The Life of Nigel – politicalbetting.com

System · June 30

The Life of Nigel – politicalbetting.com

My team and I have been working furiously for the last few months to establish the foundations of a political party which is capable of saving our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ??. I am delighted to launch that party today: Advance UK. The party will… pic.twitter.com/CDMLyCeAhz

Read the full story here

MaxPB · June 30

First?

Also these splinter parties will amount to nothing. Worse than the CUK party that split from Labour.

BartholomewRoberts · June 30

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

Gallowgate said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Malmesbury said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Malmesbury said:

WhisperingOracle said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Morning all! Back after 3 days away at Tankfest.

An interesting piece in The Guardian - Britain is sick. Massive inequality and chronic poverty combined with front line service cuts means an NHS under siege and incurring enormous costs from people made ill by previous cuts.

I'll keep making this point until the hard of thinking (hello Labour!!!) get it - cuts without reform cost more money than you save.

We're going to need to spend more now on actual frontline healthcare to save a lot more in the long term and that means making savings on the stuff we are wasting money on. Cutting sickness welfare is not the answer, making people healthier is.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/britain-in-2025-sick-man-of-europe-battling-untreated-illness-crisis
Morning, PB.

Indeed. So much of Cameron and Osborne's programme of savings and long-term prudence turned out to be anything but that. Avoiding productive long-term investments, like the current governments crazy decision to scrap most of their green growth plan, can have parallel effects in the economic sphere.
The problem comes when trying to get people to acknowledge that there is a limit to spending. We have plenty of MPs who quite simply don’t believe that you can’t just stick it on the national credit card
Indeed, but, conversely, this can also just as easily become a fetishisation of cuts in themselves, and as an end in themselves.

Cameron and Osborne shouted this narrative almost every day, and yet they left the country in an even worse condition than when they started.
The problem they had was a structural deficit.

The response was *reduce the rate of increase of government spending* to above inflation, but below the rate of increase in GDP. Spending was never actually cut, overall.
So the key question is where do you cut, and where do you borrow or spend. Cameron and Osbourne seem to have got the calculus badly wrong, and all the bills are coming in now.

Neither unlimited spending or a Caneroonist narrativeil of cuts are going to get is out of this, I would say.
Invent a time machine and tell people to vote Tory in 1997?
For an even bigger financial bubble and crash, yes.
How? Ken Clarke would have kept control of interest rates and would have raised taxes during the 97-01 term. The bubble was all on Brown and Blair.
The MBS and derivatives bubble (and subsequent crash and credit crunch) would have happened anyway assuming no change in America. The key question therefore is, would the City under the Tories have been more or less likely to become a feckless Wall St tribute act?

My answer to this is certainly not less likely and most probably more. Yes, I know there was a speech by Peter Lilley. But that was an outlier and against the grain. In the years preceding the crash the Tory message was for lighter regulation because "those guys know what they're doing".

None of this is to excuse Brown btw. He got enamoured of the City (or rather its tax revenues) and took his eye off the ball. He dealt with the crisis brilliantly as PM but as Chancellor was culpable for our extreme vulnerability to it.
Under the Tories no bank was allowed to operate at 70:1 leverage after Barings went bankrupt. That was all on Labour and that's what created the crash in the UK. In retrospect the government should have let RBS and HBOS go bankrupt and only guaranteed 100% of customer deposits. Bailing out the financial services industry and socialising their losses set a terrible precedent and we're still paying for it today.
Northern Rock would of course have had to go bankrupt too on that basis.

The Bush administration of course let Lehmans go bankrupt with no bailout by contrast
Also fine. Bailing out the banks was a shit idea, the government should have, on day one just guaranteed 100% of customer deposits and then let the banks themselves go under then let the assets get sold off piecemeal. Let the shareholders and bondholders take the hit.
I would frame it as "let the market clear". The big jump in government debt was the price of failing to do that.
It's a little more complex than that: one person's saving is another one's debt. When is becomes clear that not all the debts will be repaid, then - one way or another - the value of savings need to be diminished. That can either be done via inflation, socialization, or the collapse of the banking system. (Guaranteeing all the deposits is just one of the forms of socialization.)
Value is a tricky word. The crisis itself was deflationary, so it's possible that people could have taken a nominal haircut on their savings without the value of those savings being affected.
One person's savings is another's debt.

