If it is the economy stupid then Labour should sink further in the polls – politicalbetting.com

System · February 8

If it is the economy stupid then Labour should sink further in the polls – politicalbetting.com

With the Bank of England downgrading the UK's growth forecast yesterday, 54% of Britons expect the economy to get worse in the next yearGet worse: 54%Stay the same: 22%Get better: 17%yougov.co.uk/topics/polit…

Read the full story here

Morris_Dancer · February 8

But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?

Edited: and for the final time (probably) F1 2025 Predictions here:

Podbean: https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/f1-2025-predictions/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4iAoLcyCp2AdTNKpGlMISp

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcfe213b-55fb-408a-a823-dc6693ee9f78/episodes/528d339c-050c-409e-bc4c-d3eec5a77152/undercutters---f1-podcast-f1-2025-predictions

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/f1-2025-predictions/id1786574257?i=1000689601818

Transcript: https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/02/f1-2025-predictions-undercutters-ep8.html

Fairliered · February 8

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?

The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.

kinabalu · February 8

Hats off to the 8%. The only ones who answered honestly.

maxh · February 8

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.

Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.

Foxy · February 8

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.

Polling on the LDs and Ed Davey is pretty good. I think we will be fine in our target seats. The MRP and seat projections support that too.

Carnyx · February 8

FPT

maxh said:

Carnyx said:
Rather strange piece in Guardian - new homes still being built in flood risk areas in England, and dumping red tape will make it worse, and that's not counting climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/08/more-than-100000-homes-in-england-could-be-built-in-highest-risk-flood-zones

'But a push for housing growth by the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, means tens of thousands of new homes will be built in areas at the highest risk of serious flooding unless the government intervenes, according to trends in the latest data.

Richard Dawson, professor of earth systems engineering at Newcastle University and a member of the climate change adaptation committee, told the Guardian that every year new homes were being built in high flood risk areas at a constant rate.

In 2020-21 and 2021-22, 7% of new properties were built on the highest-risk flood plain, known as zone 3, according to the Climate Change Committee’s most recent progress report.'
Isn't that just a very logical consequence of reducing planning bureaucracy? The overly bureaucratic system has been built for a reason. Removing barriers to housebuilding will lead to housebuilding where it was previously disallowed. Often that will have been for a reason.

ETA: not saying thats a bad thing, just that there are always tradeoffs.

Well, as the piece notes, insurance is an issue. The builders are already creating a moral hazard whereby the rest of us subsidide their profiteering on dud houses, and the insurance companies are getting twitchy about being piggy in the middle in that transaction. Sooner or later a buyer will be left with an uninsurable house. And until then, our premiums have gone up even more.

It's one thing having an old house and climate change. It's quite another knowingly building in flooding areas. [edit]

It's not just the newts. (Though where do they live in the first place?) It'll be interesting to see how the issue is handled.

Stuartinromford · February 8

kinabalu said:
Hats off to the 8%. The only ones who answered honestly.

At the moment, the key thing is that nobody knows anything. Even the "reduced growth forecast" is a bit misleading;

All of the disappointment happened in 2024, though, so this is in no way a forecast. The forward looking bit of the BoE's actual forecast is stronger than it was in November as this levels chart we put on the FT's Monetary Policy Radar shows
on.ft.com/3CJ1paG

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgiles.ft.com/post/3lhlpzlzhcs2p

Normally I'd say that low expectations has the potential to make distinctly meh performance look quite good in the end. But Reeves Derangement Syndrome is so intense on the RefCon side of things (look at those "a lot worse" figures) that I doubt it will affect the politics much.

MaxPB · February 8

What's least surprising here is that Lib Dem voters are nothing more than Labour lickspittles. We see it on here all the time where Lib Dems try their hardest to stick up for this shit government despite all of the evidence.

Cookie · February 8

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.

It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.

Foxy · February 8

While the BoE downgraded the 2024 and 2025 growth forecast, it did actually upgrade the 2026 and 2027 growth forecasts. Not that these things go unrevised.

Carnyx · February 8

Stuartinromford said:

kinabalu said:
Hats off to the 8%. The only ones who answered honestly.
At the moment, the key thing is that nobody knows anything. Even the "reduced growth forecast" is a bit misleading;

All of the disappointment happened in 2024, though, so this is in no way a forecast. The forward looking bit of the BoE's actual forecast is stronger than it was in November as this levels chart we put on the FT's Monetary Policy Radar shows
on.ft.com/3CJ1paG

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgiles.ft.com/post/3lhlpzlzhcs2p

Normally I'd say that low expectations has the potential to make distinctly meh performance look quite good in the end. But Reeves Derangement Syndrome is so intense on the RefCon side of things (look at those "a lot worse" figures) that I doubt it will affect the politics much.

There's certainly more shit flung on PB by people with the condition, than a Jurassic Park stable midden.

maxh · February 8

Carnyx said:
FPT
maxh said:

Carnyx said:
Rather strange piece in Guardian - new homes still being built in flood risk areas in England, and dumping red tape will make it worse, and that's not counting climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/08/more-than-100000-homes-in-england-could-be-built-in-highest-risk-flood-zones

'But a push for housing growth by the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, means tens of thousands of new homes will be built in areas at the highest risk of serious flooding unless the government intervenes, according to trends in the latest data.

Richard Dawson, professor of earth systems engineering at Newcastle University and a member of the climate change adaptation committee, told the Guardian that every year new homes were being built in high flood risk areas at a constant rate.

In 2020-21 and 2021-22, 7% of new properties were built on the highest-risk flood plain, known as zone 3, according to the Climate Change Committee’s most recent progress report.'
Isn't that just a very logical consequence of reducing planning bureaucracy? The overly bureaucratic system has been built for a reason. Removing barriers to housebuilding will lead to housebuilding where it was previously disallowed. Often that will have been for a reason.

ETA: not saying thats a bad thing, just that there are always tradeoffs.
Well, as the piece notes, insurance is an issue. The builders are already creating a moral hazard whereby the rest of us subsidide their profiteering on dud houses, and the insurance companies are getting twitchy about being piggy in the middle in that transaction. Sooner or later a buyer will be left with an uninsurable house. And until then, our premiums have gone up even more.

It's one thing having an old house and climate change. It's quite another knowingly building in flooding areas. [edit]

It's not just the newts. (Though where do they live in the first place?) It'll be interesting to see how the issue is handled.

Agreed, but again those sorts of sensible arguments are how we get to complex planning regulations. Effective planning IS complex. If we are determined to simplify it speedily and clunkily to get more houses built (the latter we very obviously need to do) then an inevitable consequence is that more highly informed economic actors (housebuilders and insurance companies) will extract value from less well informed house buyers.

Trying to prevent that is a good reason for the red tape we are trying to throw on the bonfire.

MaxPB · February 8

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.

Yes, the Tories won't benefit from Labour doing worse, they aren't able to farm the rage as well as Reform.

FF43 · February 8

As a late and no doubt wildly inaccurate entry into the PB predictions competition, I was interested to note that most of fellow competitors had a rather bullish view of the UK economy, and in fact the world economy generally.

Theuniondivvie · February 8

And you thought the racist tweets were the worst thing about Elon's tech striplings.

https://x.com/jzellis/status/1887838642007064700

Foxy · February 8

Stuartinromford said:

kinabalu said:
Hats off to the 8%. The only ones who answered honestly.
At the moment, the key thing is that nobody knows anything. Even the "reduced growth forecast" is a bit misleading;

All of the disappointment happened in 2024, though, so this is in no way a forecast. The forward looking bit of the BoE's actual forecast is stronger than it was in November as this levels chart we put on the FT's Monetary Policy Radar shows
on.ft.com/3CJ1paG

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgiles.ft.com/post/3lhlpzlzhcs2p

Normally I'd say that low expectations has the potential to make distinctly meh performance look quite good in the end. But Reeves Derangement Syndrome is so intense on the RefCon side of things (look at those "a lot worse" figures) that I doubt it will affect the politics much.

It's pretty certain that the Broligarchy will paint it as Labour mismanagement whatever happens. Such is the power of the Alogorithims. Great article on this here:

https://bsky.app/profile/theatlantic.com/post/3lhmchnhru22q

MaxPB · February 8

Stuartinromford said:

kinabalu said:
Hats off to the 8%. The only ones who answered honestly.
At the moment, the key thing is that nobody knows anything. Even the "reduced growth forecast" is a bit misleading;

All of the disappointment happened in 2024, though, so this is in no way a forecast. The forward looking bit of the BoE's actual forecast is stronger than it was in November as this levels chart we put on the FT's Monetary Policy Radar shows
on.ft.com/3CJ1paG

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgiles.ft.com/post/3lhlpzlzhcs2p

Normally I'd say that low expectations has the potential to make distinctly meh performance look quite good in the end. But Reeves Derangement Syndrome is so intense on the RefCon side of things (look at those "a lot worse" figures) that I doubt it will affect the politics much.

Lol, so growth near term will drop precipitously but don't worry it will be better in, err, 2027. No way it will get revised downwards either, definitely not.

maxh · February 8

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.

Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.

Carnyx · February 8

maxh said:

Carnyx said:
FPT
maxh said:

Carnyx said:
Rather strange piece in Guardian - new homes still being built in flood risk areas in England, and dumping red tape will make it worse, and that's not counting climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/08/more-than-100000-homes-in-england-could-be-built-in-highest-risk-flood-zones

'But a push for housing growth by the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, means tens of thousands of new homes will be built in areas at the highest risk of serious flooding unless the government intervenes, according to trends in the latest data.

