The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
At a time the government is pleading total poverty, it finds hundreds of millions a year to pay a faraway country so that they can take what is already ours
That’s the breakdown. Even a cretin can see the grotesqueness of the spectacle
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?...
Do I think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?
No
Do I think people care about £165mill for yrs 1-3 plus £120mill for yrs 4-13 plus £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 plus ANOTHER £45mill for yrs 1-25 plus £40mill now.
Yes.
I'd love to know how an index linked 99 years * 100 odd million only works out to 3.4 billion, extraordinarily heard it was the same long term calculation used for pensions !
Real book cooking going on tbh.
£100m a year for 10,000 years deflated at 3% pa is £3.3 billion. It will be a NPV calculation.
EDIT Index linked - so assume inflation of 3% pa and deflate at 6% pa to include a 3% risk premium.
It's easy when you know how
The £50bn that Reform fool was wittering on about is obvious bollocks.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
To be fair, lots of people got very worked up about the Falklands.
Sure! British people got invaded! Where are the British people in the Chagos Islands?
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
At a time the government is pleading total poverty, it finds hundreds of millions a year to pay a faraway country so that they can take what is already ours
That’s the breakdown. Even a cretin can see the grotesqueness of the spectacle
It's the defence budget mate. As will be pointed out to the hard of thinking it's cheaper and more capable than an aircraft carrier.
I know that *you* are exorcised by it. Get that. I'm just pointing out that most voters don't give a fuck. If we'd just given away Gibraltar and there were loads of Brit looking / sounding people there angry then it would be a problem. As it is, this is an airbase.
Wait til they find out that we spend similar money every year on our Cypriot bases...
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
To be fair, lots of people got very worked up about the Falklands.
Sure! British people got invaded! Where are the British people in the Chagos Islands?
It's one thing to give up territory for sketchy legal reasons, it's quite another to pay for the privilege!
Of course it's not the end of the world but it doesn't make a lot of sense. When you've Reform, The Economist and Novara Media against you have a think about it.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?...
Do I think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?
No
Do I think people care about £165mill for yrs 1-3 plus £120mill for yrs 4-13 plus £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 plus ANOTHER £45mill for yrs 1-25 plus £40mill now.
Yes.
I'd love to know how an index linked 99 years * 100 odd million only works out to 3.4 billion, extraordinarily heard it was the same long term calculation used for pensions !
Real book cooking going on tbh.
£100m a year for 10,000 years deflated at 3% pa is £3.3 billion. It will be a NPV calculation.
EDIT Index linked - so assume inflation of 3% pa and deflate at 6% pa to include a 3% risk premium.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
To be fair, lots of people got very worked up about the Falklands.
Sure! British people got invaded! Where are the British people in the Chagos Islands?
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?...
Do I think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?
No
Do I think people care about £165mill for yrs 1-3 plus £120mill for yrs 4-13 plus £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 plus ANOTHER £45mill for yrs 1-25 plus £40mill now.
Yes.
I'd love to know how an index linked 99 years * 100 odd million only works out to 3.4 billion, extraordinarily heard it was the same long term calculation used for pensions !
Real book cooking going on tbh.
£100m a year for 10,000 years deflated at 3% pa is £3.3 billion. It will be a NPV calculation.
EDIT Index linked - so assume inflation of 3% pa and deflate at 6% pa to include a 3% risk premium.
It's easy when you know how
The £50bn that Reform fool was wittering on about is obvious bollocks.
Well it's probably going to be more than £50 Bn in total cash terms
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
To be fair, lots of people got very worked up about the Falklands.
Sure! British people got invaded! Where are the British people in the Chagos Islands?
Where are the Mauritians?
Notable that Sky News, which now seems to be trying to out Channel 4 Channel 4, spoke of the islands being returned to Mauritius.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
At a time the government is pleading total poverty, it finds hundreds of millions a year to pay a faraway country so that they can take what is already ours
That’s the breakdown. Even a cretin can see the grotesqueness of the spectacle
It's the defence budget mate. As will be pointed out to the hard of thinking it's cheaper and more capable than an aircraft carrier.
I know that *you* are exorcised by it. Get that. I'm just pointing out that most voters don't give a fuck. If we'd just given away Gibraltar and there were loads of Brit looking / sounding people there angry then it would be a problem. As it is, this is an airbase.
Wait til they find out that we spend similar money every year on our Cypriot bases...
I suggest that many do care. And those that don’t will be made to care, day after day for the next four years
It’s like Starmer has handed Reform an enormous stick with the words HIT ME WITH THIS attached on a label
If you don’t see how dreadful this is as retail politics - for a government constantly pleading poverty and raising taxes BUT GIVING OUR MONEY TO MAURITIUS TO TAKE WHAT IS OURS - then I recommend you hie thee to an ophthalmologist
Our negotiated deal with the United Kingdom is working out well for all. I strongly recommend to them, however, that in order to get their Energy Costs down, they stop with the costly and unsightly windmills, and incentivize modernized drilling in the North Sea, where large amounts of oil lay waiting to be taken. A century of drilling left, with Aberdeen as the hub. The old fashioned tax system disincentivizes drilling, rather than the opposite. U.K.'s Energy Costs would go WAY DOWN, and fast!
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
To be fair, lots of people got very worked up about the Falklands.
Sure! British people got invaded! Where are the British people in the Chagos Islands?
It's one thing to give up territory for sketchy legal reasons, it's quite another to pay for the privilege!
Of course it's not the end of the world but it doesn't make a lot of sense. When you've Reform, The Economist and Novara Media against you have a think about it.
Most sensible, rational things will get Reform and Novara Media against you. That's not difficult.
The Economist has its views (and a sometimes overbearingly repetitive house style of writing). They come from a particular perspective. They're not the fountain of truth.
Our negotiated deal with the United Kingdom is working out well for all. I strongly recommend to them, however, that in order to get their Energy Costs down, they stop with the costly and unsightly windmills, and incentivize modernized drilling in the North Sea, where large amounts of oil lay waiting to be taken. A century of drilling left, with Aberdeen as the hub. The old fashioned tax system disincentivizes drilling, rather than the opposite. U.K.'s Energy Costs would go WAY DOWN, and fast!
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
At a time the government is pleading total poverty, it finds hundreds of millions a year to pay a faraway country so that they can take what is already ours
That’s the breakdown. Even a cretin can see the grotesqueness of the spectacle
It's the defence budget mate. As will be pointed out to the hard of thinking it's cheaper and more capable than an aircraft carrier.
I know that *you* are exorcised by it. Get that. I'm just pointing out that most voters don't give a fuck. If we'd just given away Gibraltar and there were loads of Brit looking / sounding people there angry then it would be a problem. As it is, this is an airbase.
Wait til they find out that we spend similar money every year on our Cypriot bases...
Interestingly, plenty of Cypriot people live on those - there are farms and villages in them. It's quite an unusual situation.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
At a time the government is pleading total poverty, it finds hundreds of millions a year to pay a faraway country so that they can take what is already ours
That’s the breakdown. Even a cretin can see the grotesqueness of the spectacle
It's the defence budget mate. As will be pointed out to the hard of thinking it's cheaper and more capable than an aircraft carrier.
I know that *you* are exorcised by it. Get that. I'm just pointing out that most voters don't give a fuck. If we'd just given away Gibraltar and there were loads of Brit looking / sounding people there angry then it would be a problem. As it is, this is an airbase.
Wait til they find out that we spend similar money every year on our Cypriot bases...
Interestingly, plenty of Cypriot people live on those - there are farms and villages in them. It's quite an unusual situation.
Our negotiated deal with the United Kingdom is working out well for all. I strongly recommend to them, however, that in order to get their Energy Costs down, they stop with the costly and unsightly windmills, and incentivize modernized drilling in the North Sea, where large amounts of oil lay waiting to be taken. A century of drilling left, with Aberdeen as the hub. The old fashioned tax system disincentivizes drilling, rather than the opposite. U.K.'s Energy Costs would go WAY DOWN, and fast!
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?...
Do I think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?
No
Do I think people care about £165mill for yrs 1-3 plus £120mill for yrs 4-13 plus £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 plus ANOTHER £45mill for yrs 1-25 plus £40mill now.
Yes.
I'd love to know how an index linked 99 years * 100 odd million only works out to 3.4 billion, extraordinarily heard it was the same long term calculation used for pensions !
Real book cooking going on tbh.
£100m a year for 10,000 years deflated at 3% pa is £3.3 billion. It will be a NPV calculation.
EDIT Index linked - so assume inflation of 3% pa and deflate at 6% pa to include a 3% risk premium.
It's easy when you know how
How can you deflate at inflation less 3%
You deflate at inflation PLUS 3% to allow for the time value of money.
If you just deflate at the inflation rate, you are just bringing it back to "real terms" i.e. its real value. But you are not taking into account that money today is worth more than the same money (in real terms) tomorrow because you can invest today's money at a 3% rate above inflation (eg in equities).
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
At a time the government is pleading total poverty, it finds hundreds of millions a year to pay a faraway country so that they can take what is already ours
That’s the breakdown. Even a cretin can see the grotesqueness of the spectacle
It's the defence budget mate. As will be pointed out to the hard of thinking it's cheaper and more capable than an aircraft carrier.
I know that *you* are exorcised by it. Get that. I'm just pointing out that most voters don't give a fuck. If we'd just given away Gibraltar and there were loads of Brit looking / sounding people there angry then it would be a problem. As it is, this is an airbase.
Wait til they find out that we spend similar money every year on our Cypriot bases...
Interestingly, plenty of Cypriot people live on those - there are farms and villages in them. It's quite an unusual situation.