When you save you are deferring consumption, by sending the fruits of your labor to someone else who is promising to deliver you the fruits of his labor in the future. All a bank is is a very thin sliver of equity between those two people.

And if that guy is unable to deliver the fruits of his labor in the future, then it is said saver who is on the hook.
Sure, but a financial crisis doesn't change the demographics, it doesn't destroy machinery and it doesn't render anyone infirm.

When assets get mispriced, you need to allow the deck to be reshuffled and for people who made bad bets to pay the price (and I include making deposits in a risky bank as a bad bet).
All of this academic commentary assumes that depositors are playing “capitalism”. In their eyes, they are not. They are just putting their hard-earned savings in what they think is a safe place for later use.
Up to a point. If someone makes a decision to put their money in an Icelandic savings account offering a higher rate of interest, they should be conscious that they are taking on additional risk.
Iceland handled the crisis very well indeed.

They didn't try to "save" their banks and allowed them to fail, implementing the deposit protection schemes.

Those who were protected, got their protections, up to pre-existing limits.

Those who were not, faced a haircut, as they should.

Creditors faced a haircut, as they should.

The taxpayer did not get an open-ended obligation.
As I recall, Iceland had the advantage that it was UK depositors who funded their banks not Icelandic ones. The Icelandic banks effectively let their UK subsidiaries fail, pushing the cost onto the UK taxpayer.
The UK taxpayer had no legal obligation to protect Icelandic deposits.
You're missing the point again.
Robert's comment nothing to do with 'legal obligation', rather that Iceland didn't have to worry about that part of the downstream consequences of letting their banks go under.

That was the UK's problem, whether ur not we decided to protect the deposits.

You were arguing that Iceland was proof we could have done the same. Quite clearly the consequences for us would have been very different.
We absolutely could have done the same.

Iceland honoured their legal obligations and let anyone who wasn't legally protected face the consequences.

We chose not to.

That was a political choice, not an economic necessity.

Iceland did have to worry about downstream consequences, but they worried about the ones they were legally obliged to do so, rather than protecting them all. We chose not to, but we had no reason why we couldn't have done the same as them.

Not all UK banks depositors were British citizens either, just like the Icelandic ones.
And saw unemployment soar in Iceland, its currency's value halve and its stock market effectively wiped out

Which was the medicine they needed to take to get over the crisis. Wiping out failed businesses sees unemployment rise, absolutely, but is better than keeping zombie firms alive unproductively.

They took a sharper hit during the crisis, as they let the crisis hit as it should rather than using taxpayers money to save failed, zombie firms.

As a result they've grown considerably better since then, than we have. They shed the deadweight and recovered and are growing well.

Had the UK allowed our failed businesses to fail we may have seen a deeper contraction originally, but we wouldn't then be struggling to keep alive moribund, failed businesses and throwing good taxpayers money after bad.

We might actually have some productivity growth now.

wooliedyed · June 30

Advance UK GAIN Bootle

RochdalePioneers · June 30

Restore Advance UK for Change. Soon to be led by a confused Anna Soubry.

Sorry I missed The Reform Group for Restore off my list on the previous thread.

WhisperingOracle · June 30

The simple answer is a party called Advance, Restore and Reform, like a ladies' skincare brand.

Feel nourished, restored and advanced, and reform your features.

HYUFD · June 30

Establishing new political parties rarely achieves much success in UK politics under FPTP and Reform have already captured the populist post Brexit market. Lowe's idea of a traditional right pressure group seems rather more sensible than Habib's for a new political party

RochdalePioneers · June 30

Meanwhile those Tory monsters in Downing Street have reacted in horror to the suggestion that their new Cripple a Cripple bill will send 250,000 people further into poverty.

"It's only 150,000" said Secretary of State Liz Lilley

BartholomewRoberts · June 30

boulay said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

Gallowgate said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Malmesbury said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Malmesbury said:

WhisperingOracle said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Morning all! Back after 3 days away at Tankfest.