Richard Dawson, professor of earth systems engineering at Newcastle University and a member of the climate change adaptation committee, told the Guardian that every year new homes were being built in high flood risk areas at a constant rate.

In 2020-21 and 2021-22, 7% of new properties were built on the highest-risk flood plain, known as zone 3, according to the Climate Change Committee’s most recent progress report.'
Isn't that just a very logical consequence of reducing planning bureaucracy? The overly bureaucratic system has been built for a reason. Removing barriers to housebuilding will lead to housebuilding where it was previously disallowed. Often that will have been for a reason.

ETA: not saying thats a bad thing, just that there are always tradeoffs.
Well, as the piece notes, insurance is an issue. The builders are already creating a moral hazard whereby the rest of us subsidide their profiteering on dud houses, and the insurance companies are getting twitchy about being piggy in the middle in that transaction. Sooner or later a buyer will be left with an uninsurable house. And until then, our premiums have gone up even more.

It's one thing having an old house and climate change. It's quite another knowingly building in flooding areas. [edit]

It's not just the newts. (Though where do they live in the first place?) It'll be interesting to see how the issue is handled.
Agreed, but again those sorts of sensible arguments are how we get to complex planning regulations. Effective planning IS complex. If we are determined to simplify it speedily and clunkily to get more houses built (the latter we very obviously need to do) then an inevitable consequence is that more highly informed economic actors (housebuilders and insurance companies) will extract value from less well informed house buyers.

Trying to prevent that is a good reason for the red tape we are trying to throw on the bonfire.

Even so, what's so odd is that there are official flood risk maps created and maintained by central government agencies (ditto for things like old mineshafts in coalfields, and so on). I can look for free at the Scottish maps and see the risks in my area for surface, river and sea flooding, and there seems to be an English one too.

A checjk shows that the definition in the report cited is that "Flood Zone 3 is land assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding or a 1 in 200 or
greater annual probability of flooding from the sea in any year, ignoring the presence of flood defences" - which covers the whole range from 1 per cent per annum upwards. Not great economically, and that doesn't cater for climate change and the nature of the normal distribution at its edges.

Carnyx · February 8

Theuniondivvie said:
And you thought the racist tweets were the worst thing about Elon's tech striplings.

https://x.com/jzellis/status/1887838642007064700

Could you put that into something comprehensible, like Weegie?

*stuck*

Sunil_Prasannan · February 8

hamiltonace said:

FF43 said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. 43, I can see the moral case for returning the island to the islanders.

I can see the pragmatic case for holding onto it.

There's no case whatsoever to hand it over to somewhere whose only link is administrative convenience during the British Empire. If that's the rationale, we might as well get Mauritius back.
Personally I don't care one way or the other about Chagos apart from a vague feeling that the islanders were shabbily treated. I do challenge the idea widely spread on here that the UK has the right to the islands under international law without a binding treaty with Mauritius. The case has been adjudicated in Mauritius favour by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. Slam Dunk.

You might say, so what? But we rely on the same institutions when we say, for example, that China is illegally occupying the South China Sea. We can make the legal problem go away through a treaty in exchange for hard cash. Which is what we would have to do anyway if we accepted the islands weren't ours. The question is how much money is worth it, which in turn partly depends on how much respect you have for international law.

Asking the islanders what they want is clearly the most important thing but the one the Government has refused to do. Instead it is giving the islands to a different colonial power and paying for the privilege. This just seems insane.

The Chagos should be sold to Dodgy Donald for $1 million $100 Billion.

Good morning!

Foxy · February 8

FF43 said:
As a late and no doubt wildly inaccurate entry into the PB predictions competition, I was interested to note that most of fellow competitors had a rather bullish view of the UK economy, and in fact the world economy generally.

This week the FTSE100 hit an all time high, and while still short of its post covid peak the more UK focused 250 is up 10% year on year. The All share index is also at an all time high.

So it seems the markets are more optimistic too.

Foxy · February 8

Sunil_Prasannan said:

hamiltonace said:

FF43 said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. 43, I can see the moral case for returning the island to the islanders.

I can see the pragmatic case for holding onto it.

There's no case whatsoever to hand it over to somewhere whose only link is administrative convenience during the British Empire. If that's the rationale, we might as well get Mauritius back.
Personally I don't care one way or the other about Chagos apart from a vague feeling that the islanders were shabbily treated. I do challenge the idea widely spread on here that the UK has the right to the islands under international law without a binding treaty with Mauritius. The case has been adjudicated in Mauritius favour by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. Slam Dunk.

You might say, so what? But we rely on the same institutions when we say, for example, that China is illegally occupying the South China Sea. We can make the legal problem go away through a treaty in exchange for hard cash. Which is what we would have to do anyway if we accepted the islands weren't ours. The question is how much money is worth it, which in turn partly depends on how much respect you have for international law.

Asking the islanders what they want is clearly the most important thing but the one the Government has refused to do. Instead it is giving the islands to a different colonial power and paying for the privilege. This just seems insane.

The Chagos should be sold to Dodgy Donald for $1 million $100 Billion.

Good morning!

Just hand it back to Mauritius and let the Americans sort out the lease for the base. It's not really a UK problem.

williamglenn · February 8

Foxy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

hamiltonace said:

FF43 said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. 43, I can see the moral case for returning the island to the islanders.

I can see the pragmatic case for holding onto it.

There's no case whatsoever to hand it over to somewhere whose only link is administrative convenience during the British Empire. If that's the rationale, we might as well get Mauritius back.
Personally I don't care one way or the other about Chagos apart from a vague feeling that the islanders were shabbily treated. I do challenge the idea widely spread on here that the UK has the right to the islands under international law without a binding treaty with Mauritius. The case has been adjudicated in Mauritius favour by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. Slam Dunk.

You might say, so what? But we rely on the same institutions when we say, for example, that China is illegally occupying the South China Sea. We can make the legal problem go away through a treaty in exchange for hard cash. Which is what we would have to do anyway if we accepted the islands weren't ours. The question is how much money is worth it, which in turn partly depends on how much respect you have for international law.

Asking the islanders what they want is clearly the most important thing but the one the Government has refused to do. Instead it is giving the islands to a different colonial power and paying for the privilege. This just seems insane.

The Chagos should be sold to Dodgy Donald for $1 million $100 Billion.

Good morning!
Just hand it back to Mauritius and let the Americans sort out the lease for the base. It's not really a UK problem.

Based on that logic we should give up our Security Council seat as well.

Foxy · February 8

Carnyx said:

maxh said:

Carnyx said:
FPT
maxh said:

Carnyx said:
Rather strange piece in Guardian - new homes still being built in flood risk areas in England, and dumping red tape will make it worse, and that's not counting climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/08/more-than-100000-homes-in-england-could-be-built-in-highest-risk-flood-zones

'But a push for housing growth by the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, means tens of thousands of new homes will be built in areas at the highest risk of serious flooding unless the government intervenes, according to trends in the latest data.

Richard Dawson, professor of earth systems engineering at Newcastle University and a member of the climate change adaptation committee, told the Guardian that every year new homes were being built in high flood risk areas at a constant rate.

In 2020-21 and 2021-22, 7% of new properties were built on the highest-risk flood plain, known as zone 3, according to the Climate Change Committee’s most recent progress report.'
Isn't that just a very logical consequence of reducing planning bureaucracy? The overly bureaucratic system has been built for a reason. Removing barriers to housebuilding will lead to housebuilding where it was previously disallowed. Often that will have been for a reason.

ETA: not saying thats a bad thing, just that there are always tradeoffs.
Well, as the piece notes, insurance is an issue. The builders are already creating a moral hazard whereby the rest of us subsidide their profiteering on dud houses, and the insurance companies are getting twitchy about being piggy in the middle in that transaction. Sooner or later a buyer will be left with an uninsurable house. And until then, our premiums have gone up even more.

It's one thing having an old house and climate change. It's quite another knowingly building in flooding areas. [edit]

It's not just the newts. (Though where do they live in the first place?) It'll be interesting to see how the issue is handled.
Agreed, but again those sorts of sensible arguments are how we get to complex planning regulations. Effective planning IS complex. If we are determined to simplify it speedily and clunkily to get more houses built (the latter we very obviously need to do) then an inevitable consequence is that more highly informed economic actors (housebuilders and insurance companies) will extract value from less well informed house buyers.

Trying to prevent that is a good reason for the red tape we are trying to throw on the bonfire.
Even so, what's so odd is that there are official flood risk maps created and maintained by central government agencies (ditto for things like old mineshafts in coalfields, and so on). I can look for free at the Scottish maps and see the risks in my area for surface, river and sea flooding, and there seems to be an English one too.

A checjk shows that the definition in the report cited is that "Flood Zone 3 is land assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding or a 1 in 200 or
greater annual probability of flooding from the sea in any year, ignoring the presence of flood defences" - which covers the whole range from 1 per cent per annum upwards. Not great economically, and that doesn't cater for climate change and the nature of the normal distribution at its edges.

"Ignoring the presence of flood defences" is curious language. Surely that's what they are there for?

Mexicanpete · February 8

Stuartinromford said:

kinabalu said:
Hats off to the 8%. The only ones who answered honestly.
At the moment, the key thing is that nobody knows anything. Even the "reduced growth forecast" is a bit misleading;

All of the disappointment happened in 2024, though, so this is in no way a forecast. The forward looking bit of the BoE's actual forecast is stronger than it was in November as this levels chart we put on the FT's Monetary Policy Radar shows
on.ft.com/3CJ1paG

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgiles.ft.com/post/3lhlpzlzhcs2p

Normally I'd say that low expectations has the potential to make distinctly meh performance look quite good in the end. But Reeves Derangement Syndrome is so intense on the RefCon side of things (look at those "a lot worse" figures) that I doubt it will affect the politics much.

