid that well.

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.

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.

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.

I still have a soft spot for Sunak.

I don't think he was so bad. Good guy.

I am between thinking he was simply overpromoted with an exaggerated sense of his own capabilities, which gives me a shade of sympathy with him, and suspecting that he came into politics with the sole intention of enriching his father in law. Which would make me deeply angry.

He and Hunt were at any rate better than what followed. Which is something.

Roger said:

carnforth said:

Taz said:

The Guardian is still on board with the chancellor and the economy.

Don’t despair, it says.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/28/the-observer-view-on-the-uk-economy-dont-despair-signs-of-growth-are-emerging

"the downside of living in a country with an extraordinarily one-sided media is that it becomes ever harder not to be affected by the dissing-the-Labour-government-at-every-turn lens through which it sees the world."

An appropriate start for a columnist, not a broadsheet leader.

I think it's correct. I looked at the Telegraph today and it reads like the Mail at its worst. Just one unpleasant story about Reeves or Starmer after the other. Not a thoughtful insight anywhere just non stop negativity. It was like Alanbrooke followed by Luckyguy followed by Leon except all the writers seemed to be female. I'm sure it'll turn round for Reeves and Starmer but I'm not sure it will for the telegraph

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Taz said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

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.

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 !

The regulators understand the industry?

Bloody hell, they've hid that well.

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.

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.

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.

I still have a soft spot for Sunak.

I don't think he was so bad. Good guy.

I am between thinking he was simply overpromoted with an exaggerated sense of his own capabilities, which gives me a shade of sympathy with him, and suspecting that he came into politics with the sole intention of enriching his father in law. Which would make me deeply angry.

He and Hunt were at any rate better than what followed. Which is something.

Nah, he was poor at the politics but he was a decent bloke who wanted to do the right thing.

Also, on Hunt, I think he was the first properly Tory Chancellor in a long time.

algarkirk said:

malcolmg said:

Foxy said:

bondegezou said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

It is a foundation of politics to the right of the centre that regulation impedes growth, so presumably looking at what regulators do (or don't do) should be relevant to a growth agenda. If you're going to make changes in this area, then it makes sense to get input first from the regulators. So, I don't see what's so terrible about this.

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.

Serious question , if you have to save 4% every year and NHS keeps getting more money , why are things so bad and people waiting years for appointments. Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

If you save 4% in real terms every year, year on year. and manage to do as much as when you started, after about 17 years you have halved your costs and achieving just as much.

I have a feeling something in this formula isn't quite right.

BartholomewRoberts said:

CatMan said:

Pagan2 said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

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

Up for it.

Get Canada into the EU with the UK. The Biggest trading block in the World

Why would canada want to join a failure like the eu?

Genuine question, how is the EU a failure?

Economic growth per capita data, the EU is a sclerotic failure that has failed to keep up with economic growth (GDP per capita) with the rest of the developed world.

In the 1980s the 12 nations that made up the then-EEC had a combined economy bigger than the United States. Now the 27 nations of the EU (plus the UK for fair comparison) don't even come close.

However its not just the USA. Canada, Australia, New Zealand . . . every English speaking developed nation has outgrown the EU since the EU was created.

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/ronxyz00/status/1872647183578845492

Former Trump ambassador to Denmark on Greenland: The idea that little Denmark can afford to defend Greenland is preposterous. They can't afford to defend and develop it... What President Trump is suggesting is common sense solution.

I have seen the future and it's four years of Donald Trump spouting rubbish which all the people seeking to curry favour with him pretend is the wisdom of Solomon.

Quite often he spouts rubbish which is jumped on by a pack of crazed commentators saying 'SEEEEEEE!!' like this Greenland thing, and he does something completely different.

And do you think that’s a good thing? Do you think going on about Greenland like this has made the US or the world a better place?

I think it was probably a classic Trump shakedown - Denmark was perhaps uming and ahing over a lucrative US defence contract, and now after Trump's guff about Greenland, they will sign. I don't approve of it or think it's a good thing, but those of us who adore the US and want everyone to spend money keeping its defence companies in plentiful employment should be delighted.

Trump is all about the US balance of payments and their defence companies especially. He will do the same to us when it's our turn (he'll probably enjoy it especially because it's the loathed Starmer), but happily we will not be able to discern any difference, as we have always had the chequebook out with pen hovering where the US is concerned anyway.

You’ve just made that up out of thin air. There is zero evidence of any such Danish-US defence contract.

Yes, I have made it up, as I clearly state when I use the word 'perhaps'.

However, I doubt it's far from the truth. Wasn't the new runway they have promised to build designed for F16s (or similar, I don’t know the makes)? Perhaps they will need a couple of F16s to go on them. Either way, I strongly suspect a large portion of that £1.5bn in Greenland defence spending will be tinkling into US coffers, so Trump will be happy. And everyone else will read it as 'humiliated Trump backs down on Greenland threats'.

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.

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?

The impression (apologies if this is wrong) is of a person faced with a pile of madness digging his way into it determined to locate a shiny lump of method.

Aren't you in danger of taking Trump's words as truth when you've previously called him a liar? He's not a neocon - why would he suddenly want to annexe Canada and Greenland? I'm suggesting you don't fall for his bullshit - but by all means fall for it if you wish.