An interesting piece in The Guardian - Britain is sick. Massive inequality and chronic poverty combined with front line service cuts means an NHS under siege and incurring enormous costs from people made ill by previous cuts.

I'll keep making this point until the hard of thinking (hello Labour!!!) get it - cuts without reform cost more money than you save.

We're going to need to spend more now on actual frontline healthcare to save a lot more in the long term and that means making savings on the stuff we are wasting money on. Cutting sickness welfare is not the answer, making people healthier is.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/britain-in-2025-sick-man-of-europe-battling-untreated-illness-crisis
Morning, PB.

Indeed. So much of Cameron and Osborne's programme of savings and long-term prudence turned out to be anything but that. Avoiding productive long-term investments, like the current governments crazy decision to scrap most of their green growth plan, can have parallel effects in the economic sphere.
The problem comes when trying to get people to acknowledge that there is a limit to spending. We have plenty of MPs who quite simply don’t believe that you can’t just stick it on the national credit card
Indeed, but, conversely, this can also just as easily become a fetishisation of cuts in themselves, and as an end in themselves.

Cameron and Osborne shouted this narrative almost every day, and yet they left the country in an even worse condition than when they started.
The problem they had was a structural deficit.

The response was *reduce the rate of increase of government spending* to above inflation, but below the rate of increase in GDP. Spending was never actually cut, overall.
So the key question is where do you cut, and where do you borrow or spend. Cameron and Osbourne seem to have got the calculus badly wrong, and all the bills are coming in now.

Neither unlimited spending or a Caneroonist narrativeil of cuts are going to get is out of this, I would say.
Invent a time machine and tell people to vote Tory in 1997?
For an even bigger financial bubble and crash, yes.
How? Ken Clarke would have kept control of interest rates and would have raised taxes during the 97-01 term. The bubble was all on Brown and Blair.
The MBS and derivatives bubble (and subsequent crash and credit crunch) would have happened anyway assuming no change in America. The key question therefore is, would the City under the Tories have been more or less likely to become a feckless Wall St tribute act?

My answer to this is certainly not less likely and most probably more. Yes, I know there was a speech by Peter Lilley. But that was an outlier and against the grain. In the years preceding the crash the Tory message was for lighter regulation because "those guys know what they're doing".

None of this is to excuse Brown btw. He got enamoured of the City (or rather its tax revenues) and took his eye off the ball. He dealt with the crisis brilliantly as PM but as Chancellor was culpable for our extreme vulnerability to it.
Under the Tories no bank was allowed to operate at 70:1 leverage after Barings went bankrupt. That was all on Labour and that's what created the crash in the UK. In retrospect the government should have let RBS and HBOS go bankrupt and only guaranteed 100% of customer deposits. Bailing out the financial services industry and socialising their losses set a terrible precedent and we're still paying for it today.
Northern Rock would of course have had to go bankrupt too on that basis.

The Bush administration of course let Lehmans go bankrupt with no bailout by contrast
Also fine. Bailing out the banks was a shit idea, the government should have, on day one just guaranteed 100% of customer deposits and then let the banks themselves go under then let the assets get sold off piecemeal. Let the shareholders and bondholders take the hit.
I would frame it as "let the market clear". The big jump in government debt was the price of failing to do that.
It's a little more complex than that: one person's saving is another one's debt. When is becomes clear that not all the debts will be repaid, then - one way or another - the value of savings need to be diminished. That can either be done via inflation, socialization, or the collapse of the banking system. (Guaranteeing all the deposits is just one of the forms of socialization.)
Value is a tricky word. The crisis itself was deflationary, so it's possible that people could have taken a nominal haircut on their savings without the value of those savings being affected.
One person's savings is another's debt.

When you save you are deferring consumption, by sending the fruits of your labor to someone else who is promising to deliver you the fruits of his labor in the future. All a bank is is a very thin sliver of equity between those two people.