The anger on here since the election loss is quite remarkable and the Telegraph has been in pole position.

FWIW I am disappointed in the Government. The "no new taxes" pre election promise was absurd and unsustainable. There has been no discernable improvement in social care, crime, local authority funding and the cleanliness of our rivers. Or if there has they haven't told us about it.

For the Telegraph and PB Brexiteers to bang on about £18b squandered on the Chagos deal (surely there is some explanation other than incompetence) after their support for the £700m Rwanda debacle and the billions wasted on BREXIT they can just f*** right off.

From the figures last week, had they been delivered under a RefCon Government they would have been celebrated on here and in the media as a relief for hard pressed mortgage holders. Of course the people who would have made this assumption also deluded themselves that the Conservatives left a golden legacy.

Leon · February 8

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.

Reform. You vote for Reform

Sunil_Prasannan · February 8

Foxy said:

Stuartinromford said:

kinabalu said:
Hats off to the 8%. The only ones who answered honestly.
At the moment, the key thing is that nobody knows anything. Even the "reduced growth forecast" is a bit misleading;

All of the disappointment happened in 2024, though, so this is in no way a forecast. The forward looking bit of the BoE's actual forecast is stronger than it was in November as this levels chart we put on the FT's Monetary Policy Radar shows
on.ft.com/3CJ1paG

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgiles.ft.com/post/3lhlpzlzhcs2p

Normally I'd say that low expectations has the potential to make distinctly meh performance look quite good in the end. But Reeves Derangement Syndrome is so intense on the RefCon side of things (look at those "a lot worse" figures) that I doubt it will affect the politics much.
It's pretty certain that the Broligarchy will paint it as Labour mismanagement whatever happens. Such is the power of the Alogorithims. Great article on this here:

https://bsky.app/profile/theatlantic.com/post/3lhmchnhru22q

Al Gore invented the Al Gore Rhythm.

Theuniondivvie · February 8

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:
And you thought the racist tweets were the worst thing about Elon's tech striplings.

https://x.com/jzellis/status/1887838642007064700
Could you put that into something comprehensible, like Weegie?

*stuck*

I'm not fluent in jargonese, but I believe the gist of it is that this supposed Titan of Tech given access to government systems and confidential databases hasn't a fcking clue.

Mexicanpete · February 8

williamglenn said:

Foxy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

hamiltonace said:

FF43 said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. 43, I can see the moral case for returning the island to the islanders.

I can see the pragmatic case for holding onto it.

There's no case whatsoever to hand it over to somewhere whose only link is administrative convenience during the British Empire. If that's the rationale, we might as well get Mauritius back.
Personally I don't care one way or the other about Chagos apart from a vague feeling that the islanders were shabbily treated. I do challenge the idea widely spread on here that the UK has the right to the islands under international law without a binding treaty with Mauritius. The case has been adjudicated in Mauritius favour by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. Slam Dunk.

You might say, so what? But we rely on the same institutions when we say, for example, that China is illegally occupying the South China Sea. We can make the legal problem go away through a treaty in exchange for hard cash. Which is what we would have to do anyway if we accepted the islands weren't ours. The question is how much money is worth it, which in turn partly depends on how much respect you have for international law.

Asking the islanders what they want is clearly the most important thing but the one the Government has refused to do. Instead it is giving the islands to a different colonial power and paying for the privilege. This just seems insane.

The Chagos should be sold to Dodgy Donald for $1 million $100 Billion.

Good morning!
Just hand it back to Mauritius and let the Americans sort out the lease for the base. It's not really a UK problem.
Based on that logic we should give up our Security Council seat as well.

You think by the time Trump is finished there will be a UN? Have you not been watching his UN related executive orders?

Mexicanpete · February 8

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform

Put you money where you mouth is. Reform will be looking for shoo-in candidates. A celebrity Spectator columnist? Drinks all round!

OldKingCole · February 8

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Foxy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

hamiltonace said:

FF43 said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. 43, I can see the moral case for returning the island to the islanders.

I can see the pragmatic case for holding onto it.

There's no case whatsoever to hand it over to somewhere whose only link is administrative convenience during the British Empire. If that's the rationale, we might as well get Mauritius back.
Personally I don't care one way or the other about Chagos apart from a vague feeling that the islanders were shabbily treated. I do challenge the idea widely spread on here that the UK has the right to the islands under international law without a binding treaty with Mauritius. The case has been adjudicated in Mauritius favour by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. Slam Dunk.

You might say, so what? But we rely on the same institutions when we say, for example, that China is illegally occupying the South China Sea. We can make the legal problem go away through a treaty in exchange for hard cash. Which is what we would have to do anyway if we accepted the islands weren't ours. The question is how much money is worth it, which in turn partly depends on how much respect you have for international law.

Asking the islanders what they want is clearly the most important thing but the one the Government has refused to do. Instead it is giving the islands to a different colonial power and paying for the privilege. This just seems insane.

The Chagos should be sold to Dodgy Donald for $1 million $100 Billion.

Good morning!
Just hand it back to Mauritius and let the Americans sort out the lease for the base. It's not really a UK problem.
Based on that logic we should give up our Security Council seat as well.
You think by the time Trump is finished there will be a UN? Have you not been watching his UN related executive orders?

Certainly looks as though there could easily be problems there.

It's strange turn of things when the USA looks more of a threat to the world order than Russia!

Cicero · February 8

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform

Your´re a propagandist and you still won´t put your money where your mouth is. Pretty pathetic.

Malmesbury · February 8

a

Mexicanpete said:

Stuartinromford said:

kinabalu said:
Hats off to the 8%. The only ones who answered honestly.
At the moment, the key thing is that nobody knows anything. Even the "reduced growth forecast" is a bit misleading;

All of the disappointment happened in 2024, though, so this is in no way a forecast. The forward looking bit of the BoE's actual forecast is stronger than it was in November as this levels chart we put on the FT's Monetary Policy Radar shows
on.ft.com/3CJ1paG

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgiles.ft.com/post/3lhlpzlzhcs2p

Normally I'd say that low expectations has the potential to make distinctly meh performance look quite good in the end. But Reeves Derangement Syndrome is so intense on the RefCon side of things (look at those "a lot worse" figures) that I doubt it will affect the politics much.
The anger on here since the election loss is quite remarkable and the Telegraph has been in pole position.

FWIW I am disappointed in the Government. The "no new taxes" pre election promise was absurd and unsustainable. There has been no discernable improvement in social care, crime, local authority funding and the cleanliness of our rivers. Or if there has they haven't told us about it.

For the Telegraph and PB Brexiteers to bang on about £18b squandered on the Chagos deal (surely there is some explanation other than incompetence) after their support for the £700m Rwanda debacle and the billions wasted on BREXIT they can just f*** right off.

From the figures last week, had they been delivered under a RefCon Government they would have been celebrated on here and in the media as a relief for hard pressed mortgage holders. Of course the people who would have made this assumption also deluded themselves that the Conservatives left a golden legacy.

You are an angry that the opposition opposes.

I am reminded of Norman Tebbit vs Brian Redhead on Radio 4.

At the start of the interview Tebbit asked why the news bulletin proceeding hadn’t included the unemployment figures. They always used to when unemployment was going up. And the monthly figures had just been released.

Politely he kept on asking, until Redhead audibly lost his temper and growled - “So what are the unemployment figures then?”

Tebbit said they were down again, as they had been going down, monthly, for the last 18 months.

ydoethur · February 8

Malmesbury said:
a
Mexicanpete said:

Stuartinromford said:

kinabalu said:
Hats off to the 8%. The only ones who answered honestly.
At the moment, the key thing is that nobody knows anything. Even the "reduced growth forecast" is a bit misleading;

All of the disappointment happened in 2024, though, so this is in no way a forecast. The forward looking bit of the BoE's actual forecast is stronger than it was in November as this levels chart we put on the FT's Monetary Policy Radar shows
on.ft.com/3CJ1paG

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgiles.ft.com/post/3lhlpzlzhcs2p

Normally I'd say that low expectations has the potential to make distinctly meh performance look quite good in the end. But Reeves Derangement Syndrome is so intense on the RefCon side of things (look at those "a lot worse" figures) that I doubt it will affect the politics much.
The anger on here since the election loss is quite remarkable and the Telegraph has been in pole position.

FWIW I am disappointed in the Government. The "no new taxes" pre election promise was absurd and unsustainable. There has been no discernable improvement in social care, crime, local authority funding and the cleanliness of our rivers. Or if there has they haven't told us about it.

For the Telegraph and PB Brexiteers to bang on about £18b squandered on the Chagos deal (surely there is some explanation other than incompetence) after their support for the £700m Rwanda debacle and the billions wasted on BREXIT they can just f*** right off.

From the figures last week, had they been delivered under a RefCon Government they would have been celebrated on here and in the media as a relief for hard pressed mortgage holders. Of course the people who would have made this assumption also deluded themselves that the Conservatives left a golden legacy.
You are an angry that the opposition opposes.

I am reminded of Norman Tebbit vs Brian Redhead on Radio 4.

At the start of the interview Tebbit asked why the news bulletin proceeding hadn’t included the unemployment figures. They always used to when unemployment was going up. And the monthly figures had just been released.

Politely he kept on asking, until Redhead audibly lost his temper and growled - “So what are the unemployment figures then?”

Tebbit said they were down again, as they had been going down, monthly, for the last 18 months.