That research has the potential for good real-world uses; building estates of visually different houses using standardised mass produced components should help to humanise these big blocks of new builds without adding masses of additional cost.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
At a time the government is pleading total poverty, it finds hundreds of millions a year to pay a faraway country so that they can take what is already ours
That’s the breakdown. Even a cretin can see the grotesqueness of the spectacle
It's the defence budget mate. As will be pointed out to the hard of thinking it's cheaper and more capable than an aircraft carrier.
I know that *you* are exorcised by it. Get that. I'm just pointing out that most voters don't give a fuck. If we'd just given away Gibraltar and there were loads of Brit looking / sounding people there angry then it would be a problem. As it is, this is an airbase.
Wait til they find out that we spend similar money every year on our Cypriot bases...
Speaking of which the defence review is due out pretty soon.
I am almost certain that there'll be, at the very least, an order of magnitude more wasted spending on ineffective kit than is being blown on the Chagos deal. And about half a dozen of us will actually pay attention to that.
Some chatter that Typhoon is to be kept in service until 2060*...
Tell you what Napoleon and other past French leaders were absolute visionaries when it came to forseeing how future international law would work in 2025 - just make everywhere you conquer actual France ! Whoever decided to stick Mauritius and Chagos on the same bit of administration of the British Empire not so much
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?...
Do I think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?
No
Do I think people care about £165mill for yrs 1-3 plus £120mill for yrs 4-13 plus £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 plus ANOTHER £45mill for yrs 1-25 plus £40mill now.
Yes.
I'd love to know how an index linked 99 years * 100 odd million only works out to 3.4 billion, extraordinarily heard it was the same long term calculation used for pensions !
Real book cooking going on tbh.
£100m a year for 10,000 years deflated at 3% pa is £3.3 billion. It will be a NPV calculation.
EDIT Index linked - so assume inflation of 3% pa and deflate at 6% pa to include a 3% risk premium.
It's easy when you know how
The £50bn that Reform fool was wittering on about is obvious bollocks.
Well it's probably going to be more than £50 Bn in total cash terms
What is the triple lock in total cash terms over the next 100 years......
This report by the Justice Committee is utterly damning. Law and order is the most basic function of the state and it is failing. If the state can't or won't get this right, little chance of it getting anything else right.
The CCRC can't replace its Chair who was sacked by Shabana Mahmood and has gone fully remote because, it says, it cannot attract the right people to work in Birmingham.
The CCRC budget was halved by Cameron's government. As the MPs note, its budget has risen since to £9.3 million but it was £9.2 million ten years ago.
The CCRC takes an unduly legalistic approach as is seen in its defence of its handling of both the Sullivan and Malkinson cases. Sure, these men were wrongly banged up and could have been out a decade earlier if the CCRC pulled its finger out but that's OK because they appealed on the wrong grounds.
Luke Tryl @luketryl.bsky.social · 24m Aside from the politics another lesson of the winter fuel debate is it is another example of how big a problem it is that government data is so bad and lacking - means, at least in short term, you have to use the blunt and low threshold of pension credit or keep wfa universal.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
At a time the government is pleading total poverty, it finds hundreds of millions a year to pay a faraway country so that they can take what is already ours
That’s the breakdown. Even a cretin can see the grotesqueness of the spectacle
It's the defence budget mate. As will be pointed out to the hard of thinking it's cheaper and more capable than an aircraft carrier.
I know that *you* are exorcised by it. Get that. I'm just pointing out that most voters don't give a fuck. If we'd just given away Gibraltar and there were loads of Brit looking / sounding people there angry then it would be a problem. As it is, this is an airbase.
Wait til they find out that we spend similar money every year on our Cypriot bases...
Blaming the need for the Cypriot bases on the M.E. is easy.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?...
Do I think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?
No
Do I think people care about £165mill for yrs 1-3 plus £120mill for yrs 4-13 plus £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 plus ANOTHER £45mill for yrs 1-25 plus £40mill now.
Yes.
I'd love to know how an index linked 99 years * 100 odd million only works out to 3.4 billion, extraordinarily heard it was the same long term calculation used for pensions !
Real book cooking going on tbh.
£100m a year for 10,000 years deflated at 3% pa is £3.3 billion. It will be a NPV calculation.
EDIT Index linked - so assume inflation of 3% pa and deflate at 6% pa to include a 3% risk premium.
It's easy when you know how
The £50bn that Reform fool was wittering on about is obvious bollocks.
Well it's probably going to be more than £50 Bn in total cash terms
In 2125 cash terms, sure. I doubt the sixty year old Tice will be around to calculate what that's worth by then.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
At a time the government is pleading total poverty, it finds hundreds of millions a year to pay a faraway country so that they can take what is already ours
That’s the breakdown. Even a cretin can see the grotesqueness of the spectacle
It's the defence budget mate. As will be pointed out to the hard of thinking it's cheaper and more capable than an aircraft carrier.
I know that *you* are exorcised by it. Get that. I'm just pointing out that most voters don't give a fuck. If we'd just given away Gibraltar and there were loads of Brit looking / sounding people there angry then it would be a problem. As it is, this is an airbase.
Wait til they find out that we spend similar money every year on our Cypriot bases...
Blaming the need for the Cypriot bases on the M.E. is easy.
"With friends like these, who needs Yemenis?" - Boris.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
To be fair, lots of people got very worked up about the Falklands.
Sure! British people got invaded! Where are the British people in the Chagos Islands?
It's one thing to give up territory for sketchy legal reasons, it's quite another to pay for the privilege!
Of course it's not the end of the world but it doesn't make a lot of sense. When you've Reform, The Economist and Novara Media against you have a think about it.
Most sensible, rational things will get Reform and Novara Media against you. That's not difficult.
The Economist has its views (and a sometimes overbearingly repetitive house style of writing). They come from a particular perspective. They're not the fountain of truth.
As I assumed it wouldn't be beyond your wit to see I was trying to point out the opposition to this deal from a range of perspectives (not just three) and how no-one seems able to make a credible defence of it.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?...
Do I think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?
No
Do I think people care about £165mill for yrs 1-3 plus £120mill for yrs 4-13 plus £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 plus ANOTHER £45mill for yrs 1-25 plus £40mill now.
Yes.
I'd love to know how an index linked 99 years * 100 odd million only works out to 3.4 billion, extraordinarily heard it was the same long term calculation used for pensions !
Real book cooking going on tbh.
£100m a year for 10,000 years deflated at 3% pa is £3.3 billion. It will be a NPV calculation.
EDIT Index linked - so assume inflation of 3% pa and deflate at 6% pa to include a 3% risk premium.
It's easy when you know how
The £50bn that Reform fool was wittering on about is obvious bollocks.
Well it's probably going to be more than £50 Bn in total cash terms
What is the triple lock in total cash terms over the next 100 years......
Now that is different. Which gets at the problem people have in comprehending the long term interactions of inflation, economic growth, and interest rates.
This report by the Justice Committee is utterly damning. Law and order is the most basic function of the state and it is failing. If the state can't or won't get this right, little chance of it getting anything else right.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
To be fair, lots of people got very worked up about the Falklands.
Sure! British people got invaded! Where are the British people in the Chagos Islands?
It's one thing to give up territory for sketchy legal reasons, it's quite another to pay for the privilege!
Of course it's not the end of the world but it doesn't make a lot of sense. When you've Reform, The Economist and Novara Media against you have a think about it.
Most sensible, rational things will get Reform and Novara Media against you. That's not difficult.
The Economist has its views (and a sometimes overbearingly repetitive house style of writing). They come from a particular perspective. They're not the fountain of truth.
As I assumed it wouldn't be beyond your wit to see I was trying to point out the opposition to this deal from a range of perspectives (not just three) and how no-one seems able to make a credible defence of it.
Why do you persist with such pedantry?
Because it's required by the Charter of PoliticalBetting.com. Didn't you have to sign it when you made an account?
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
At a time the government is pleading total poverty, it finds hundreds of millions a year to pay a faraway country so that they can take what is already ours
That’s the breakdown. Even a cretin can see the grotesqueness of the spectacle
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?...
Do I think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?
No
Do I think people care about £165mill for yrs 1-3 plus £120mill for yrs 4-13 plus £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 plus ANOTHER £45mill for yrs 1-25 plus £40mill now.
Yes.
I'd love to know how an index linked 99 years * 100 odd million only works out to 3.4 billion, extraordinarily heard it was the same long term calculation used for pensions !
Real book cooking going on tbh.
£100m a year for 10,000 years deflated at 3% pa is £3.3 billion. It will be a NPV calculation.
EDIT Index linked - so assume inflation of 3% pa and deflate at 6% pa to include a 3% risk premium.
It's easy when you know how
The £50bn that Reform fool was wittering on about is obvious bollocks.
Well it's probably going to be more than £50 Bn in total cash terms
What is the triple lock in total cash terms over the next 100 years......
I've just worked it out.
The IFS suggests the triple lock adds around £11 billion per year to public spending. Inflate this at say 3% pa for inflation for 100 years and add it all up and you get ....
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as biological sex,” she said.
Presumably she was with a psychiatrist...as a patient!
Lady Hale is former head of the Supreme Court. She is the one with the brooch who upset Boris. When she says, as a lawyer, that the Supreme Court's ruling has been misinterpreted in some quarters, it is just possible that, in an ex officio capacity, she might have a point.
That's fine. But it's not the bit that has got people raising eyebrows.
What, this ?
..The “proper answer to all of this”, she believed, was “somewhere in the middle. So that’s what I very much hope we will come out with when people have calmed down and start being sensible about things.”..
I'm surprised that 'complete nutter' Lady Hale felt the need to intervene. After all the SC said that no side had won and that triumphalism should be avoided. I presumed that the GCs with their customary grace and tolerance have taken that on board.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?...