And if that guy is unable to deliver the fruits of his labor in the future, then it is said saver who is on the hook.
Sure, but a financial crisis doesn't change the demographics, it doesn't destroy machinery and it doesn't render anyone infirm.

When assets get mispriced, you need to allow the deck to be reshuffled and for people who made bad bets to pay the price (and I include making deposits in a risky bank as a bad bet).
All of this academic commentary assumes that depositors are playing “capitalism”. In their eyes, they are not. They are just putting their hard-earned savings in what they think is a safe place for later use.
Up to a point. If someone makes a decision to put their money in an Icelandic savings account offering a higher rate of interest, they should be conscious that they are taking on additional risk.
Iceland handled the crisis very well indeed.

They didn't try to "save" their banks and allowed them to fail, implementing the deposit protection schemes.

Those who were protected, got their protections, up to pre-existing limits.

Those who were not, faced a haircut, as they should.

Creditors faced a haircut, as they should.

The taxpayer did not get an open-ended obligation.
As I recall, Iceland had the advantage that it was UK depositors who funded their banks not Icelandic ones. The Icelandic banks effectively let their UK subsidiaries fail, pushing the cost onto the UK taxpayer.
The UK taxpayer had no legal obligation to protect Icelandic deposits.
You're missing the point again.
Robert's comment nothing to do with 'legal obligation', rather that Iceland didn't have to worry about that part of the downstream consequences of letting their banks go under.

That was the UK's problem, whether ur not we decided to protect the deposits.

You were arguing that Iceland was proof we could have done the same. Quite clearly the consequences for us would have been very different.
We absolutely could have done the same.

Iceland honoured their legal obligations and let anyone who wasn't legally protected face the consequences.

We chose not to.

That was a political choice, not an economic necessity.

Iceland did have to worry about downstream consequences, but they worried about the ones they were legally obliged to do so, rather than protecting them all. We chose not to, but we had no reason why we couldn't have done the same as them.

Not all UK banks depositors were British citizens either, just like the Icelandic ones.
Having merely had the personal experience of being a consultant in a particular area to one of the Icelandic banks during the GFC and having friends who were senior in parts of another of the Icelandic banks I can tell you that the situation for Iceland and the UK were absolutely not the same.

You seem to have absolutely no comprehension of the weight of UK clients that made up the client base of the Icelandic banks by 2008. They dwarfed the numbers of Icelandic clients in proportion to population as well as sheer numbers.

The UK and other non Iceland parts of the banks were hugely over dependent on mainly UK depositors cash based on the crazy rates of interest they were offering. They were still actively harvesting deposits from mainly UK residents up to October 2008 before they fell apart - at a time when anyone who knew anything about banks knew they were buggered.

The icelandics didn’t have to make the calculations that the UK gov had in that the sheer number of UK people who would have lost their life savings would be politically impossible and caused other knock on effects.

I absolutely do get that, and I absolutely do not think it matters.

UK deposits had legal protection limits before the crisis hit, that were then completely torn up and disregarded as the government acted to save every deposit and every creditor, not just those which were legally protected.

Those whose "life savings" were within protection limits could and should and still would have been protected had the deposit protection scheme been implemented and the failed banks died.

Those whose "life savings" exceeded the protection limits could and should have faced a haircut, rather than a taxpayer bailout. That's the risk of exceeding limitations.

RochdalePioneers · June 30

HYUFD said:
Establishing new political parties rarely achieves much success in UK politics under FPTP and Reform have already captured the populist post Brexit market. Lowe's idea of a traditional right pressure group seems rather more sensible than Habib's for a new political party

Remember though - Lowe and Nigel Ltd are implacable enemies. The right wing pressure desired is for Reform to lose...

glw · June 30

FPT:

Nigelb said:

Cookie said:

Nigelb said:
A stupid version of Cnut.
Still, it should provide a similar object lesson, albeit this time unintended.

Trump: "We're doing coal. I don't want windmills destroying our place. I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up half a mountain and they're ugly as hell."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1939334557582438496
Are collieries and spoil heaps and massive open-cast scars more beautiful?
It's more the insane economics that impresses me.

But granted, Trump has zero taste, too.