Norman Tebbit was polite?

Bloody hell.

That should have been front page news and the lead on every bulletin.

SirNorfolkPassmore · February 8

On topic, people thinking the economy is going to get worse and it actually getting worse are two different things. I mean, it is possible to surprise on the upside as well as the downside.

I'm not saying that will happen, but low expectations aren't altogether the worst thing for an incumbent.

MJW · February 8

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform

Do you though? Maybe if you want to blow everything up and start anew despite the pain that would cause, but not if you care about your wallet as their economic policies are so nuts as to make Liz Truss or Corbyn look like champios of sound money by comparison.

pigeon · February 8

Foxy said:

FF43 said:
As a late and no doubt wildly inaccurate entry into the PB predictions competition, I was interested to note that most of fellow competitors had a rather bullish view of the UK economy, and in fact the world economy generally.
This week the FTSE100 hit an all time high, and while still short of its post covid peak the more UK focused 250 is up 10% year on year. The All share index is also at an all time high.

So it seems the markets are more optimistic too.

Meanwhile, CGT is still levied at a substantially lower rate than income tax, because reasons.

Asset rich investors and people subsisting on low-to-middling wages live in separate universes. The economic performance figures of the United States are far better than ours, and much good that did Kamala Harris.

The Reform polling numbers are courtesy of the same trends that led to Trump 2.0. Nine-tenths of those who aren't rich enough to have a stocks and shares portfolio don't give a monkeys about the FTSE 250, even if they're aware of its existence.

kjh · February 8

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform

I feel fairly confident that @DavidL is never going to vote Reform. Why? Because he is sensible and has a brain.

Sandpit · February 8

Bill Maher’s show from last night, featuring Florida Rep. Byron Donalds as the Republican mostly defending the last week of Donald Trump, and an epic closing rant about tech company enshitfiication.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LetbUCo7sE

EPG · February 8

pigeon said:

Foxy said:

FF43 said:
As a late and no doubt wildly inaccurate entry into the PB predictions competition, I was interested to note that most of fellow competitors had a rather bullish view of the UK economy, and in fact the world economy generally.
This week the FTSE100 hit an all time high, and while still short of its post covid peak the more UK focused 250 is up 10% year on year. The All share index is also at an all time high.

So it seems the markets are more optimistic too.
Meanwhile, CGT is still levied at a substantially lower rate than income tax, because reasons.

Asset rich investors and people subsisting on low-to-middling wages live in separate universes. The economic performance figures of the United States are far better than ours, and much good that did Kamala Harris.

The Reform polling numbers are courtesy of the same trends that led to Trump 2.0. Nine-tenths of those who aren't rich enough to have a stocks and shares portfolio don't give a monkeys about the FTSE 250, even if they're aware of its existence.

If financial markets didn't matter to voters, we would still be in the era of PM Liz Truss.

kle4 · February 8

The economy does seem in the shit.

I think the country is pretty used to the idea of long term relative decline, and we certainly don't have public or political will to make major changes (even if Reform were to win one day I don't see what would be so remarkably different about them in major policy terms) that would change that. We don't really want growth.

kle4 · February 8

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Northern_Al said:

RobD said:

Northern_Al said:
It's amazing how much credence folk give to a Telegraph hatchet job on Labour - they're two a penny.
Labour won't agree to paying any reparations. People may not like Starmer or Lammy, but they're not mad.
What? Starmer himself agreed that there needed to be a serious discussion about it.
Towards the end of the Telegraph hatchet job linked to:
At the summit, Sir Keir resisted pressure from member states to prioritise putting reparations on the agenda. Downing Street said that the UK would reject calls for reparations, and would not be issuing an apology for Britain’s role in the slave trade.
He signed the memorandum

Commonwealth leaders have agreed the "time has come" for a conversation about reparations for the slave trade, despite the UK's desire to keep the subject off the agenda at a two-day summit in Samoa.
A document signed by 56 heads of government, including UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, acknowledges calls for "discussions on reparatory justice" for the "abhorrent" transatlantic slave trade.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c207m3m0xpjo.amp
I think you're thinking too small here.

British sailors manned ships taking slaves to the Americas. Those sailors will have been emotionally scarred by that experience, and it is right that their families (i.e. decedents) receive proper compensation.

Ultimately, the transatlantic slave trade existed because the US (and its predecessors) were addicted to slave labour, and therefore it is right that it is the US that pays. Simply: we, Britain, were victims too of America's addition to slavery.

Some twisted logic there, but that is the nature of the game being played anyway.

FF43 said:

hamiltonace said:

FF43 said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. 43, I can see the moral case for returning the island to the islanders.

I can see the pragmatic case for holding onto it.

There's no case whatsoever to hand it over to somewhere whose only link is administrative convenience during the British Empire. If that's the rationale, we might as well get Mauritius back.
Personally I don't care one way or the other about Chagos apart from a vague feeling that the islanders were shabbily treated. I do challenge the idea widely spread on here that the UK has the right to the islands under international law without a binding treaty with Mauritius. The case has been adjudicated in Mauritius favour by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. Slam Dunk.

You might say, so what? But we rely on the same institutions when we say, for example, that China is illegally occupying the South China Sea. We can make the legal problem go away through a treaty in exchange for hard cash. Which is what we would have to do anyway if we accepted the islands weren't ours. The question is how much money is worth it, which in turn partly depends on how much respect you have for international law.

Asking the islanders what they want is clearly the most important thing but the one the Government has refused to do. Instead it is giving the islands to a different colonial power and paying for the privilege. This just seems insane.

Because this is entirely about an American base in the Indian Ocean. No-one cares about the Chagossians I'm afraid.

Indeed, not the UK, the USA, or apparently Mauritius.

So I think the moral arguments are pretty peripheral, and it is about cold practical logic and transactional benefit. I'm not sold that international condemnation or whatever is sufficiently significant to go down this route, as I doubt we would gain even one iota of goodwill for it, but I can see it being arguable at least. But I think more work needs to be done selling the deal, not on the grounds of morality, but because it is, supposedly, better for the UK.

Sure the government has maintained that and many commentators dispute it, but if it is true the government needs to hammer it home, as otherwise it looks like the UK is self-flagellating (eg reports we're so keen we got talked into more concessions) for little benefit.

pigeon · February 8

MaxPB said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Yes, the Tories won't benefit from Labour doing worse, they aren't able to farm the rage as well as Reform.

The Conservatives should benefit significantly from a failed Labour Government, should that be the public verdict at the end of the Parliament. They could even improve their seat count on a lower share of the vote: there are no shortage of Lab-Con marginals primed to flip back in better off areas, even were the remaining Tory vote in poor people places to collapse into the Reform column. Voter efficiency can work a treat for smaller parties, as Ed Davey could attest.

I think they still have a good chance of being the Opposition in the next Commons, even if they fall to third place on vote share. It all depends on how much of the remaining Tory vote in wealthier areas is willing to consider backing Farage, of course.

Leon · February 8

“Put you money where you mouth is. Reform will be looking for shoo-in candidates. A celebrity Spectator columnist? Drinks all round!”

*****

I am a tiny bit tempted, TBH

Obvs I don’t want to do any of the boring shit like actually meet constituents or care about poor people or spend much time in crappy old provincial Britain - esp November-March - but if I could find some vaguely agreeably constituency which is very easily won and where I can RFA - rule from abroad - I might be inclined

maxh · February 8

kjh said:

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform
I feel fairly confident that @DavidL is never going to vote Reform. Why? Because he is sensible and has a brain.

I think it is the defining schism in political discussions at the moment (not least on here). Who still operates in the real world?

Cookie and DavidL are two whose politics I don't share but who have real world solutions to the problems we face.

Many, many others operate in the world of rage- (or more rarely hope-) filled fantasy. It's just childish. I suspect it is also not an accident - it serves the needs of populists. Anyone with a brain should resist it.

kle4 · February 8

I recall the Reform manifesto (sorry, their 'contract with you') being decently put together in that it was mercifully short on waffle and had sections on 'immediate' actions they would theoretically take, alongside longer term actions. Sadly the brevity meant a lot of the proposals were very vague, not massively unusual in manifestos, but it's not like it was outright crazy like the SDP manifesto, and it didn't really jump out to me as 'these people will do things massively differently to the big 2.5 parties'. So the idea there would be lots of change under them I don't get.

8 pictures of Farage in 28 pages may have been a bit of overkill, but the Starmer picture count was pretty high in Labour's I think).

Carnyx · February 8

Foxy said:

Carnyx said:

maxh said:

Carnyx said:
FPT
maxh said:

Carnyx said:
Rather strange piece in Guardian - new homes still being built in flood risk areas in England, and dumping red tape will make it worse, and that's not counting climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/08/more-than-100000-homes-in-england-could-be-built-in-highest-risk-flood-zones

'But a push for housing growth by the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, means tens of thousands of new homes will be built in areas at the highest risk of serious flooding unless the government intervenes, according to trends in the latest data.

Richard Dawson, professor of earth systems engineering at Newcastle University and a member of the climate change adaptation committee, told the Guardian that every year new homes were being built in high flood risk areas at a constant rate.

In 2020-21 and 2021-22, 7% of new properties were built on the highest-risk flood plain, known as zone 3, according to the Climate Change Committee’s most recent progress report.'
Isn't that just a very logical consequence of reducing planning bureaucracy? The overly bureaucratic system has been built for a reason. Removing barriers to housebuilding will lead to housebuilding where it was previously disallowed. Often that will have been for a reason.