Do I think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?
No
Do I think people care about £165mill for yrs 1-3 plus £120mill for yrs 4-13 plus £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 plus ANOTHER £45mill for yrs 1-25 plus £40mill now.
Yes.
I'd love to know how an index linked 99 years * 100 odd million only works out to 3.4 billion, extraordinarily heard it was the same long term calculation used for pensions !
Real book cooking going on tbh.
£100m a year for 10,000 years deflated at 3% pa is £3.3 billion. It will be a NPV calculation.
EDIT Index linked - so assume inflation of 3% pa and deflate at 6% pa to include a 3% risk premium.
It's easy when you know how
The £50bn that Reform fool was wittering on about is obvious bollocks.
Well it's probably going to be more than £50 Bn in total cash terms
What is the triple lock in total cash terms over the next 100 years......
I've just worked it out.
The IFS suggests the triple lock adds around £11 billion per year to public spending. Inflate this at say 3% pa for inflation for 100 years and add it all up and you get ....
£6,680,165,059,647
About £6.7 trillion
Quite a lot
National debt is currently £2.8 trillion.
It's funny money.
Its higher than that because of the nature of the triple lock. The odd year will have 3% inflation and 8% wage rises, others will have 0.5% inflation but still count as the 2.5% minimum.
Every time the government says “sorry we can’t afford that” people will say “yet you can afford to give a foreign power £150 million a year for TAKING OUR PROPERTY”
There’s no way around that for Labour or Starmer
Don't be silly.
Pause
It's more than that
£165mill for yrs 1-3 plus £120mill for yrs 4-13 plus £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 plus ANOTHER £45mill for yrs 1-25 plus £40mill now.
So what's the net present value of the whole deal ? (We should have A Meeks back to do this.)
Assuming 2% inflation over the next 14 years (at a minimum) the value of £120m in 14 years' time is equivalent to around £90m today (which is thereafter indexed). £3bn invested in a FTSE tracker should return something around that as annual income. Call it £5bn for a margin of safety.
That then is a reasonable guesstimate of the cost of years 14-99 ?
Assuming 5% inflation pa and today is the start of year 1 and payments are made at the beginning of the year
The NPV of £165mill for yrs 1-3 is £449.34million
The NPV of £120mill for yrs 4-13 is £800.44million
The NPV of £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 is £10,320.00million (assuming inflation starts now)
The NPV of £45mill for yrs 1-25 is £634.23million
The NPV of £40mill now is £40million
The total net present value NPV is £12.244 billion. Or £12,244million if you prefer.
(narrator: use the "NPV" function on your Excel spreadsheet)
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?...
Do I think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?
No
Do I think people care about £165mill for yrs 1-3 plus £120mill for yrs 4-13 plus £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 plus ANOTHER £45mill for yrs 1-25 plus £40mill now.
Yes.
I'd love to know how an index linked 99 years * 100 odd million only works out to 3.4 billion, extraordinarily heard it was the same long term calculation used for pensions !
Real book cooking going on tbh.
£100m a year for 10,000 years deflated at 3% pa is £3.3 billion. It will be a NPV calculation.
EDIT Index linked - so assume inflation of 3% pa and deflate at 6% pa to include a 3% risk premium.
It's easy when you know how
The £50bn that Reform fool was wittering on about is obvious bollocks.
Well it's probably going to be more than £50 Bn in total cash terms
What is the triple lock in total cash terms over the next 100 years......
I've just worked it out.
The IFS suggests the triple lock adds around £11 billion per year to public spending. Inflate this at say 3% pa for inflation for 100 years and add it all up and you get ....
£6,680,165,059,647
About £6.7 trillion
Quite a lot
National debt is currently £2.8 trillion.
It's funny money.
Its higher than that because of the nature of the triple lock. The odd year will have 3% inflation and 8% wage rises, others will have 0.5% inflation but still count as the 2.5% minimum.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
To be fair, lots of people got very worked up about the Falklands.
Sure! British people got invaded! Where are the British people in the Chagos Islands?
It's one thing to give up territory for sketchy legal reasons, it's quite another to pay for the privilege!
Of course it's not the end of the world but it doesn't make a lot of sense. When you've Reform, The Economist and Novara Media against you have a think about it.
Most sensible, rational things will get Reform and Novara Media against you. That's not difficult.
The Economist has its views (and a sometimes overbearingly repetitive house style of writing). They come from a particular perspective. They're not the fountain of truth.
As I assumed it wouldn't be beyond your wit to see I was trying to point out the opposition to this deal from a range of perspectives (not just three) and how no-one seems able to make a credible defence of it.
Why do you persist with such pedantry?
Because it's required by the Charter of PoliticalBetting.com. Didn't you have to sign it when you made an account?
I don't mind a bit of pedantry when there is a reason for it. In your case I'm left asking the question, who are you acting as counsel for?
I need a recommendation for a hotel somewhere on the way between Manchester-ish and Chesterfield-ish.
The plot this weekend is to visit 2 friends in Sheffield (not Dore or Totley, which are still Derbyshire and only leased to Sheffield) and N-Manchester in one day, and have a stayover and a walk the next day.
I have options - out of choice I'd perhaps stay in Parcevall Hall at Appletreewick (it's a good time for the gardens) and then walk the Strid, but Bolton Abbey is a bit far off for a single day.
Manchester is possible and to cycle some of their new infra, or a Peak District walk or ride. One possible hotel is in Ashford-in-the-Water, or Hayfield.
But I'm open to any suggestions for hotels. Price is flexible.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?...
Do I think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of?
No
Do I think people care about £165mill for yrs 1-3 plus £120mill for yrs 4-13 plus £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 plus ANOTHER £45mill for yrs 1-25 plus £40mill now.
Yes.
I'd love to know how an index linked 99 years * 100 odd million only works out to 3.4 billion, extraordinarily heard it was the same long term calculation used for pensions !
Real book cooking going on tbh.
£100m a year for 10,000 years deflated at 3% pa is £3.3 billion. It will be a NPV calculation.
EDIT Index linked - so assume inflation of 3% pa and deflate at 6% pa to include a 3% risk premium.
It's easy when you know how
The £50bn that Reform fool was wittering on about is obvious bollocks.
Well it's probably going to be more than £50 Bn in total cash terms
You need to do a Net Present Value (NPV) calculation.
For example consider a situation with 0% inflation and no investment risk. Even with zero inflation £100 now is worth a hell of a lot more than £100 in 20 years time even with zero investment risk and zero inflation.
You need to consider your Internal Rate of Return (IRR). This is the minimum future growth value you require to exchange money now for money later ignoring risk and inflation. You then need to add to that the return you need to cover the risk and inflation.
So future payments, even if inflation protected in economic terms cost a lot less than paying that now.
I have not commented on this deal before and have no idea if it is good or rubbish, but note as usual @leon talking out of his arse again on a topic he has no knowledge of.
That research has the potential for good real-world uses; building estates of visually different houses using standardised mass produced components should help to humanise these big blocks of new builds without adding masses of additional cost.
The British Right needs to get its story straight over Chagos. On the one hand we've got Nigel proclaiming that Donald is furious about the deal, whilst Kemi asserts Donald is laughing about it, presumably in triumph. Kemi's approach is probably better, but whatever the message it needs to be consistent. The current muddled approach will only baffle the public and allow Sir Keir to wriggle free.
The British Right needs to get its story straight over Chagos. On the one hand we've got Nigel proclaiming that Donald is furious about the deal, whilst Kemi asserts Donald is laughing about it, presumably in triumph. Kemi's approach is probably better, but whatever the message it needs to be consistent. The current muddled approach will only baffle the public and allow Sir Keir to wriggle free.
I haven't had anyone I know mention it to me, including older rightwingers.
Every time the government says “sorry we can’t afford that” people will say “yet you can afford to give a foreign power £150 million a year for TAKING OUR PROPERTY”
There’s no way around that for Labour or Starmer
Don't be silly.
Pause
It's more than that
£165mill for yrs 1-3 plus £120mill for yrs 4-13 plus £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 plus ANOTHER £45mill for yrs 1-25 plus £40mill now.
So what's the net present value of the whole deal ? (We should have A Meeks back to do this.)
Assuming 2% inflation over the next 14 years (at a minimum) the value of £120m in 14 years' time is equivalent to around £90m today (which is thereafter indexed). £3bn invested in a FTSE tracker should return something around that as annual income. Call it £5bn for a margin of safety.
That then is a reasonable guesstimate of the cost of years 14-99 ?
Assuming 5% inflation pa and today is the start of year 1 and payments are made at the beginning of the year...
The NPV of £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 is £10,320.00million (assuming inflation starts now)
It's the 14-99 yrs bit which is the politically contested calculation. I think my assumption is more parsimonious in its assumptions, in terms of calculating value, but YMMV.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
To be fair, lots of people got very worked up about the Falklands.
Sure! British people got invaded! Where are the British people in the Chagos Islands?
It's one thing to give up territory for sketchy legal reasons, it's quite another to pay for the privilege!
Of course it's not the end of the world but it doesn't make a lot of sense. When you've Reform, The Economist and Novara Media against you have a think about it.
Most sensible, rational things will get Reform and Novara Media against you. That's not difficult.
The Economist has its views (and a sometimes overbearingly repetitive house style of writing). They come from a particular perspective. They're not the fountain of truth.
As I assumed it wouldn't be beyond your wit to see I was trying to point out the opposition to this deal from a range of perspectives (not just three) and how no-one seems able to make a credible defence of it.
Why do you persist with such pedantry?
Because it's required by the Charter of PoliticalBetting.com. Didn't you have to sign it when you made an account?