The economic damage Trump is doing is of a scale that might be comparable to a war. Essentially Trump is betting everything on the industries of the past, and hobbling the industries of the future. Short term this might look okay, and will please some areas of industry. Long term the US will be far behind in renewable energy, grid energy storage, electric vehicles, and the industries that underly them; like power semiconductors, batteries, power transmission systems, magnetics, etc.

As the damage is something that is accrued rather than immediate Trump can get away with it, for now at least. Long term he is doing trillions of dollars in damage to the US economy, and handing a huge amount of control to China, who are by far the best positioned country to reap the benefit of America's follies.

wooliedyed · June 30

Advances best hope in the next year is probably to work the absolute arse off of one of the paired Welsh constituencies and try for a representative there and go hard at one of the district councils up next year but i cant see how they break through unless they get some defections - a lot of unknowns in the new Reform cohorts and a few 'suspendees' etc

kinabalu · June 30

If anything will benefit Farage by making him look more mainstream and safe.

Nigelb · June 30

On a point of order, I would prefer the thread title to be The Fate of Farage.

JosiasJessop · June 30

Test...

wooliedyed · June 30

HYUFD said:
Establishing new political parties rarely achieves much success in UK politics under FPTP and Reform have already captured the populist post Brexit market. Lowe's idea of a traditional right pressure group seems rather more sensible than Habib's for a new political party

Yes, although Lowe says they want to be 'ready for 2029' - to do what? Watch the results?

JosiasJessop · June 30

For the mods / admins; I am finding it impossible to post on either the main site or vf on Chrome. It seems to work on Edge.

The quality of the site has therefore probably increased this morning...

HYUFD · June 30

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

Gallowgate said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Malmesbury said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Malmesbury said:

WhisperingOracle said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Morning all! Back after 3 days away at Tankfest.

An interesting piece in The Guardian - Britain is sick. Massive inequality and chronic poverty combined with front line service cuts means an NHS under siege and incurring enormous costs from people made ill by previous cuts.

I'll keep making this point until the hard of thinking (hello Labour!!!) get it - cuts without reform cost more money than you save.

We're going to need to spend more now on actual frontline healthcare to save a lot more in the long term and that means making savings on the stuff we are wasting money on. Cutting sickness welfare is not the answer, making people healthier is.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/britain-in-2025-sick-man-of-europe-battling-untreated-illness-crisis
Morning, PB.

Indeed. So much of Cameron and Osborne's programme of savings and long-term prudence turned out to be anything but that. Avoiding productive long-term investments, like the current governments crazy decision to scrap most of their green growth plan, can have parallel effects in the economic sphere.
The problem comes when trying to get people to acknowledge that there is a limit to spending. We have plenty of MPs who quite simply don’t believe that you can’t just stick it on the national credit card
Indeed, but, conversely, this can also just as easily become a fetishisation of cuts in themselves, and as an end in themselves.

Cameron and Osborne shouted this narrative almost every day, and yet they left the country in an even worse condition than when they started.
The problem they had was a structural deficit.

The response was *reduce the rate of increase of government spending* to above inflation, but below the rate of increase in GDP. Spending was never actually cut, overall.
So the key question is where do you cut, and where do you borrow or spend. Cameron and Osbourne seem to have got the calculus badly wrong, and all the bills are coming in now.

Neither unlimited spending or a Caneroonist narrativeil of cuts are going to get is out of this, I would say.
Invent a time machine and tell people to vote Tory in 1997?
For an even bigger financial bubble and crash, yes.
How? Ken Clarke would have kept control of interest rates and would have raised taxes during the 97-01 term. The bubble was all on Brown and Blair.
The MBS and derivatives bubble (and subsequent crash and credit crunch) would have happened anyway assuming no change in America. The key question therefore is, would the City under the Tories have been more or less likely to become a feckless Wall St tribute act?

My answer to this is certainly not less likely and most probably more. Yes, I know there was a speech by Peter Lilley. But that was an outlier and against the grain. In the years preceding the crash the Tory message was for lighter regulation because "those guys know what they're doing".