ETA: not saying thats a bad thing, just that there are always tradeoffs.
Well, as the piece notes, insurance is an issue. The builders are already creating a moral hazard whereby the rest of us subsidide their profiteering on dud houses, and the insurance companies are getting twitchy about being piggy in the middle in that transaction. Sooner or later a buyer will be left with an uninsurable house. And until then, our premiums have gone up even more.

It's one thing having an old house and climate change. It's quite another knowingly building in flooding areas. [edit]

It's not just the newts. (Though where do they live in the first place?) It'll be interesting to see how the issue is handled.
Agreed, but again those sorts of sensible arguments are how we get to complex planning regulations. Effective planning IS complex. If we are determined to simplify it speedily and clunkily to get more houses built (the latter we very obviously need to do) then an inevitable consequence is that more highly informed economic actors (housebuilders and insurance companies) will extract value from less well informed house buyers.

Trying to prevent that is a good reason for the red tape we are trying to throw on the bonfire.
Even so, what's so odd is that there are official flood risk maps created and maintained by central government agencies (ditto for things like old mineshafts in coalfields, and so on). I can look for free at the Scottish maps and see the risks in my area for surface, river and sea flooding, and there seems to be an English one too.

A checjk shows that the definition in the report cited is that "Flood Zone 3 is land assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding or a 1 in 200 or
greater annual probability of flooding from the sea in any year, ignoring the presence of flood defences" - which covers the whole range from 1 per cent per annum upwards. Not great economically, and that doesn't cater for climate change and the nature of the normal distribution at its edges.
"Ignoring the presence of flood defences" is curious language. Surely that's what they are there for?

Good point. IANAE, but they don't always work. And they need to be kept in order, working, and operated as needed. Plus they interact - one man's succesffully averted flood is a worse one down the river. PLus they won't work for situations beyond the design condition. And the worst events do the most damage anyway so that sort of makes sense.

I suspect that it's so difficult to analyse those factors that they have gtiven up. Maybe one of us knows.

LostPassword · February 8

SirNorfolkPassmore said:
On topic, people thinking the economy is going to get worse and it actually getting worse are two different things. I mean, it is possible to surprise on the upside as well as the downside.

I'm not saying that will happen, but low expectations aren't altogether the worst thing for an incumbent.

Didn't some long dead economist use to talk about the "animal spirits" of the economy?

I think you can credibly claim that a decent chunk of domestic economic performance is based on vibes and hope. People with good vibes about the future are more prepared to take risks, to borrow money to invest in new businesses, or simply to spend now in the belief that paying later will take care of itself.

Reeves and Starmer have talked the economy down. They have used the precious opportunity to lead a country to convince the people that it's in the shit, sinking deeper, and there's fuck-all to look forward to. The people are following this lead. They expect things to get worse. They will retrench, hunker down, and wait for better times. And so things will get worse.

I've talked down the state of Britain enough times. I can see it when it's done. But the job of a leader - which I'm decidedly not - is to show people a way to a better tomorrow. To show how the failings of yesterday can be fixed with hard work today so that there is something to look forward to tomorrow.

It feels like such a basic failure of political leadership. I haven't even bothered to renew my overseas electoral registration.

Carnyx · February 8

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform
Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform
Put you money where you mouth is. Reform will be looking for shoo-in candidates. A celebrity Spectator columnist? Drinks all round!
I am a tiny bit tempted, TBH

Obvs I don’t want to do any of the boring shit like actually meet constituents or care about poor people or spend much time in crappy old provincial Britain - esp November-March - but if I could find some vaguely agreeably constituency which is very easily won and where I can RFA - rule from abroad - I might be inclined

Somewhere like some declining former seaside resort in Essex, easily accessible from Camden via the North London Line and Liverpool St?

kle4 · February 8

Foxy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

hamiltonace said:

FF43 said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. 43, I can see the moral case for returning the island to the islanders.

I can see the pragmatic case for holding onto it.

There's no case whatsoever to hand it over to somewhere whose only link is administrative convenience during the British Empire. If that's the rationale, we might as well get Mauritius back.
Personally I don't care one way or the other about Chagos apart from a vague feeling that the islanders were shabbily treated. I do challenge the idea widely spread on here that the UK has the right to the islands under international law without a binding treaty with Mauritius. The case has been adjudicated in Mauritius favour by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. Slam Dunk.

You might say, so what? But we rely on the same institutions when we say, for example, that China is illegally occupying the South China Sea. We can make the legal problem go away through a treaty in exchange for hard cash. Which is what we would have to do anyway if we accepted the islands weren't ours. The question is how much money is worth it, which in turn partly depends on how much respect you have for international law.

Asking the islanders what they want is clearly the most important thing but the one the Government has refused to do. Instead it is giving the islands to a different colonial power and paying for the privilege. This just seems insane.

The Chagos should be sold to Dodgy Donald for $1 million $100 Billion.

Good morning!
Just hand it back to Mauritius and let the Americans sort out the lease for the base. It's not really a UK problem.

But it is presently technically in our possession - if we're giving up claims or legalities around it then it seems pretty reasonable we get something for it even if we are basically just acting as a shell company for it.

It comes across like a business transaction, so all people need to be assured of is we got an ok deal.

Leon · February 8

maxh said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform
I feel fairly confident that @DavidL is never going to vote Reform. Why? Because he is sensible and has a brain.
I think it is the defining schism in political discussions at the moment (not least on here). Who still operates in the real world?

Cookie and DavidL are two whose politics I don't share but who have real world solutions to the problems we face.

Many, many others operate in the world of rage- (or more rarely hope-) filled fantasy. It's just childish. I suspect it is also not an accident - it serves the needs of populists. Anyone with a brain should resist it.

If you’re on the right and you think immigration is one of the main if not THE main issue facing the UK, who do you vote for?

It can’t be the Tories, they let in 2.5m people in 3 years

So it has to be Reform. It’s as simple as that

MattW · February 8

Good morning everyone.

Thanks for flagging this one up, @williamglenn :

williamglenn said:
A significant EO regarding South Africa overnight.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/addressing-egregious-actions-of-the-republic-of-south-africa/

The United States shall promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation.

That looks to be President Musk manipulating his Chump. In this case Musk is the voice in Trump's head. The narrative in the Trump Order is, as is perhaps more common than not, fictional, and afaics on a level with Musk's lies about European politics.

The Act is basically a well-defined Compulsory Purchase Regime, replacing a 1975 one which have unfettered power to the Minister (opportunity for corruption)m with provision for no compensation in limited circs, none of which apply to the points raised in the Executive Order. The Maga Lobotomonotony community will grunt away as ever.

Reading the EO, it's another string in the US regime's assault on international law.

The law is in line with the post-Apartheid Constitution Section 25, and is subject to Court Action and checks and balances.

There is a short paper from the South Africa Roman Catholic Bishops Conference here, which is perhaps a good example of a fair examination:
https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/attachments/94306_bp_617_the_expropriation_act_–_making_mountains_out_of_molehills_by_mike_pothier.pdf

The USA is now a malign force - which TBF we knew already.

algarkirk · February 8

pigeon said:

Foxy said:

FF43 said:
As a late and no doubt wildly inaccurate entry into the PB predictions competition, I was interested to note that most of fellow competitors had a rather bullish view of the UK economy, and in fact the world economy generally.
This week the FTSE100 hit an all time high, and while still short of its post covid peak the more UK focused 250 is up 10% year on year. The All share index is also at an all time high.

So it seems the markets are more optimistic too.
Meanwhile, CGT is still levied at a substantially lower rate than income tax, because reasons.

Asset rich investors and people subsisting on low-to-middling wages live in separate universes. The economic performance figures of the United States are far better than ours, and much good that did Kamala Harris.

The Reform polling numbers are courtesy of the same trends that led to Trump 2.0. Nine-tenths of those who aren't rich enough to have a stocks and shares portfolio don't give a monkeys about the FTSE 250, even if they're aware of its existence.

Why should this 90% care about the FTSE 250? Everyone outsources almost everything. Bankers and finance people know about FTSE 250 and lots else but outsource their boiler maintenance; the really rich outsource how to outsource it.

Government/parliament has decided over time that it is responsible for an ever growing proportion of the totality of the UK and our lives. I can't think of anything big they have relinquished in decades.

The last government did terribly, and the present one has so far done badly in explaining how the sub-optimal stuff it is responsible for is going to improve - where we are going and how we are going to get there and when, and how much it costs and who pays.

Social care? NHS? Green plans? Levelling up the north? Railway Liverpool to Hull? Debt and deficit? Benefit junkies and benefit and tax fraud? Inward migration? I have no idea what the plan is in a way I can describe to an 11 year old.

LostPassword · February 8

Leon said:

“Put you money where you mouth is. Reform will be looking for shoo-in candidates. A celebrity Spectator columnist? Drinks all round!”

*****

I am a tiny bit tempted, TBH

Obvs I don’t want to do any of the boring shit like actually meet constituents or care about poor people or spend much time in crappy old provincial Britain - esp November-March - but if I could find some vaguely agreeably constituency which is very easily won and where I can RFA - rule from abroad - I might be inclined

Stand in Camden. You actually live there for a start. You get to have the chance to campaign against Keir Starmer, who you appear to genuinely loathe. You don't have to bother pretending you'll move to some provincial English town miles away from a decent airport lounge.

RochdalePioneers · February 8

MaxPB said:
What's least surprising here is that Lib Dem voters are nothing more than Labour lickspittles. We see it on here all the time where Lib Dems try their hardest to stick up for this shit government despite all of the evidence.

This government truly is shit. Its just that the previous government was *more* shit. So would I have this government instead of the last one? Yes. Doesn't make it good, but it's less bad.