I don't mind a bit of pedantry when there is a reason for it. In your case I'm left asking the question, who are you acting as counsel for?
For me. I am expressing my views. What is difficult to understand about this? Why the ad homineming?
At 100/1, Katie Lam has the makings of a good bet for next Tory leader. That’s with William Hill, but I’m hoping other bookies may offer bigger
She speaks eloquently and firmly on immigration, I think she will be a star
Katie Lam has been an MP for less than a year. She might be a future leader but the bet is on the next leader.
I don't see it. IMO her speech that gave that tweet was a bit of a populist dog's breakfast, as she had picked up her misinformation from Philp without checking it for practicality. Declaring the current Govt as one with a "record of failure" before the clock gives them even a chance to have an impact on the stats is crass.
She's 33-34, so I'd say she could be the next Tory leader but about 2-5, depending if they manage to make the others last more than 2 years.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
To be fair, lots of people got very worked up about the Falklands.
Sure! British people got invaded! Where are the British people in the Chagos Islands?
It's one thing to give up territory for sketchy legal reasons, it's quite another to pay for the privilege!
Of course it's not the end of the world but it doesn't make a lot of sense. When you've Reform, The Economist and Novara Media against you have a think about it.
Most sensible, rational things will get Reform and Novara Media against you. That's not difficult.
The Economist has its views (and a sometimes overbearingly repetitive house style of writing). They come from a particular perspective. They're not the fountain of truth.
As I assumed it wouldn't be beyond your wit to see I was trying to point out the opposition to this deal from a range of perspectives (not just three) and how no-one seems able to make a credible defence of it.
Why do you persist with such pedantry?
Because it's required by the Charter of PoliticalBetting.com. Didn't you have to sign it when you made an account?
I don't mind a bit of pedantry when there is a reason for it. In your case I'm left asking the question, who are you acting as counsel for?
By definition is there ever a reason for pedantry other than humour or to annoy?
Luke Tryl @luketryl.bsky.social · 24m Aside from the politics another lesson of the winter fuel debate is it is another example of how big a problem it is that government data is so bad and lacking - means, at least in short term, you have to use the blunt and low threshold of pension credit or keep wfa universal.
Low quality data is something Dominic Cummings railed against, although his solution seemed to be employ savant hackers to bypass law and security protocols and turn Downing Street into a The West Wing film set. Then he turned against Carrie and was sacked so it did not really matter any more.
That research has the potential for good real-world uses; building estates of visually different houses using standardised mass produced components should help to humanise these big blocks of new builds without adding masses of additional cost.
It just came back. It looks like a yellow potato. It's rubbish. Carnegie Mellon University, you are rubbish at AI and should go play with the accountants in the corner.
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
To be fair, lots of people got very worked up about the Falklands.
Sure! British people got invaded! Where are the British people in the Chagos Islands?
It's one thing to give up territory for sketchy legal reasons, it's quite another to pay for the privilege!
Of course it's not the end of the world but it doesn't make a lot of sense. When you've Reform, The Economist and Novara Media against you have a think about it.
Most sensible, rational things will get Reform and Novara Media against you. That's not difficult.
The Economist has its views (and a sometimes overbearingly repetitive house style of writing). They come from a particular perspective. They're not the fountain of truth.
As I assumed it wouldn't be beyond your wit to see I was trying to point out the opposition to this deal from a range of perspectives (not just three) and how no-one seems able to make a credible defence of it.
Why do you persist with such pedantry?
Because it's required by the Charter of PoliticalBetting.com. Didn't you have to sign it when you made an account?
I don't mind a bit of pedantry when there is a reason for it. In your case I'm left asking the question, who are you acting as counsel for?
By definition is there ever a reason for pedantry other than humour or to annoy?
'I was head of MI6 - here's how China can shut down UK cities' Immobilised cars, zombie traffic lights and switched off solar panels are just some of the potential threats from China outlined by former British intelligence chief Sir Richard Dearlove https://inews.co.uk/news/head-mi6-china-shut-down-uk-cities-3704031
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
To be fair, lots of people got very worked up about the Falklands.
Sure! British people got invaded! Where are the British people in the Chagos Islands?
It's one thing to give up territory for sketchy legal reasons, it's quite another to pay for the privilege!
Of course it's not the end of the world but it doesn't make a lot of sense. When you've Reform, The Economist and Novara Media against you have a think about it.
Most sensible, rational things will get Reform and Novara Media against you. That's not difficult.
The Economist has its views (and a sometimes overbearingly repetitive house style of writing). They come from a particular perspective. They're not the fountain of truth.
As I assumed it wouldn't be beyond your wit to see I was trying to point out the opposition to this deal from a range of perspectives (not just three) and how no-one seems able to make a credible defence of it.
Why do you persist with such pedantry?
Because it's required by the Charter of PoliticalBetting.com. Didn't you have to sign it when you made an account?
I don't mind a bit of pedantry when there is a reason for it. In your case I'm left asking the question, who are you acting as counsel for?
By definition is there ever a reason for pedantry other than humour or to annoy?
The average gap between LD and Tory in the last 10 polls is 3.3 points. In the last three polls it is 1.3 points.
If (wait and see) this is a trend, crossover happens in the next few weeks. My feeling is this will happen. If it gets established, it is a further shift in reality.
Not long ago I was wondering if the combined Lab/Con vote would go below 50. In this most recent poll it is 39. The speed of things is remarkable. In the July 2024 GE Lab/Con was 59.
The British Right needs to get its story straight over Chagos. On the one hand we've got Nigel proclaiming that Donald is furious about the deal, whilst Kemi asserts Donald is laughing about it, presumably in triumph. Kemi's approach is probably better, but whatever the message it needs to be consistent. The current muddled approach will only baffle the public and allow Sir Keir to wriggle free.
The people who are angry about it are the people who are angry about everything the government does. It makes zero difference electorally.
The next election is immigration, housing, NHS. Reform v Labour.
"I'm like, 'Well, what am I going to do?' So, I'm Googling Social Security. You know, one of my great skills, I'm one of the great Googlers on the East Coast … I'm like, 'What the heck's the commissioner of Social Security?'"
The average gap between LD and Tory in the last 10 polls is 3.3 points. In the last three polls it is 1.3 points.
If (wait and see) this is a trend, crossover happens in the next few weeks. My feeling is this will happen. If it gets established, it is a further shift in reality.
Not long ago I was wondering if the combined Lab/Con vote would go below 50. In this most recent poll it is 39. The speed of things is remarkable. In the July 2024 GE Lab/Con was 59.
Starmer's island of strangers speech also seems to have added another 2% to Reform and lost Labour a similar amount, moving Reform's ceiling from 28% to 30%. The Lib Dems are coming up through the middle, without many noticing it.
Some chatter that Typhoon is to be kept in service until 2060*...
*Not a typo.
The only way to manage that would be to gradually replace the current fleet with new airframes. The current ones will have exceeded their fatigue life long before 2060, even with relatively light use.
And the Typhoon's avionics are already museum worthy. The 1980s-era 68020 microprocessor chip was put back into production a few years ago partly because the Typhoon uses several of them. So any new builds would need completely overhauled avionics because depending on a supply of what would by 2060 be chips designed 75 years ago is not viable on any level.
Luke Tryl @luketryl.bsky.social · 24m Aside from the politics another lesson of the winter fuel debate is it is another example of how big a problem it is that government data is so bad and lacking - means, at least in short term, you have to use the blunt and low threshold of pension credit or keep wfa universal.
Low quality data is something Dominic Cummings railed against, although his solution seemed to be employ savant hackers to bypass law and security protocols and turn Downing Street into a The West Wing film set. Then he turned against Carrie and was sacked so it did not really matter any more.
The British Right needs to get its story straight over Chagos. On the one hand we've got Nigel proclaiming that Donald is furious about the deal, whilst Kemi asserts Donald is laughing about it, presumably in triumph. Kemi's approach is probably better, but whatever the message it needs to be consistent. The current muddled approach will only baffle the public and allow Sir Keir to wriggle free.
I haven't had anyone I know mention it to me, including older rightwingers.
Yes, no one except politics nerds will care about some islands in the middle of nowhere.
People care about things like utility bills, groceries, crime ... things that have a direct effect on their daily lives.
At 100/1, Katie Lam has the makings of a good bet for next Tory leader. That’s with William Hill, but I’m hoping other bookies may offer bigger
She speaks eloquently and firmly on immigration, I think she will be a star
Katie Lam has been an MP for less than a year. She might be a future leader but the bet is on the next leader.
I don't see it. IMO her speech that gave that tweet was a bit of a populist dog's breakfast, as she had picked up her misinformation from Philp without checking it for practicality. Declaring the current Govt as one with a "record of failure" before the clock gives them even a chance to have an impact on the stats is crass.
She's 33-34, so I'd say she could be the next Tory leader but about 2-5, depending if they manage to make the others last more than 2 years.
It’s all about the price though isn’t it? She’s 100/1.
I’m not saying I think she will be the next leader, just that she might have more than a 1% chance. With any bet at those prices there will be a lot of negatives. But maybe she should be 200/1 I don’t know
“UK calls for investigation after IDF fired warning shots as British diplomats travelled through West Bank “Diplomats from Ireland, France, Germany and Turkey were also travelling with the delegation in the city of Jenin when the gunshots rang out on Wednesday.”
Luke Tryl @luketryl.bsky.social · 24m Aside from the politics another lesson of the winter fuel debate is it is another example of how big a problem it is that government data is so bad and lacking - means, at least in short term, you have to use the blunt and low threshold of pension credit or keep wfa universal.
Which is why Winter Fuel Allowance is a complete nonsense. If you want to tackle pensioner poverty, do it another way, eg Pension Credit, which already exists.