None of this is to excuse Brown btw. He got enamoured of the City (or rather its tax revenues) and took his eye off the ball. He dealt with the crisis brilliantly as PM but as Chancellor was culpable for our extreme vulnerability to it.
Under the Tories no bank was allowed to operate at 70:1 leverage after Barings went bankrupt. That was all on Labour and that's what created the crash in the UK. In retrospect the government should have let RBS and HBOS go bankrupt and only guaranteed 100% of customer deposits. Bailing out the financial services industry and socialising their losses set a terrible precedent and we're still paying for it today.
Northern Rock would of course have had to go bankrupt too on that basis.

The Bush administration of course let Lehmans go bankrupt with no bailout by contrast
Also fine. Bailing out the banks was a shit idea, the government should have, on day one just guaranteed 100% of customer deposits and then let the banks themselves go under then let the assets get sold off piecemeal. Let the shareholders and bondholders take the hit.
I would frame it as "let the market clear". The big jump in government debt was the price of failing to do that.
It's a little more complex than that: one person's saving is another one's debt. When is becomes clear that not all the debts will be repaid, then - one way or another - the value of savings need to be diminished. That can either be done via inflation, socialization, or the collapse of the banking system. (Guaranteeing all the deposits is just one of the forms of socialization.)
Value is a tricky word. The crisis itself was deflationary, so it's possible that people could have taken a nominal haircut on their savings without the value of those savings being affected.
One person's savings is another's debt.

When you save you are deferring consumption, by sending the fruits of your labor to someone else who is promising to deliver you the fruits of his labor in the future. All a bank is is a very thin sliver of equity between those two people.

And if that guy is unable to deliver the fruits of his labor in the future, then it is said saver who is on the hook.
Sure, but a financial crisis doesn't change the demographics, it doesn't destroy machinery and it doesn't render anyone infirm.

When assets get mispriced, you need to allow the deck to be reshuffled and for people who made bad bets to pay the price (and I include making deposits in a risky bank as a bad bet).
All of this academic commentary assumes that depositors are playing “capitalism”. In their eyes, they are not. They are just putting their hard-earned savings in what they think is a safe place for later use.
Up to a point. If someone makes a decision to put their money in an Icelandic savings account offering a higher rate of interest, they should be conscious that they are taking on additional risk.
Iceland handled the crisis very well indeed.

They didn't try to "save" their banks and allowed them to fail, implementing the deposit protection schemes.

Those who were protected, got their protections, up to pre-existing limits.

Those who were not, faced a haircut, as they should.

Creditors faced a haircut, as they should.

The taxpayer did not get an open-ended obligation.
As I recall, Iceland had the advantage that it was UK depositors who funded their banks not Icelandic ones. The Icelandic banks effectively let their UK subsidiaries fail, pushing the cost onto the UK taxpayer.
The UK taxpayer had no legal obligation to protect Icelandic deposits.
You're missing the point again.
Robert's comment nothing to do with 'legal obligation', rather that Iceland didn't have to worry about that part of the downstream consequences of letting their banks go under.

That was the UK's problem, whether ur not we decided to protect the deposits.

You were arguing that Iceland was proof we could have done the same. Quite clearly the consequences for us would have been very different.
We absolutely could have done the same.

Iceland honoured their legal obligations and let anyone who wasn't legally protected face the consequences.

We chose not to.

That was a political choice, not an economic necessity.

Iceland did have to worry about downstream consequences, but they worried about the ones they were legally obliged to do so, rather than protecting them all. We chose not to, but we had no reason why we couldn't have done the same as them.

Not all UK banks depositors were British citizens either, just like the Icelandic ones.
And saw unemployment soar in Iceland, its currency's value halve and its stock market effectively wiped out
Which was the medicine they needed to take to get over the crisis. Wiping out failed businesses sees unemployment rise, absolutely, but is better than keeping zombie firms alive unproductively.

They took a sharper hit during the crisis, as they let the crisis hit as it should rather than using taxpayers money to save failed, zombie firms.

As a result they've grown considerably better since then, than we have. They shed the deadweight and recovered and are growing well.