That you remaining PB Tories don't get this is why your party has sunk to 3rd and heading for the bottom...

MattW · February 8

Cicero said:

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform
Your´re a propagandist and you still won´t put your money where your mouth is. Pretty pathetic.

"Propagandist" is a bit off for our @Leon

. My Venn Diagram quota:

Leon · February 8

kle4 said:
The economy does seem in the shit.

I think the country is pretty used to the idea of long term relative decline, and we certainly don't have public or political will to make major changes (even if Reform were to win one day I don't see what would be so remarkably different about them in major policy terms) that would change that. We don't really want growth.

But this is the point. We are no longer in “long term relative decline”. That is true of the entire western world and it’s just the rest catching up. And yes we’re ok with that. Why shouldn’t the Chinese and now the Indians have nice things? They work hard. Good luck to them

The issue is the UK is now in long term ABSOLUTE decline. We are getting steadily poorer and one of the major - but not solitary - drivers of this is mass immigration

kle4 · February 8

maxh said:

Carnyx said:
Rather strange piece in Guardian - new homes still being built in flood risk areas in England, and dumping red tape will make it worse, and that's not counting climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/08/more-than-100000-homes-in-england-could-be-built-in-highest-risk-flood-zones

'But a push for housing growth by the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, means tens of thousands of new homes will be built in areas at the highest risk of serious flooding unless the government intervenes, according to trends in the latest data.

Richard Dawson, professor of earth systems engineering at Newcastle University and a member of the climate change adaptation committee, told the Guardian that every year new homes were being built in high flood risk areas at a constant rate.

In 2020-21 and 2021-22, 7% of new properties were built on the highest-risk flood plain, known as zone 3, according to the Climate Change Committee’s most recent progress report.'
Isn't that just a very logical consequence of reducing planning bureaucracy? The overly bureaucratic system has been built for a reason. Removing barriers to housebuilding will lead to housebuilding where it was previously disallowed. Often that will have been for a reason.

ETA: not saying thats a bad thing, just that there are always tradeoffs.

There are. There desperately needs to be a rebalancing, but that doesn't mean every rule or regulation has to go. The difficulty is unpicking which do more harm than good, and inevitably if a real effort is made some worthy requirements will be lost.

But given the current state of things that, to my mind, remains a price worth paying to get that rebalancing.

Scott_xP · February 8

Leon said:
The issue is the UK is now in long term ABSOLUTE decline. We are getting steadily poorer and one of the major - but not solitary - drivers of this is

BREXIT

Leon · February 8

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform
Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform
Put you money where you mouth is. Reform will be looking for shoo-in candidates. A celebrity Spectator columnist? Drinks all round!
I am a tiny bit tempted, TBH

Obvs I don’t want to do any of the boring shit like actually meet constituents or care about poor people or spend much time in crappy old provincial Britain - esp November-March - but if I could find some vaguely agreeably constituency which is very easily won and where I can RFA - rule from abroad - I might be inclined
Somewhere like some declining former seaside resort in Essex, easily accessible from Camden via the North London Line and Liverpool St?

They do seem ok with their MPs being “away quite a lot”

kle4 · February 8

Leon said:

kle4 said:
The economy does seem in the shit.

I think the country is pretty used to the idea of long term relative decline, and we certainly don't have public or political will to make major changes (even if Reform were to win one day I don't see what would be so remarkably different about them in major policy terms) that would change that. We don't really want growth.

kle4 said:
The economy does seem in the shit.

I think the country is pretty used to the idea of long term relative decline, and we certainly don't have public or political will to make major changes (even if Reform were to win one day I don't see what would be so remarkably different about them in major policy terms) that would change that. We don't really want growth.
But this is the point. We are no longer in “long term relative decline”. That is true of the entire western world and it’s just the rest catching up. And yes we’re ok with that. Why shouldn’t the Chinese and now the Indians have nice things? They work hard. Good luck to them

The issue is the UK is now in long term ABSOLUTE decline. We are getting steadily poorer and one of the major - but not solitary - drivers of this is mass immigration

Well, at least our population is not declining.

Leon · February 8

Scott_xP said:

Leon said:
The issue is the UK is now in long term ABSOLUTE decline. We are getting steadily poorer and one of the major - but not solitary - drivers of this is
BREXIT

*a tragic, strangled shout comes from the regular now locked in the cellar*

Pause

*the PB chat continues; @TSE unloads the dishwasher*

SandyRentool · February 8

"The economy" is a nebulous concept, the growth and contraction of which may or may not align with the financial situation of any given individual.

If the economy is booming due to BP and Shell making record profits on high oil prices, that is little consolation to the person struggling to pay their bills.

Equally, plenty of people get along perfectly well during a recession, their only angst being deciding where to go for their next holiday.

MattW · February 8

MattW said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform
Your´re a propagandist and you still won´t put your money where your mouth is. Pretty pathetic.

"Propagandist" is a bit off for our @Leon . My Venn Diagram quota:

Looking at it, that's also 4 out of the 5 Reform MPs, with the exception that Lee Anderson is 58.

For them, the "Hall of Fairground Mirrors" may change if they get a policy platform out of whatever rabbit hole they are currently lost in.

kle4 · February 8

SandyRentool said:
"The economy" is a nebulous concept, the growth and contraction of which may or may not align with the financial situation of any given individual.

If the economy is booming due to BP and Shell making record profits on high oil prices, that is little consolation to the person struggling to pay their bills.

Equally, plenty of people get along perfectly well during a recession, their only angst being deciding where to go for their next holiday.

This is true, and why I think being technically in a recession is not fatal for a government, if in some indefinable way things don't feel that bad for most people.

I think Cameron benefited from this when the economy was pretty flat (albeit the LD collapse sure helped) and it was one reason people went too hard on how bad things were when Boris took over, as it just seemed overly gloomy.

By 2024 I think any positive economic news would not have worked as well, because things felt much worse anyway.

And right now my experience is people are pretty gloomy about the present and future.

Mexicanpete · February 8

Leon said:

“Put you money where you mouth is. Reform will be looking for shoo-in candidates. A celebrity Spectator columnist? Drinks all round!”

*****

I am a tiny bit tempted, TBH

Obvs I don’t want to do any of the boring shit like actually meet constituents or care about poor people or spend much time in crappy old provincial Britain - esp November-March - but if I could find some vaguely agreeably constituency which is very easily won and where I can RFA - rule from abroad - I might be inclined

You would still be allowed to continue in your day job. Much like Farage. Like Farage with Clacton you would never be required to go to Hereford to meet your constituents once elected.

algarkirk · February 8

kle4 said:
I recall the Reform manifesto (sorry, their 'contract with you') being decently put together in that it was mercifully short on waffle and had sections on 'immediate' actions they would theoretically take, alongside longer term actions. Sadly the brevity meant a lot of the proposals were very vague, not massively unusual in manifestos, but it's not like it was outright crazy like the SDP manifesto, and it didn't really jump out to me as 'these people will do things massively differently to the big 2.5 parties'. So the idea there would be lots of change under them I don't get.

8 pictures of Farage in 28 pages may have been a bit of overkill, but the Starmer picture count was pretty high in Labour's I think).

IIRC the contract document made a few small nods to conspiracy theory, a thing they need to jettison fast if they want normal people on board.. Its costings and economics were rubbish, but not so much worse than all the others.

But there is thing its opponents are in total denial about. Whatever the underlying Reform powers privately think their public documented face is thus:

Reform supports in a traditional form the 1950s post war social democratic deal: law and order, cradle to grave welfare, pensions, safety net for the unfortunate, free education to 18, NHS free at delivery, NATO, progressive taxation, regulated private enterprise, international trade, low inward migration.

If they can stick to that and put the loonies in a box and stop sympathising with violent thugs and make it clear that all law abiding people currently lawfully in the UK are us and not 'them' they can do well.

Whether they can actually run UK plc well I have no idea, butr no-one else can.

StillWaters · February 8

Presumably the EO on Afrikaner refugees is because Musk is *actually* worried about his immigration status

Can’t send him back to South Africa if you have declared that you will grant asylum to refugees from there

kle4 · February 8

MattW said:

MattW said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform
Your´re a propagandist and you still won´t put your money where your mouth is. Pretty pathetic.

"Propagandist" is a bit off for our @Leon . My Venn Diagram quota:

Looking at it, that's also 4 out of the 5 Reform MPs, with the exception that Lee Anderson is 58.

For them, the "Hall of Fairground Mirrors" may change if they get a policy platform out of whatever rabbit hole they are currently lost in.

Anderson fits the Farage mould of looking quite a bit older than he is (although I think Farage has kind of grown into his age, since he's looked about 60 for about 10 years).

The 38 year old one is interesting. Smallest majority too. Real odd man out, I wonder how well he gets on with the others on a personal level.

RochdalePioneers · February 8

Scott_xP said:

Leon said:
The issue is the UK is now in long term ABSOLUTE decline. We are getting steadily poorer and one of the major - but not solitary - drivers of this is
BREXIT

We were getting steadily poorer *before* Brexit. Why can't you see this? Brexit has accelerated the decline, that's hard to deny, but the idea that we just rejoin and everything is fixed is laughable.

Deep structural issues in our economy which easier trade with the EU did not address.

Leon · February 8

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

“Put you money where you mouth is. Reform will be looking for shoo-in candidates. A celebrity Spectator columnist? Drinks all round!”