Politically I think the ship's sailed, so they will probably have to reinstate it to a relatively high threshold.
The average gap between LD and Tory in the last 10 polls is 3.3 points. In the last three polls it is 1.3 points.
If (wait and see) this is a trend, crossover happens in the next few weeks. My feeling is this will happen. If it gets established, it is a further shift in reality.
Not long ago I was wondering if the combined Lab/Con vote would go below 50. In this most recent poll it is 39. The speed of things is remarkable. In the July 2024 GE Lab/Con was 59.
Starmer's island of strangers speech also seems to have added another 2% to Reform and lost Labour a similar amount, moving Reform's ceiling from 28% to 30%. The Lib Dems are coming up through the middle, without many noticing it.
Yes. This is important both for politics and for betting prediction. Usually there are only 100 max seats where the LDs are of any interest to a voter who wants to vote for their preferred candidate who can win. Historically in most English seats that is Lab v Tory, or LD v Tory. LD v Labour exists but is statistically trivial.
If and when the LDs are always ahead of the Tories in polling, then there spreads gradually outwards over months the message that there are more places you can vote for them in. Just as has happened already with Reform.
At 100/1, Katie Lam has the makings of a good bet for next Tory leader. That’s with William Hill, but I’m hoping other bookies may offer bigger
She speaks eloquently and firmly on immigration, I think she will be a star
Katie Lam has been an MP for less than a year. She might be a future leader but the bet is on the next leader.
I don't see it. IMO her speech that gave that tweet was a bit of a populist dog's breakfast, as she had picked up her misinformation from Philp without checking it for practicality. Declaring the current Govt as one with a "record of failure" before the clock gives them even a chance to have an impact on the stats is crass.
She's 33-34, so I'd say she could be the next Tory leader but about 2-5, depending if they manage to make the others last more than 2 years.
It’s all about the price though isn’t it? She’s 100/1.
I’m not saying I think she will be the next leader, just that she might have more than a 1% chance. With any bet at those prices there will be a lot of negatives. But maybe she should be 200/1 I don’t know
Yes, fair enough comment.
She's quite an interesting background in its way which ticks some boxes - Goldmans to VP, then spadding (or similar) around Government during Boris-chaos era, writing some musicals along the way, and a couple of trustee positions. Gammons would love it.
But the politics to me feels Tory-now rather than Tory-future.
Though there are only 29 female Tory MPs, and there are a good number who are on the down not the way up.
The average gap between LD and Tory in the last 10 polls is 3.3 points. In the last three polls it is 1.3 points.
If (wait and see) this is a trend, crossover happens in the next few weeks. My feeling is this will happen. If it gets established, it is a further shift in reality.
Not long ago I was wondering if the combined Lab/Con vote would go below 50. In this most recent poll it is 39. The speed of things is remarkable. In the July 2024 GE Lab/Con was 59.
I'd still put money on the next GE result looking nothing like this at all.
In fact my gut says it'll be LAB and CON fighting it out again with REF and LD vying for 3rd place.
Why do I feel that? I have no idea. But I thought I'd post it here so that I can remind everyone of my genius in 2028/29 when I am proved right*.
(*Noting that probably no one will be able to find this post when/if Reform win a landslide with the LDs as opposition.)
The Chagos deal is genuinely appalling. Even the Economist despairs of the naivety and foolishness
But just as importantly it can be used, day after day, to break Starmer. To expose him as a two tier hypocrite, a quisling, a grifter, and an imbecile
Alongside much else, it will undo him
Do you really think people care about a place they've only vaguely heard of? This won't register on the political preference to vote decision tree - people are voting for reasons slightly closer to home.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
At a time the government is pleading total poverty, it finds hundreds of millions a year to pay a faraway country so that they can take what is already ours
That’s the breakdown. Even a cretin can see the grotesqueness of the spectacle
It's the defence budget mate. As will be pointed out to the hard of thinking it's cheaper and more capable than an aircraft carrier.
The British have not been allowed to land a military aircraft there since the early 70s. RN ships have docked there but the crew are very tightly confined on board. The BIOT patrol vessel civvie crew, who are presumably now all on the dole, have a lot more freedom on DG.
The British Right needs to get its story straight over Chagos. On the one hand we've got Nigel proclaiming that Donald is furious about the deal, whilst Kemi asserts Donald is laughing about it, presumably in triumph. Kemi's approach is probably better, but whatever the message it needs to be consistent. The current muddled approach will only baffle the public and allow Sir Keir to wriggle free.
The people who are angry about it are the people who are angry about everything the government does. It makes zero difference electorally.
The next election is immigration, housing, NHS. Reform v Labour.
The only things that matter are cost of living, substantially linked to housing; public services especially NHS; and taxes. I don't think even immigration is particularly salient to Labour's addressable market.
The government should be focused on concrete improvements for people in these three areas.
Luke Tryl @luketryl.bsky.social · 24m Aside from the politics another lesson of the winter fuel debate is it is another example of how big a problem it is that government data is so bad and lacking - means, at least in short term, you have to use the blunt and low threshold of pension credit or keep wfa universal.
I am not a social science data statistician - thankfully. From my pensioner vantage point it seems to be there is a real data difficulty whichy is exactly this: poverty is felt by households, which can be one or two persons etc. The pension and tax system is run for individuals. These two concepts integrate only with difficulty.
One pensioner alone with £12,000 per year is in a totally different situation from two pensioners together with £12,000 x 2 = £24,000.
Some chatter that Typhoon is to be kept in service until 2060*...
*Not a typo.
The only way to manage that would be to gradually replace the current fleet with new airframes. The current ones will have exceeded their fatigue life long before 2060, even with relatively light use.
And the Typhoon's avionics are already museum worthy. The 1980s-era 68020 microprocessor chip was put back into production a few years ago partly because the Typhoon uses several of them. So any new builds would need completely overhauled avionics because depending on a supply of what would by 2060 be chips designed 75 years ago is not viable on any level.
Tranche 3 is rather more modern than that. The older airframes will be retired; there's an argument over the cost-effectiveness of upgrading Trache 2.
Tranche 4 is officially slated to fly into the 2060s.
The average gap between LD and Tory in the last 10 polls is 3.3 points. In the last three polls it is 1.3 points.
If (wait and see) this is a trend, crossover happens in the next few weeks. My feeling is this will happen. If it gets established, it is a further shift in reality.
Not long ago I was wondering if the combined Lab/Con vote would go below 50. In this most recent poll it is 39. The speed of things is remarkable. In the July 2024 GE Lab/Con was 59.
I'd still put money on the next GE result looking nothing like this at all.
In fact my gut says it'll be LAB and CON fighting it out again with REF and LD vying for 3rd place.
Why do I feel that? I have no idea. But I thought I'd post it here so that I can remind everyone of my genius in 2028/29 when I am proved right*.
(*Noting that probably no one will be able to find this post when/if Reform win a landslide with the LDs as opposition.)
There is presumably three to four years to go. Reform are the protest party du jour right now. But they have now a lot of councillors and a number of councils - people will take note of what they actually do in power. And its a long time for the economy to improve, the NHS to improve, social care to get better etc so Labour have every chance of going into the next election on a decent record. Add in potential changes to leaders of at least two parties and its almost certainly going to be different.
This report by the Justice Committee is utterly damning. Law and order is the most basic function of the state and it is failing. If the state can't or won't get this right, little chance of it getting anything else right.
It's a very different institution, but the CCRC reminds me of OFSTED - or OFWAT - in the way it seems almost completely impervious to criticism in the wake of notorious public failings.
And it's something that seems to persist whichever government is in power.
Or the Met and many other police forces or the Post Office or parts of the NHS (maternity care, for instance) or any of the institutions I've lambasted in countless headers over the years.
We have for many years combined a culture of low expectations with delusions about our institutions being as good as we vaingloriously claim. And this is the inevitable result.
Not all are the same complexity of problem, though.
We couldn't manage without the NHS or a police force - but it would be perfectly possible to get rid of OFWAT overnight (with various options for either replacing it, managing its role directly in government, or simply nationalising the industry), or sack the entire management of the CCRC and rebuild it from scratch, without doing significant damage to their functions.
Tackling the Met or NHS management failings is a more complicated endeavour.
Impose some penalty for failure.
In the Goode Olde Days, the CEOs for failed banks had the following options
1) blow their brains out with a pistol 2) flee the country in a small yacht and get murdered by whalers.
Two thoughts, one relating to the Cole household and one general. 1. The blue-tit chicks in our televised nest box have this morning fledged and gone. Ten eggs laid, eight hatched and five chicks have eventually flown the nest.
2. One feature of Thatcherism with which I completely disagreed (among others I must confess) was her assertion, and creation of a climate of opinion among her supporters, that it was 'wrong' for the best minds from university to go into the Civil Service, or indeed any form of public service. It was their duty to make money, to create wealth, which would then 'trickle down'. With the result that over the last 40 years that's exactly what happened. And the results are plain for all to see.
The slight problem with believing that 2) has had an effect is that it isn’t what happened. Read the CVs of the finest examples of #NU10K - loads of Oxbridge firsts.
The disastrous idiocy of generalist management was apparent before WWI. See Denny & longitudinal framing for destroyers etc
Leaders ought to be generalists. The problem is when generalists think their skill in one field means that they can master every field.
A great example in literature is Saruman. A gifted magician and technologist, who failed spectacularly as a military commander.
The problem with generalists is slightly different to that.
Many believe that technical expertise in a field can be bought in, like cleaners for the toilets. That said expertise isn’t a *core function* of the business and can be disregarded when the answers go against “good business practise”.
See BritVolt where anyone who actually knew anything about batteries was excluded from leadership.