Had the UK allowed our failed businesses to fail we may have seen a deeper contraction originally, but we wouldn't then be struggling to keep alive moribund, failed businesses and throwing good taxpayers money after bad.

We might actually have some productivity growth now.

The banks and building societies themselves weren't outmoded businesses, what crashed Northern Rock, RBS, HBOS, Lehmans etc was lending far more than they held in capital and in particular giving loans to mortgage holders six or seven time their salary to buy homes when the absolute maximum should have been about 4 times. There was plenty of demand for their services

Nigelb · June 30

To be clear, air conditioning isn't actually illegal, but this is a decent article which explains how UK regulations still actively discourage its installation.

Legalise AC
Clean energy abundance should mean sweating less indoors
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/legalise-ac

(I am a big fan of ASHPs.)

kinabalu · June 30

Nigelb said:
On a point of order, I would prefer the thread title to be The Fate of Farage.

We're always hearing things from Nigel. Sometimes Farage, sometimes B.

glw · June 30

FPT:

Malmesbury said:

Cookie said:

Nigelb said:
A stupid version of Cnut.
Still, it should provide a similar object lesson, albeit this time unintended.

Trump: "We're doing coal. I don't want windmills destroying our place. I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up half a mountain and they're ugly as hell."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1939334557582438496
Are collieries and spoil heaps and massive open-cast scars more beautiful?
All authoritarians of right and left have a fetish about Really Big Industry. Something about half naked men pouring STEEEEEEEEL. Dirty faces, BIG CHIMNEYYYYYYYYSSSSSSS!

Which is nuts because the industries of the future will be huge, they are the Really Big Industries of the 2050s and beyond. By which time in any non-mad country the idea that you burn stuff to get electricity when you can get if for "free" from the sky will seem very silly.

wooliedyed · June 30

Heres a straw poll - will Advance UK register in a UK VI opinion poll in their own right at >1% this year?

eek · June 30

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

Gallowgate said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Malmesbury said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Malmesbury said:

WhisperingOracle said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Morning all! Back after 3 days away at Tankfest.

An interesting piece in The Guardian - Britain is sick. Massive inequality and chronic poverty combined with front line service cuts means an NHS under siege and incurring enormous costs from people made ill by previous cuts.

I'll keep making this point until the hard of thinking (hello Labour!!!) get it - cuts without reform cost more money than you save.

We're going to need to spend more now on actual frontline healthcare to save a lot more in the long term and that means making savings on the stuff we are wasting money on. Cutting sickness welfare is not the answer, making people healthier is.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/britain-in-2025-sick-man-of-europe-battling-untreated-illness-crisis
Morning, PB.

Indeed. So much of Cameron and Osborne's programme of savings and long-term prudence turned out to be anything but that. Avoiding productive long-term investments, like the current governments crazy decision to scrap most of their green growth plan, can have parallel effects in the economic sphere.
The problem comes when trying to get people to acknowledge that there is a limit to spending. We have plenty of MPs who quite simply don’t believe that you can’t just stick it on the national credit card
Indeed, but, conversely, this can also just as easily become a fetishisation of cuts in themselves, and as an end in themselves.

Cameron and Osborne shouted this narrative almost every day, and yet they left the country in an even worse condition than when they started.
The problem they had was a structural deficit.

The response was *reduce the rate of increase of government spending* to above inflation, but below the rate of increase in GDP. Spending was never actually cut, overall.
So the key question is where do you cut, and where do you borrow or spend. Cameron and Osbourne seem to have got the calculus badly wrong, and all the bills are coming in now.

Neither unlimited spending or a Caneroonist narrativeil of cuts are going to get is out of this, I would say.
Invent a time machine and tell people to vote Tory in 1997?
For an even bigger financial bubble and crash, yes.
How? Ken Clarke would have kept control of interest rates and would have raised taxes during the 97-01 term. The bubble was all on Brown and Blair.
The MBS and derivatives bubble (and subsequent crash and credit crunch) would have happened anyway assuming no change in America. The key question therefore is, would the City under the Tories have been more or less likely to become a feckless Wall St tribute act?