*****

I am a tiny bit tempted, TBH

Obvs I don’t want to do any of the boring shit like actually meet constituents or care about poor people or spend much time in crappy old provincial Britain - esp November-March - but if I could find some vaguely agreeably constituency which is very easily won and where I can RFA - rule from abroad - I might be inclined
You would still be allowed to continue in your day job. Much like Farage. Like Farage with Clacton you would never be required to go to Hereford to meet your constituents once elected.

I wonder if parts of Cornwall might go Reform

I saw that massive marginal poll and it had Labour clinging on to two mid Cornwall seats. This seems unlikely to me

The anger about Labour is visceral down there, but the Tories are still likewise hated. The usual Cornish choice in this situation is to go Lib Dem

But the mood is really not “Lib Demmy”

williamglenn · February 8

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/07/planners-recommended-against-nuclear-plant-in-2019-over-welsh-language-and-cultural-concerns-hitachi

Planning inspectors recommended against a Hitachi-built nuclear power plant in Anglesey on the basis that it could dilute the island’s Welsh language and culture, it has emerged.

rottenborough · February 8

More Musk Madness.

Shuttering the US universities.

Carl T. Bergstrom
‪@carlbergstrom.com‬

1. Today the NIH director issued a new directive slashing overhead rates to 15%.

‪Carl T. Bergstrom‬
‪@carlbergstrom.com‬

5. Other schools may have even higher overhead rates. Harvard's is around 69%.

This new order slashes that percentage to a maximum of 15%. This means cutting one of the most important sources of university funding nationwide by 75% or more.

Universities cannot function with this scale of cut.

Carl T. Bergstrom‬ ‪@carlbergstrom.com‬

6. The policy does not just affect funding going forward. All existing NIH grants will have their indirect rates cut to 15% as of today, the date of issuance.

For a large university, this creates a sudden and catastrophic shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars against already budgeted funds.

https://bsky.app/profile/carlbergstrom.com/post/3lhmtolcc6s2c

Leon · February 8

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Leon said:
The issue is the UK is now in long term ABSOLUTE decline. We are getting steadily poorer and one of the major - but not solitary - drivers of this is
BREXIT
We were getting steadily poorer *before* Brexit. Why can't you see this? Brexit has accelerated the decline, that's hard to deny, but the idea that we just rejoin and everything is fixed is laughable.

Deep structural issues in our economy which easier trade with the EU did not address.

Quite so. Look at all the charts and it began in 2008

We were overreliant on finance and London and we’ve still not worked out how to fix that. Mass migration has been tried again and again and again and weirdly that hasn’t worked

StillWaters · February 8

Foxy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

hamiltonace said:

FF43 said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. 43, I can see the moral case for returning the island to the islanders.

I can see the pragmatic case for holding onto it.

There's no case whatsoever to hand it over to somewhere whose only link is administrative convenience during the British Empire. If that's the rationale, we might as well get Mauritius back.
Personally I don't care one way or the other about Chagos apart from a vague feeling that the islanders were shabbily treated. I do challenge the idea widely spread on here that the UK has the right to the islands under international law without a binding treaty with Mauritius. The case has been adjudicated in Mauritius favour by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. Slam Dunk.

You might say, so what? But we rely on the same institutions when we say, for example, that China is illegally occupying the South China Sea. We can make the legal problem go away through a treaty in exchange for hard cash. Which is what we would have to do anyway if we accepted the islands weren't ours. The question is how much money is worth it, which in turn partly depends on how much respect you have for international law.

Asking the islanders what they want is clearly the most important thing but the one the Government has refused to do. Instead it is giving the islands to a different colonial power and paying for the privilege. This just seems insane.

The Chagos should be sold to Dodgy Donald for $1 million $100 Billion.

Good morning!

Just hand it back to Mauritius and let the Americans sort out the lease for the base. It's not really a UK problem.

Mauritius would lease it to China instead.

The only card that the US has is that the UK currently has possession

rottenborough · February 8

‪Glen O'Hara‬ ‪@gsoh31.bsky.social‬
·
14m
UK growth will be hit if the US is going to stop underwriting university science and R&D. We're so intertwined.

https://bsky.app/profile/gsoh31.bsky.social/post/3lhnxiqtkxs2r

kle4 · February 8

rottenborough said:
More Musk Madness.

Shuttering the US universities.

Carl T. Bergstrom
‪@carlbergstrom.com‬

1. Today the NIH director issued a new directive slashing overhead rates to 15%.

‪Carl T. Bergstrom‬
‪@carlbergstrom.com‬

5. Other schools may have even higher overhead rates. Harvard's is around 69%.

This new order slashes that percentage to a maximum of 15%. This means cutting one of the most important sources of university funding nationwide by 75% or more.

Universities cannot function with this scale of cut.

Carl T. Bergstrom‬ ‪@carlbergstrom.com‬

6. The policy does not just affect funding going forward. All existing NIH grants will have their indirect rates cut to 15% as of today, the date of issuance.

For a large university, this creates a sudden and catastrophic shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars against already budgeted funds.

https://bsky.app/profile/carlbergstrom.com/post/3lhmtolcc6s2c

I thought all the big US universities were swimming in cash and endowments. Shows what I know.

Leon · February 8

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:
More Musk Madness.

Shuttering the US universities.

Carl T. Bergstrom
‪@carlbergstrom.com‬

1. Today the NIH director issued a new directive slashing overhead rates to 15%.

‪Carl T. Bergstrom‬
‪@carlbergstrom.com‬

5. Other schools may have even higher overhead rates. Harvard's is around 69%.

This new order slashes that percentage to a maximum of 15%. This means cutting one of the most important sources of university funding nationwide by 75% or more.

Universities cannot function with this scale of cut.

Carl T. Bergstrom‬ ‪@carlbergstrom.com‬

6. The policy does not just affect funding going forward. All existing NIH grants will have their indirect rates cut to 15% as of today, the date of issuance.

For a large university, this creates a sudden and catastrophic shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars against already budgeted funds.

https://bsky.app/profile/carlbergstrom.com/post/3lhmtolcc6s2c
I thought all the big US universities were swimming in cash and endowments. Shows what I know.

They are. Just don’t want to spend them

Nigelb · February 8

Leon said:

maxh said:

Cookie said:

maxh said:

Fairliered said:

Morris_Dancer said:
But cui bono?

Has Reform hit its ceiling? Could the electorate remember the Lib Dems exist?
The media are only interested in promoting Reform. That’s the Lib Dems’ problem.
Also, it feels as though Reform are very much 'angrier than thou'.

And that seems to be what (some) voters want at the moment.
It's very tempting, as a voter, to think "I really, really hate this lot - I will vote for the people who are shoutiest about them and/or the people who most annoy them." That isn't necessarily rational.
Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of @DavidL's rather plaintive 'who the hell do I vote for' question yesterday.

It is even possible to feel that the current government are really quite crap but still see them as the least worst of the available options. I *think* that's where I still am. It's not that I don't want to just drive the lot of them into the sea. It's just that it seems irresponsible to join the stampede without considering what will fill the vacuum that is left afterwards.
Reform. You vote for Reform

No, that's what you do.
You'll vote for anyone or anything out of sheer pique, and damn the consequences.

Even Starmer.
Farage would be no change from that.

MattW · February 8

FPT:

Foxy said:

SandyRentool said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
More than 100,000 new homes will be built on the highest-risk flood zones in England in the next five years as part of the government’s push for 1.5m extra properties by the end of this parliament, Guardian analysis suggests.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/08/more-than-100000-homes-in-england-could-be-built-in-highest-risk-flood-zones

What could possibly go wrong.
Nonsense on stilts,

Well if they were on stilts, it might protect against the flooding.
Always buy a house on the top of a hill IMHO.

That's my policy, and has been for a lot of years - at first unintentionally.

Engineering can often mitigate, but we are a country of gormless double think where hidebound people who want dual carriageways and traffic islands everywhere throw enormous, selfish, tantrums about "Concreting Over the Countrysode" if, say, a proposal is made to upgrade a 3m wide path railway path, which previously had trains on it, to a sealed surface so everyone can use it. Or if they are asked to park their cars on the carriageway or their drives.

On the flooding, we have cross-subsidies in place (which having made sensible decisions, I do not like), and I would prefer caveat emptor and those house to be designed appropriately for flood mititgation and of a suitably lower price, or for Councils to insist on flood prevention measures. That itself would help winnow out the developments which are not sustainable.

I am not convinced this Govt would be capable of being that subtle in their policies, though whatever they do do will be an order of magnitude better than what went before.

Sean_F · February 8

SandyRentool said:
"The economy" is a nebulous concept, the growth and contraction of which may or may not align with the financial situation of any given individual.

If the economy is booming due to BP and Shell making record profits on high oil prices, that is little consolation to the person struggling to pay their bills.

Equally, plenty of people get along perfectly well during a recession, their only angst being deciding where to go for their next holiday.

The USA’s growth rate has been pretty good, post 2008, compared to most rich world economies. But the average American’s experience is not that different to the average Briton’s or German’s or Italian’s. The benefits of economic growth are captured by a narrow section of the US population.

Dura_Ace · February 8

Can you imagine a Reform cabinet? That c-nt who got locked up for knocking the shit out of his ex will probably be CoE. Tice But Dim as Foreign Sec and Rupert Lowe as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Beyond Farage, who is a scheming opportunist sans pareil, they have less than nothing.

Sean_F · February 8

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:
What's least surprising here is that Lib Dem voters are nothing more than Labour lickspittles. We see it on here all the time where Lib Dems try their hardest to stick up for this shit government despite all of the evidence.
This government truly is shit. Its just that the previous government was *more* shit. So would I have this government instead of the last one? Yes. Doesn't make it good, but it's less bad.