The leadership of an organisation needed to be deeply skilled in the function of that organisation.
I mostly agree with you about generalists but sometimes they can add value. An example from my chequered to illustrate:
At one of the Big Firms, after audit I transferred for a while to their management consulting arm. There was a supersharp partner there who I worked for on a few things. He was the ultimate generalist. Every problem he approached it from first principles with no received wisdom or sector knowledge. It was impressive to see and (usually) effective. You unearthed solutions you would not get to with the more traditional (90% of this is known already) MO. It often irritated the hell out of SMEs but it worked.
But that's because of a truly big and creative brain. If it weren't for that this guy would have been a total pain in the ass.
The average gap between LD and Tory in the last 10 polls is 3.3 points. In the last three polls it is 1.3 points.
If (wait and see) this is a trend, crossover happens in the next few weeks. My feeling is this will happen. If it gets established, it is a further shift in reality.
Not long ago I was wondering if the combined Lab/Con vote would go below 50. In this most recent poll it is 39. The speed of things is remarkable. In the July 2024 GE Lab/Con was 59.
I'd still put money on the next GE result looking nothing like this at all.
In fact my gut says it'll be LAB and CON fighting it out again with REF and LD vying for 3rd place.
Why do I feel that? I have no idea. But I thought I'd post it here so that I can remind everyone of my genius in 2028/29 when I am proved right*.
(*Noting that probably no one will be able to find this post when/if Reform win a landslide with the LDs as opposition.)
There have been Reform UK (under their old name) and LibDem surges before that fell back leaving a Lab/Con contest, and so it’s plausible that that happens again. Whether it will this time…
Luke Tryl @luketryl.bsky.social · 24m Aside from the politics another lesson of the winter fuel debate is it is another example of how big a problem it is that government data is so bad and lacking - means, at least in short term, you have to use the blunt and low threshold of pension credit or keep wfa universal.
I am not a social science data statistician - thankfully. From my pensioner vantage point it seems to be there is a real data difficulty whichy is exactly this: poverty is felt by households, which can be one or two persons etc. The pension and tax system is run for individuals. These two concepts integrate only with difficulty.
One pensioner alone with £12,000 per year is in a totally different situation from two pensioners together with £12,000 x 2 = £24,000.
At the cost of making tax and benefits ever more complex, council tax could be used as part of the solution to that.
The average gap between LD and Tory in the last 10 polls is 3.3 points. In the last three polls it is 1.3 points.
If (wait and see) this is a trend, crossover happens in the next few weeks. My feeling is this will happen. If it gets established, it is a further shift in reality.
Not long ago I was wondering if the combined Lab/Con vote would go below 50. In this most recent poll it is 39. The speed of things is remarkable. In the July 2024 GE Lab/Con was 59.
I'd still put money on the next GE result looking nothing like this at all.
In fact my gut says it'll be LAB and CON fighting it out again with REF and LD vying for 3rd place.
Why do I feel that? I have no idea. But I thought I'd post it here so that I can remind everyone of my genius in 2028/29 when I am proved right*.
(*Noting that probably no one will be able to find this post when/if Reform win a landslide with the LDs as opposition.)
It's all guesswork, but fascinating. FWIW I think the Tory position is close to beyond rescue; they have no spent too long with second rate MPs, terrible communication, losing their core support in multiple directions and not having any sort of USP. Boris in charge would give them a temporary respite but not for long. Otherwise it needs a political genius to emerge, and no-one can name one.
Labour are not close to extinction even though their polling is only a few points ahead of the Tories. But they will be if they carry on being this bad in narrative and communications for a year or two. Their less thoughtful supporters have no idea what they can be up to as they have no thought for the constraints of reality. But they are losing the more thoughtful ones too simply by being so crass and clunky and untruthful.
Conclusion: the next election will be probably Lab/LD v Reform. But LD v Reform is not impossible.
At 100/1, Katie Lam has the makings of a good bet for next Tory leader. That’s with William Hill, but I’m hoping other bookies may offer bigger
She speaks eloquently and firmly on immigration, I think she will be a star
Katie Lam has been an MP for less than a year. She might be a future leader but the bet is on the next leader.
Katie Lam is going for the Margaret Thatcher look. Should help her win the nostalgia vote amongst what remains of the selectorate. Anyhow there's a good chance of Reform collapsing before or while they are elected. Lam would be in a good place to pick up the pieces.
The average gap between LD and Tory in the last 10 polls is 3.3 points. In the last three polls it is 1.3 points.
If (wait and see) this is a trend, crossover happens in the next few weeks. My feeling is this will happen. If it gets established, it is a further shift in reality.
Not long ago I was wondering if the combined Lab/Con vote would go below 50. In this most recent poll it is 39. The speed of things is remarkable. In the July 2024 GE Lab/Con was 59.
I'd still put money on the next GE result looking nothing like this at all.
In fact my gut says it'll be LAB and CON fighting it out again with REF and LD vying for 3rd place.
Why do I feel that? I have no idea. But I thought I'd post it here so that I can remind everyone of my genius in 2028/29 when I am proved right*.
(*Noting that probably no one will be able to find this post when/if Reform win a landslide with the LDs as opposition.)
It's all guesswork, but fascinating. FWIW I think the Tory position is close to beyond rescue; they have no spent too long with second rate MPs, terrible communication, losing their core support in multiple directions and not having any sort of USP. Boris in charge would give them a temporary respite but not for long. Otherwise it needs a political genius to emerge, and no-one can name one.
Labour are not close to extinction even though their polling is only a few points ahead of the Tories. But they will be if they carry on being this bad in narrative and communications for a year or two. Their less thoughtful supporters have no idea what they can be up to as they have no thought for the constraints of reality. But they are losing the more thoughtful ones too simply by being so crass and clunky and untruthful.
Conclusion: the next election will be probably Lab/LD v Reform. But LD v Reform is not impossible.
The problems caused by piling through junctions. This one is mainly the junction itself.
My new video. The junction at Bounds Green just now was INSANE! Note a car and then a truck go through here on a green man, then the traffic gets stuck. These two people get stuck in the middle. … 1/3
Then loads more cars get stuck in the middle on a green man. Sound up for my reaction and swears … 2/3
This report by the Justice Committee is utterly damning. Law and order is the most basic function of the state and it is failing. If the state can't or won't get this right, little chance of it getting anything else right.
It's a very different institution, but the CCRC reminds me of OFSTED - or OFWAT - in the way it seems almost completely impervious to criticism in the wake of notorious public failings.
And it's something that seems to persist whichever government is in power.
Or the Met and many other police forces or the Post Office or parts of the NHS (maternity care, for instance) or any of the institutions I've lambasted in countless headers over the years.
We have for many years combined a culture of low expectations with delusions about our institutions being as good as we vaingloriously claim. And this is the inevitable result.
Not all are the same complexity of problem, though.
We couldn't manage without the NHS or a police force - but it would be perfectly possible to get rid of OFWAT overnight (with various options for either replacing it, managing its role directly in government, or simply nationalising the industry), or sack the entire management of the CCRC and rebuild it from scratch, without doing significant damage to their functions.
Tackling the Met or NHS management failings is a more complicated endeavour.
Impose some penalty for failure.
In the Goode Olde Days, the CEOs for failed banks had the following options
1) blow their brains out with a pistol 2) flee the country in a small yacht and get murdered by whalers.
Two thoughts, one relating to the Cole household and one general. 1. The blue-tit chicks in our televised nest box have this morning fledged and gone. Ten eggs laid, eight hatched and five chicks have eventually flown the nest.
2. One feature of Thatcherism with which I completely disagreed (among others I must confess) was her assertion, and creation of a climate of opinion among her supporters, that it was 'wrong' for the best minds from university to go into the Civil Service, or indeed any form of public service. It was their duty to make money, to create wealth, which would then 'trickle down'. With the result that over the last 40 years that's exactly what happened. And the results are plain for all to see.
The slight problem with believing that 2) has had an effect is that it isn’t what happened. Read the CVs of the finest examples of #NU10K - loads of Oxbridge firsts.
The disastrous idiocy of generalist management was apparent before WWI. See Denny & longitudinal framing for destroyers etc
Leaders ought to be generalists. The problem is when generalists think their skill in one field means that they can master every field.
A great example in literature is Saruman. A gifted magician and technologist, who failed spectacularly as a military commander.
The problem with generalists is slightly different to that.
Many believe that technical expertise in a field can be bought in, like cleaners for the toilets. That said expertise isn’t a *core function* of the business and can be disregarded when the answers go against “good business practise”.
See BritVolt where anyone who actually knew anything about batteries was excluded from leadership.
The leadership of an organisation needed to be deeply skilled in the function of that organisation.
I mostly agree with you about generalists but sometimes they can add value. An example from my chequered to illustrate:
At one of the Big Firms, after audit I transferred for a while to their management consulting arm. There was a supersharp partner there who I worked for on a few things. He was the ultimate generalist. Every problem he approached it from first principles with no received wisdom or sector knowledge. It was impressive to see and (usually) effective. You unearthed solutions you would not get to with the more traditional (90% of this is known already) MO. It often irritated the hell out of SMEs but it worked.
But that's because of a truly big and creative brain. If it weren't for that this guy would have been a total pain in the ass.
We are British. You mean he would have been a total pain in the donkey.
Some chatter that Typhoon is to be kept in service until 2060*...
*Not a typo.
The only way to manage that would be to gradually replace the current fleet with new airframes. The current ones will have exceeded their fatigue life long before 2060, even with relatively light use.
And the Typhoon's avionics are already museum worthy. The 1980s-era 68020 microprocessor chip was put back into production a few years ago partly because the Typhoon uses several of them. So any new builds would need completely overhauled avionics because depending on a supply of what would by 2060 be chips designed 75 years ago is not viable on any level.