No, I think he's a troll. No truth, no deep machinations.

How deep do you need to be to want the moon and therefore loudly demand the stars as a way of getting it? Are you really going to kid yourself that Trump can't use his undoubted skill of trolling with his negotiating partners to get them to give him what he wants?

You don't have to like him, but to insist he is without even low cunning is just daft.

Tim_in_Ruislip said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgx0vx4n1do

Disappointing numbers are still going up.

These people trafficking gangs really are scum.

CatMan said:

Pagan2 said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

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

Up for it.

Get Canada into the EU with the UK. The Biggest trading block in the World

Why would canada want to join a failure like the eu?

Genuine question, how is the EU a failure?

Foxy said:

rottenborough said:

My prediction for 2025: H5N1 will become a global pandemic.

Hope I'm very bad at predictions.

It does seem to be spreading amongst a whole bunch of different mammals in the USA. Just as RFK takes over there at Health.

Just as well there's no precedent for a virus jumping species via an intermediate host in conditions of poor animal husbandry and hygiene.

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh dear, Kemi Badenoch has been community noted.

Community notes are brilliant. It is essentially the jury system applied to social media

Luckyguy1983 said:

maxh said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Taz said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

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.

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 !

The regulators understand the industry?

Bloody hell, they've hid that well.

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.

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.

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.

I confess to feeling similar sentiments as the Trussterfuck conclusively consigned the last iteration of the Tories to the scrap heap.

Turns out that the alternative isn't exactly the shining beacon of hope one might have hoped for after 14 years to sit around and devise a plan.

I have quite some admiration for the clarity and boldness of your prescription for future prosperity, even if I think you're mistaken in that prescription.

Regardless of whether your particular brand of medicine will cure or kill, though, pinning your hopes on Farage's Reform to deliver it is a bit like taking a shiny new wonder drug and injecting it with a rusty needle that you have picked up from the nearest street corner.

Many would agree. And Truss's bull-in-a-China shop stuff did damage the credibility of her economic policies, and that's sad (for me). Thankfully, the current lot are in the process of making her look like Mother Theresa of Calculator.

I don't think my prescription as you call it is anything special - you want something to happen, stop legislating to stop it happening. We tax cigarettes to stop people smoking. What do we think will happen if we tax employment?

Reform are good. We are lucky to have a right wing party of the yeomanry who aren't blackshirts. It speaks well of our national character. They are the heirs of Cobden and Bright in my opinion.

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Roger said:

carnforth said:

Taz said:

The Guardian is still on board with the chancellor and the economy.

Don’t despair, it says.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/28/the-observer-view-on-the-uk-economy-dont-despair-signs-of-growth-are-emerging

"the downside of living in a country with an extraordinarily one-sided media is that it becomes ever harder not to be affected by the dissing-the-Labour-government-at-every-turn lens through which it sees the world."

An appropriate start for a columnist, not a broadsheet leader.

I think it's correct. I looked at the Telegraph today and it reads like the Mail at its worst. Just one unpleasant story about Reeves or Starmer after the other. Not a thoughtful insight anywhere just non stop negativity. It was like Alanbrooke followed by Luckyguy followed by Leon except all the writers seemed to be female. I'm sure it'll turn round for Reeves and Starmer but I'm not sure it will for the telegraph

The DT are chasing their readership to the grave.

The Right wing Comitariat are going to be so pissed off by Labour's second term.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Electoral Calculus on its latest poll average already has Labour losing its majority and a hung parliament despite the Labour landslide in July even if they still would win most seats, for now
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Hung Parliament maybe

https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1873089335463125097?t=k-3vqbJ1U8HON19ImNfp6A&s=19

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Elon Musk threatens ‘war’ with Maga Republicans
Billionaire faces furious backlash from anti-immigration Trump supporters after provoking first split in president-elect’s camp
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/28/elon-musk-threatens-war-maga-skilled-migrant-visas/ (£££)

Fleet Street is catching up with PB on the splits, or one of them, between the Musk and Vance tendencies in Trumpland. Tariffs is another.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from more in common

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1873085043889062130?t=O-gsF3zrUkCvUUChOP_SaQ&s=19

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Musk a ‘bloody hero’

... Mr Farage has claimed that Mr Musk would help Reform win the youth vote because he is an “absolute hero figure” to young people.

He credited the richest man in the world as a “huge help” in connecting the party with young people.

Describing Mr Musk as a “bloody hero”, Mr Farage said: “The shades, the bomber jacket, the whole vibe. Elon makes us cool.

“Reform only wins the next election if it gets the youth vote. The youth vote is the key. Of course you need voters of all ages, but if you get a wave of youth enthusiasm you can change everything.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/28/elon-musk-fact-check-badenoch-fakery-tweet/ (£££)

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Elon Musk threatens ‘war’ with Maga Republicans
Billionaire faces furious backlash from anti-immigration Trump supporters after provoking first split in president-elect’s camp
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/28/elon-musk-threatens-war-maga-skilled-migrant-visas/ (£££)

Fleet Street is catching up with PB on the splits, or one of them, between the Musk and Vance tendencies in Trumpland. Tariffs is another.