That you remaining PB Tories don't get this is why your party has sunk to 3rd and heading for the bottom...

It’s Alexei Sayle’s choice between sticking your head in a bucket of acid and sticking your head in a bucket of shit.

rottenborough · February 8

First they came for the librarians
And I did nothing...

Sean_F · February 8

Dura_Ace said:
Can you imagine a Reform cabinet? That c-nt who got locked up for knocking the shit out of his ex will probably be CoE. Tice But Dim as Foreign Sec and Rupert Lowe as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Beyond Farage, who is a scheming opportunist sans pareil, they have less than nothing.

That’s why someone like @Leon should stand for Reform, and be part of the cabinet.

MattW · February 8

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:
More Musk Madness.

Shuttering the US universities.

Carl T. Bergstrom
‪@carlbergstrom.com‬

1. Today the NIH director issued a new directive slashing overhead rates to 15%.

‪Carl T. Bergstrom‬
‪@carlbergstrom.com‬

5. Other schools may have even higher overhead rates. Harvard's is around 69%.

This new order slashes that percentage to a maximum of 15%. This means cutting one of the most important sources of university funding nationwide by 75% or more.

Universities cannot function with this scale of cut.

Carl T. Bergstrom‬ ‪@carlbergstrom.com‬

6. The policy does not just affect funding going forward. All existing NIH grants will have their indirect rates cut to 15% as of today, the date of issuance.

For a large university, this creates a sudden and catastrophic shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars against already budgeted funds.

https://bsky.app/profile/carlbergstrom.com/post/3lhmtolcc6s2c
I thought all the big US universities were swimming in cash and endowments. Shows what I know.

The issue there is changing the rules on committed and costed programmes mid-stream.

It's exactly the same issue as Musk cancelling USAID funded clinical trials so abruptly that medical staff were banned from removing medical devices installed in patients bodies as part of the trial.

They are reckless, and they don't care the damage they do.

RochdalePioneers · February 8

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Leon said:
The issue is the UK is now in long term ABSOLUTE decline. We are getting steadily poorer and one of the major - but not solitary - drivers of this is
BREXIT
We were getting steadily poorer *before* Brexit. Why can't you see this? Brexit has accelerated the decline, that's hard to deny, but the idea that we just rejoin and everything is fixed is laughable.

Deep structural issues in our economy which easier trade with the EU did not address.
Quite so. Look at all the charts and it began in 2008

We were overreliant on finance and London and we’ve still not worked out how to fix that. Mass migration has been tried again and again and again and weirdly that hasn’t worked

2008? Are you mad. More like 1968. A disastrous 70s thanks to idiot governments idiot unions and idiot management. Then we had the 80s - a consumer feel good boom for a while funded by flogging everything off. We were well adrift by then.

Basic structural problem in the economy? We stopped investing in things. The last hurrah was the post-industrial throw money at redevelopment done by Thatcher *after* she'd chosen to dismantle industry because they were unionised. After that? Investment was relabelled "subsidy" and we get these endless political whines about who will pay.

dixiedean · February 8

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Leon said:
The issue is the UK is now in long term ABSOLUTE decline. We are getting steadily poorer and one of the major - but not solitary - drivers of this is
BREXIT
We were getting steadily poorer *before* Brexit. Why can't you see this? Brexit has accelerated the decline, that's hard to deny, but the idea that we just rejoin and everything is fixed is laughable.

Deep structural issues in our economy which easier trade with the EU did not address.
Quite so. Look at all the charts and it began in 2008

We were overreliant on finance and London and we’ve still not worked out how to fix that. Mass migration has been tried again and again and again and weirdly that hasn’t worked

Over reliance on finance did not begin in 2008.

algarkirk · February 8

Dura_Ace said:
Can you imagine a Reform cabinet? That c-nt who got locked up for knocking the shit out of his ex will probably be CoE. Tice But Dim as Foreign Sec and Rupert Lowe as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Beyond Farage, who is a scheming opportunist sans pareil, they have less than nothing.

Not at present. Looking ahead, potential and power work in the customary way. If they look like wielding power in any form then people who both like power and have some degree of experience in it will engage with them. Some may even not be nuts. Wait and see.

Listening to people who denounced Trump - including his VP - both joining the show and also becoming fellow travellers, Prof Niall Ferguson is a recent example I have just noticed, is illustrative and exemplary.

rottenborough · February 8

At last, some stirrings of the fight back:

"A federal judge early Saturday temporarily restricted access by Elon Musk’s government efficiency program to the Treasury Department’s payment and data systems, saying there was a risk of “irreparable harm.” "

NY Times

MattW · February 8

This is a good short (20 minutes) video running through the current legal cases resulting from Trump's Executive Orders, and the impact so far of such action.

It also shows well the problems and opportunities of the USA's politicised Judicial System, as it is now, and the strategies being used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNRxbEsX8AM

dixiedean · February 8

The Bigg Market Hooters will be the first where the staff wear more clothes than the customers.

rottenborough · February 8

algarkirk said:

Dura_Ace said:
Can you imagine a Reform cabinet? That c-nt who got locked up for knocking the shit out of his ex will probably be CoE. Tice But Dim as Foreign Sec and Rupert Lowe as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Beyond Farage, who is a scheming opportunist sans pareil, they have less than nothing.
Not at present. Looking ahead, potential and power work in the customary way. If they look like wielding power in any form then people who both like power and have some degree of experience in it will engage with them. Some may even not be nuts. Wait and see.

Listening to people who denounced Trump - including his VP - both joining the show and also becoming fellow travellers, Prof Niall Ferguson is a recent example I have just noticed, is illustrative and exemplary.

Wonder how the good professor feels now they are gutting US university research?

Battlebus · February 8

@Foxy mentioned the need for more Social Care to help clear the backlog in the system. Here's an example of people being trapped in the system but not able to get out.

These are issues of our own making as a nation. Trump's 'switch it all off' approach will appeal to some but clearly there is a need for some hard choices to be made if (and only if) we want to address them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c897ew0ekp4o

Dura_Ace · February 8

Sean_F said:

Dura_Ace said:
Can you imagine a Reform cabinet? That c-nt who got locked up for knocking the shit out of his ex will probably be CoE. Tice But Dim as Foreign Sec and Rupert Lowe as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Beyond Farage, who is a scheming opportunist sans pareil, they have less than nothing.
That’s why someone like @Leon should stand for Reform, and be part of the cabinet.

When you order a Niccolo Giani off eBay.

DecrepiterJohnL · February 8

Dura_Ace said:
Can you imagine a Reform cabinet? That c-nt who got locked up for knocking the shit out of his ex will probably be CoE. Tice But Dim as Foreign Sec and Rupert Lowe as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Beyond Farage, who is a scheming opportunist sans pareil, they have less than nothing.

It is the absence of talent and any underlying political philosophy that means the locals are dangerous for Reform at Westminster. Dozens of councils run by unvetted newbies who agree on nothing except what they once read on the side of a bus might destroy the party.

dixiedean · February 8

rottenborough said:
First they came for the librarians
And I did nothing...

They refused to speak up.

pigeon · February 8

RochdalePioneers said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Leon said:
The issue is the UK is now in long term ABSOLUTE decline. We are getting steadily poorer and one of the major - but not solitary - drivers of this is
BREXIT
We were getting steadily poorer *before* Brexit. Why can't you see this? Brexit has accelerated the decline, that's hard to deny, but the idea that we just rejoin and everything is fixed is laughable.

Deep structural issues in our economy which easier trade with the EU did not address.
Quite so. Look at all the charts and it began in 2008

We were overreliant on finance and London and we’ve still not worked out how to fix that. Mass migration has been tried again and again and again and weirdly that hasn’t worked
2008? Are you mad. More like 1968. A disastrous 70s thanks to idiot governments idiot unions and idiot management. Then we had the 80s - a consumer feel good boom for a while funded by flogging everything off. We were well adrift by then.

Basic structural problem in the economy? We stopped investing in things. The last hurrah was the post-industrial throw money at redevelopment done by Thatcher *after* she'd chosen to dismantle industry because they were unionised. After that? Investment was relabelled "subsidy" and we get these endless political whines about who will pay.

We invest in lots of things. Unfortunately they're mostly vastly overpriced inert piles of bricks.

If you create an economic system where the most important asset class is property and investment almost guarantees returns, then you shouldn't be surprised if you regress towards a Hanoverian settlement with, in broad terms, a steadily narrowing gentry class milking a steadily broadening peasant class for rents.

Social mobility is grinding to a halt as young people's life prospects become increasingly dependent on the transmission of existing family wealth, through parental subsidy and inheritances. This is having dire consequences and the situation will continue to get worse.

DecrepiterJohnL · February 8

Sean_F said:

SandyRentool said:
"The economy" is a nebulous concept, the growth and contraction of which may or may not align with the financial situation of any given individual.

If the economy is booming due to BP and Shell making record profits on high oil prices, that is little consolation to the person struggling to pay their bills.

Equally, plenty of people get along perfectly well during a recession, their only angst being deciding where to go for their next holiday.
The USA’s growth rate has been pretty good, post 2008, compared to most rich world economies. But the average American’s experience is not that different to the average Briton’s or German’s or Italian’s. The benefits of economic growth are captured by a narrow section of the US population.

Growth fostered by pump-priming not austerity. But as there, and as here, what it has produced is more growth for the asset-owning classes than for the just-about-managing. And even that is not enough so the squillionaires are not only embracing The Donald but also moving to low-tax states.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

If it is the economy stupid then Labour should sink further in the polls – politicalbetting.com

Comments