The numbers just don't make sense without a batch of new purchases. The RAF has 96 jets in the forward fleet with a nominal fatigue life of 6,000 hours so they had a total of 57,600 hours on the fleet. The MoD burned over 10,000 of those hours bombing Iraq and Syria for 10 years to absolutely zero effect.
They will be very lucky to get them to 2040 without a hideously expensive lifex or winding up a squadron or two.
Of course, any lifex or new purchase eats into the Tempest money and there is nowhere near enough of that to start with.
At 100/1, Katie Lam has the makings of a good bet for next Tory leader. That’s with William Hill, but I’m hoping other bookies may offer bigger
She speaks eloquently and firmly on immigration, I think she will be a star
Katie Lam has been an MP for less than a year. She might be a future leader but the bet is on the next leader.
Katie Lam is going for the Margaret Thatcher look. Should help her win the nostalgia vote amongst what remains of the selectorate. Anyhow there's a good chance of Reform collapsing before or while they are elected. Lam would be in a good place to pick up the pieces.
The average gap between LD and Tory in the last 10 polls is 3.3 points. In the last three polls it is 1.3 points.
If (wait and see) this is a trend, crossover happens in the next few weeks. My feeling is this will happen. If it gets established, it is a further shift in reality.
Not long ago I was wondering if the combined Lab/Con vote would go below 50. In this most recent poll it is 39. The speed of things is remarkable. In the July 2024 GE Lab/Con was 59.
I'd still put money on the next GE result looking nothing like this at all.
In fact my gut says it'll be LAB and CON fighting it out again with REF and LD vying for 3rd place.
Why do I feel that? I have no idea. But I thought I'd post it here so that I can remind everyone of my genius in 2028/29 when I am proved right*.
(*Noting that probably no one will be able to find this post when/if Reform win a landslide with the LDs as opposition.)
It's all guesswork, but fascinating. FWIW I think the Tory position is close to beyond rescue; they have no spent too long with second rate MPs, terrible communication, losing their core support in multiple directions and not having any sort of USP. Boris in charge would give them a temporary respite but not for long. Otherwise it needs a political genius to emerge, and no-one can name one.
Labour are not close to extinction even though their polling is only a few points ahead of the Tories. But they will be if they carry on being this bad in narrative and communications for a year or two. Their less thoughtful supporters have no idea what they can be up to as they have no thought for the constraints of reality. But they are losing the more thoughtful ones too simply by being so crass and clunky and untruthful.
Conclusion: the next election will be probably Lab/LD v Reform. But LD v Reform is not impossible.
You also have to factor in the possibility of a Reform UK implosion.
Luke Tryl @luketryl.bsky.social · 24m Aside from the politics another lesson of the winter fuel debate is it is another example of how big a problem it is that government data is so bad and lacking - means, at least in short term, you have to use the blunt and low threshold of pension credit or keep wfa universal.
I am not a social science data statistician - thankfully. From my pensioner vantage point it seems to be there is a real data difficulty whichy is exactly this: poverty is felt by households, which can be one or two persons etc. The pension and tax system is run for individuals. These two concepts integrate only with difficulty.
One pensioner alone with £12,000 per year is in a totally different situation from two pensioners together with £12,000 x 2 = £24,000.
The benefit system takes account of this however. Pension Credit and Universal Credit both treat a couple as needing less than two individuals and a couple can get only get the same housing benefit as an individual.
I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhone's that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else. If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S. Thank your for your attention to this matter!
The average gap between LD and Tory in the last 10 polls is 3.3 points. In the last three polls it is 1.3 points.
If (wait and see) this is a trend, crossover happens in the next few weeks. My feeling is this will happen. If it gets established, it is a further shift in reality.
Not long ago I was wondering if the combined Lab/Con vote would go below 50. In this most recent poll it is 39. The speed of things is remarkable. In the July 2024 GE Lab/Con was 59.
I'd still put money on the next GE result looking nothing like this at all.
In fact my gut says it'll be LAB and CON fighting it out again with REF and LD vying for 3rd place.
Why do I feel that? I have no idea. But I thought I'd post it here so that I can remind everyone of my genius in 2028/29 when I am proved right*.
(*Noting that probably no one will be able to find this post when/if Reform win a landslide with the LDs as opposition.)
There is presumably three to four years to go. Reform are the protest party du jour right now. But they have now a lot of councillors and a number of councils - people will take note of what they actually do in power. And its a long time for the economy to improve, the NHS to improve, social care to get better etc so Labour have every chance of going into the next election on a decent record. Add in potential changes to leaders of at least two parties and its almost certainly going to be different.
While the 3/4/5/6 party politics makes predictions complicate, we've had oppositions with healthy leads regularly over last 40 years. Leads that disappeared by the time an election was called.
We've also had the big two polling in opposition in the high 40s, and even 50s.
I suspect that Reform's potential is well below those levels- and if I had to bet now, I'd be putting money on them polling well below where they currently are.
This report by the Justice Committee is utterly damning. Law and order is the most basic function of the state and it is failing. If the state can't or won't get this right, little chance of it getting anything else right.
It's a very different institution, but the CCRC reminds me of OFSTED - or OFWAT - in the way it seems almost completely impervious to criticism in the wake of notorious public failings.
And it's something that seems to persist whichever government is in power.
Or the Met and many other police forces or the Post Office or parts of the NHS (maternity care, for instance) or any of the institutions I've lambasted in countless headers over the years.
We have for many years combined a culture of low expectations with delusions about our institutions being as good as we vaingloriously claim. And this is the inevitable result.
Not all are the same complexity of problem, though.
We couldn't manage without the NHS or a police force - but it would be perfectly possible to get rid of OFWAT overnight (with various options for either replacing it, managing its role directly in government, or simply nationalising the industry), or sack the entire management of the CCRC and rebuild it from scratch, without doing significant damage to their functions.
Tackling the Met or NHS management failings is a more complicated endeavour.
Impose some penalty for failure.
In the Goode Olde Days, the CEOs for failed banks had the following options
1) blow their brains out with a pistol 2) flee the country in a small yacht and get murdered by whalers.
Two thoughts, one relating to the Cole household and one general. 1. The blue-tit chicks in our televised nest box have this morning fledged and gone. Ten eggs laid, eight hatched and five chicks have eventually flown the nest.
2. One feature of Thatcherism with which I completely disagreed (among others I must confess) was her assertion, and creation of a climate of opinion among her supporters, that it was 'wrong' for the best minds from university to go into the Civil Service, or indeed any form of public service. It was their duty to make money, to create wealth, which would then 'trickle down'. With the result that over the last 40 years that's exactly what happened. And the results are plain for all to see.
The slight problem with believing that 2) has had an effect is that it isn’t what happened. Read the CVs of the finest examples of #NU10K - loads of Oxbridge firsts.
The disastrous idiocy of generalist management was apparent before WWI. See Denny & longitudinal framing for destroyers etc
Leaders ought to be generalists. The problem is when generalists think their skill in one field means that they can master every field.
A great example in literature is Saruman. A gifted magician and technologist, who failed spectacularly as a military commander.
The problem with generalists is slightly different to that.
Many believe that technical expertise in a field can be bought in, like cleaners for the toilets. That said expertise isn’t a *core function* of the business and can be disregarded when the answers go against “good business practise”.
See BritVolt where anyone who actually knew anything about batteries was excluded from leadership.
The leadership of an organisation needed to be deeply skilled in the function of that organisation.
I mostly agree with you about generalists but sometimes they can add value. An example from my chequered to illustrate:
At one of the Big Firms, after audit I transferred for a while to their management consulting arm. There was a supersharp partner there who I worked for on a few things. He was the ultimate generalist. Every problem he approached it from first principles with no received wisdom or sector knowledge. It was impressive to see and (usually) effective. You unearthed solutions you would not get to with the more traditional (90% of this is known already) MO. It often irritated the hell out of SMEs but it worked.
But that's because of a truly big and creative brain. If it weren't for that this guy would have been a total pain in the ass.
We are British. You mean he would have been a total pain in the donkey.
I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhone's that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else. If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S. Thank your for your attention to this matter!
Will he explain it with a pie chart? Otherwise might hurt his core vote.
Comments
We are freezing our pensioners and pissing on the disabled to develop Mauritius is one of many attack lines.
I know that *you* are exorcised by it. Get that. I'm just pointing out that most voters don't give a fuck. If we'd just given away Gibraltar and there were loads of Brit looking / sounding people there angry then it would be a problem. As it is, this is an airbase.
Wait til they find out that we spend similar money every year on our Cypriot bases...
Of course it's not the end of the world but it doesn't make a lot of sense. When you've Reform, The Economist and Novara Media against you have a think about it.
On the sea shore
It’s like Starmer has handed Reform an enormous
stick with the words HIT ME WITH THIS attached on a label
If you don’t see how dreadful this is as retail politics - for a government constantly pleading poverty and raising taxes BUT GIVING OUR MONEY TO MAURITIUS TO TAKE WHAT IS OURS - then I recommend you hie thee to an ophthalmologist
Our negotiated deal with the United Kingdom is working out well for all. I strongly recommend to them, however, that in order to get their Energy Costs down, they stop with the costly and unsightly windmills, and incentivize modernized drilling in the North Sea, where large amounts of oil lay waiting to be taken. A century of drilling left, with Aberdeen as the hub. The old fashioned tax system disincentivizes drilling, rather than the opposite. U.K.'s Energy Costs would go WAY DOWN, and fast!
The Economist has its views (and a sometimes overbearingly repetitive house style of writing). They come from a particular perspective. They're not the fountain of truth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia
It’s a terrible deal. Everyone agrees it’s a terrible deal. From Labour MPs to the economist to the FT to the chagossians themselves
It’s a terrible deal. It would be a terrible deal if Jesus made it. Or my mum. Or the late Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead
Starmer did a stupid bad thing. That’s it. There is no dispute here
If you just deflate at the inflation rate, you are just bringing it back to "real terms" i.e. its real value. But you are not taking into account that money today is worth more than the same money (in real terms) tomorrow because you can invest today's money at a 3% rate above inflation (eg in equities).
I am almost certain that there'll be, at the very least, an order of magnitude more wasted spending on ineffective kit than is being blown on the Chagos deal. And about half a dozen of us will actually pay attention to that.
Some chatter that Typhoon is to be kept in service until 2060*...
*Not a typo.
Whoever decided to stick Mauritius and Chagos on the same bit of administration of the British Empire not so much
The CCRC can't replace its Chair who was sacked by Shabana Mahmood and has gone fully remote because, it says, it cannot attract the right people to work in Birmingham.
The CCRC budget was halved by Cameron's government. As the MPs note, its budget has risen since to £9.3 million but it was £9.2 million ten years ago.
The CCRC takes an unduly legalistic approach as is seen in its defence of its handling of both the Sullivan and Malkinson cases. Sure, these men were wrongly banged up and could have been out a decade earlier if the CCRC pulled its finger out but that's OK because they appealed on the wrong grounds.
Luke Tryl
@luketryl.bsky.social
· 24m
Aside from the politics another lesson of the winter fuel debate is it is another example of how big a problem it is that government data is so bad and lacking - means, at least in short term, you have to use the blunt and low threshold of pension credit or keep wfa universal.
https://bsky.app/profile/luketryl.bsky.social/post/3lptf32faoc2g
I doubt the sixty year old Tice will be around to calculate what that's worth by then.
Why do you persist with such pedantry?
Keep the case files.
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1925497903398682776
I can imagine that those in charge of the launch will not be living long.
I know that *you* are exorcised by it.
Exercised! EXERCISED!
The IFS suggests the triple lock adds around £11 billion per year to public spending.
Inflate this at say 3% pa for inflation for 100 years and add it all up and you get ....
£6,680,165,059,647
About £6.7 trillion
Quite a lot
National debt is currently £2.8 trillion.
It's funny money.
- The NPV of £165mill for yrs 1-3 is £449.34million
- The NPV of £120mill for yrs 4-13 is £800.44million
- The NPV of £120mill+inflation for yrs 14-99 is £10,320.00million (assuming inflation starts now)
- The NPV of £45mill for yrs 1-25 is £634.23million
- The NPV of £40mill now is £40million
The total net present value NPV is £12.244 billion. Or £12,244million if you prefer.(narrator: use the "NPV" function on your Excel spreadsheet)
Lab 22% (=)
Cons 17% (-1)
Lib Dems 16% (+1)
Reform 30% (+1)
Greens 9% (=)
SNP 2% (=)
Others 4% (-1)
👥 1641 Surveyed
🔎 Field Work: 21 & 22 May 2025
🗓️ +/- 16 May 2025
🔗 Data: ll.ink/Lb52XT
#UKPolitics
https://x.com/techneuk/status/1925861953206980709?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The plot this weekend is to visit 2 friends in Sheffield (not Dore or Totley, which are still Derbyshire and only leased to Sheffield) and N-Manchester in one day, and have a stayover and a walk the next day.
I have options - out of choice I'd perhaps stay in Parcevall Hall at Appletreewick (it's a good time for the gardens) and then walk the Strid, but Bolton Abbey is a bit far off for a single day.
Manchester is possible and to cycle some of their new infra, or a Peak District walk or ride. One possible hotel is in Ashford-in-the-Water, or Hayfield.
But I'm open to any suggestions for hotels. Price is flexible.
For example consider a situation with 0% inflation and no investment risk. Even with zero inflation £100 now is worth a hell of a lot more than £100 in 20 years time even with zero investment risk and zero inflation.
You need to consider your Internal Rate of Return (IRR). This is the minimum future growth value you require to exchange money now for money later ignoring risk and inflation. You then need to add to that the return you need to cover the risk and inflation.
So future payments, even if inflation protected in economic terms cost a lot less than paying that now.
I have not commented on this deal before and have no idea if it is good or rubbish, but note as usual @leon talking out of his arse again on a topic he has no knowledge of.
My prompt is "Klingon battlecruiser D7"
I think my assumption is more parsimonious in its assumptions, in terms of calculating value, but YMMV.
She's 33-34, so I'd say she could be the next Tory leader but about 2-5, depending if they manage to make the others last more than 2 years.
(note: this is what a D7 looks like when built in Lego by a non-AI human: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-105153/Paulygon/star-trek-klingon-d-7-battle-cruiser/#details)
Immobilised cars, zombie traffic lights and switched off solar panels are just some of the potential threats from China outlined by former British intelligence chief Sir Richard Dearlove
https://inews.co.uk/news/head-mi6-china-shut-down-uk-cities-3704031
If (wait and see) this is a trend, crossover happens in the next few weeks. My feeling is this will happen. If it gets established, it is a further shift in reality.
Not long ago I was wondering if the combined Lab/Con vote would go below 50. In this most recent poll it is 39. The speed of things is remarkable. In the July 2024 GE Lab/Con was 59.
The next election is immigration, housing, NHS. Reform v Labour.
https://x.com/wsteaks/status/1925705945444700625
Here’s audio of Social Security chief on Googling the job after being offered it:
"I'm like, 'Well, what am I going to do?' So, I'm Googling Social Security. You know, one of my great skills, I'm one of the great Googlers on the East Coast … I'm like, 'What the heck's the commissioner of Social Security?'"
The Lib Dems are coming up through the middle, without many noticing it.
Launch end of next year.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/what-sam-altman-told-openai-about-the-secret-device-hes-making-with-jony-ive-f1384005?st=DSeDbo&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink&utm_source=tldrnewsletter
And the Typhoon's avionics are already museum worthy. The 1980s-era 68020 microprocessor chip was put back into production a few years ago partly because the Typhoon uses several of them. So any new builds would need completely overhauled avionics because depending on a supply of what would by 2060 be chips designed 75 years ago is not viable on any level.
People care about things like utility bills, groceries, crime ... things that have a direct effect on their daily lives.
I’m not saying I think she will be the next leader, just that she might have more than a 1% chance. With any bet at those prices there will be a lot of negatives. But maybe she should be 200/1 I don’t know
Politically I think the ship's sailed, so they will probably have to reinstate it to a relatively high threshold.
If and when the LDs are always ahead of the Tories in polling, then there spreads gradually outwards over months the message that there are more places you can vote for them in. Just as has happened already with Reform.
As with Reform this becomes self-fulfilling.
She's quite an interesting background in its way which ticks some boxes - Goldmans to VP, then spadding (or similar) around Government during Boris-chaos era, writing some musicals along the way, and a couple of trustee positions. Gammons would love it.
But the politics to me feels Tory-now rather than Tory-future.
Though there are only 29 female Tory MPs, and there are a good number who are on the down not the way up.
In fact my gut says it'll be LAB and CON fighting it out again with REF and LD vying for 3rd place.
Why do I feel that? I have no idea. But I thought I'd post it here so that I can remind everyone of my genius in 2028/29 when I am proved right*.
(*Noting that probably no one will be able to find this post when/if Reform win a landslide with the LDs as opposition.)
The government should be focused on concrete improvements for people in these three areas.
These two concepts integrate only with difficulty.
One pensioner alone with £12,000 per year is in a totally different situation from two pensioners together with £12,000 x 2 = £24,000.
The older airframes will be retired; there's an argument over the cost-effectiveness of upgrading Trache 2.
Tranche 4 is officially slated to fly into the 2060s.
At one of the Big Firms, after audit I transferred for a while to their management consulting arm. There was a supersharp partner there who I worked for on a few things. He was the ultimate generalist. Every problem he approached it from first principles with no received wisdom or sector knowledge. It was impressive to see and (usually) effective. You unearthed solutions you would not get to with the more traditional (90% of this is known already) MO. It often irritated the hell out of SMEs but it worked.
But that's because of a truly big and creative brain. If it weren't for that this guy would have been a total pain in the ass.
Labour are not close to extinction even though their polling is only a few points ahead of the Tories. But they will be if they carry on being this bad in narrative and communications for a year or two. Their less thoughtful supporters have no idea what they can be up to as they have no thought for the constraints of reality. But they are losing the more thoughtful ones too simply by being so crass and clunky and untruthful.
Conclusion: the next election will be probably Lab/LD v Reform. But LD v Reform is not impossible.
https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1894694343056761316
My new video. The junction at Bounds Green just now was INSANE! Note a car and then a truck go through here on a green man, then the traffic gets stuck. These two people get stuck in the middle. … 1/3
Then loads more cars get stuck in the middle on a green man. Sound up for my reaction and swears … 2/3
Also these two cars pranged right here- one of the drivers asked me if their car looked okay. How are people expected to cross here? … 3/3
https://x.com/carlafrancome/status/1925239163772699027
They will be very lucky to get them to 2040 without a hideously expensive lifex or winding up a squadron or two.
Of course, any lifex or new purchase eats into the Tempest money and there is nowhere near enough of that to start with.
https://parliamentnews.co.uk/katie-lam-tells-conservatives-to-end-the-thatcher-obsession
I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhone's that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else. If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S. Thank your for your attention to this matter!
We've also had the big two polling in opposition in the high 40s, and even 50s.
I suspect that Reform's potential is well below those levels- and if I had to bet now, I'd be putting money on them polling well below where they currently are.
Normal people don't give a fuck about it.