My answer to this is certainly not less likely and most probably more. Yes, I know there was a speech by Peter Lilley. But that was an outlier and against the grain. In the years preceding the crash the Tory message was for lighter regulation because "those guys know what they're doing".

None of this is to excuse Brown btw. He got enamoured of the City (or rather its tax revenues) and took his eye off the ball. He dealt with the crisis brilliantly as PM but as Chancellor was culpable for our extreme vulnerability to it.
Under the Tories no bank was allowed to operate at 70:1 leverage after Barings went bankrupt. That was all on Labour and that's what created the crash in the UK. In retrospect the government should have let RBS and HBOS go bankrupt and only guaranteed 100% of customer deposits. Bailing out the financial services industry and socialising their losses set a terrible precedent and we're still paying for it today.
Northern Rock would of course have had to go bankrupt too on that basis.

The Bush administration of course let Lehmans go bankrupt with no bailout by contrast
Also fine. Bailing out the banks was a shit idea, the government should have, on day one just guaranteed 100% of customer deposits and then let the banks themselves go under then let the assets get sold off piecemeal. Let the shareholders and bondholders take the hit.
I would frame it as "let the market clear". The big jump in government debt was the price of failing to do that.
It's a little more complex than that: one person's saving is another one's debt. When is becomes clear that not all the debts will be repaid, then - one way or another - the value of savings need to be diminished. That can either be done via inflation, socialization, or the collapse of the banking system. (Guaranteeing all the deposits is just one of the forms of socialization.)
Value is a tricky word. The crisis itself was deflationary, so it's possible that people could have taken a nominal haircut on their savings without the value of those savings being affected.
One person's savings is another's debt.

When you save you are deferring consumption, by sending the fruits of your labor to someone else who is promising to deliver you the fruits of his labor in the future. All a bank is is a very thin sliver of equity between those two people.

And if that guy is unable to deliver the fruits of his labor in the future, then it is said saver who is on the hook.
Sure, but a financial crisis doesn't change the demographics, it doesn't destroy machinery and it doesn't render anyone infirm.

When assets get mispriced, you need to allow the deck to be reshuffled and for people who made bad bets to pay the price (and I include making deposits in a risky bank as a bad bet).
All of this academic commentary assumes that depositors are playing “capitalism”. In their eyes, they are not. They are just putting their hard-earned savings in what they think is a safe place for later use.
Up to a point. If someone makes a decision to put their money in an Icelandic savings account offering a higher rate of interest, they should be conscious that they are taking on additional risk.
Iceland handled the crisis very well indeed.

They didn't try to "save" their banks and allowed them to fail, implementing the deposit protection schemes.

Those who were protected, got their protections, up to pre-existing limits.

Those who were not, faced a haircut, as they should.

Creditors faced a haircut, as they should.

The taxpayer did not get an open-ended obligation.
As I recall, Iceland had the advantage that it was UK depositors who funded their banks not Icelandic ones. The Icelandic banks effectively let their UK subsidiaries fail, pushing the cost onto the UK taxpayer.
The UK taxpayer had no legal obligation to protect Icelandic deposits.
You're missing the point again.
Robert's comment nothing to do with 'legal obligation', rather that Iceland didn't have to worry about that part of the downstream consequences of letting their banks go under.

That was the UK's problem, whether ur not we decided to protect the deposits.

You were arguing that Iceland was proof we could have done the same. Quite clearly the consequences for us would have been very different.
We absolutely could have done the same.

Iceland honoured their legal obligations and let anyone who wasn't legally protected face the consequences.

We chose not to.

That was a political choice, not an economic necessity.

Iceland did have to worry about downstream consequences, but they worried about the ones they were legally obliged to do so, rather than protecting them all. We chose not to, but we had no reason why we couldn't have done the same as them.

Not all UK banks depositors were British citizens either, just like the Icelandic ones.
And saw unemployment soar in Iceland, its currency's value halve and its stock market effectively wiped out
Which was the medicine they needed to take to get over the crisis. Wiping out failed businesses sees unemployment rise, absolutely, but is better than keeping zombie firms alive unproductively.

They took a sharper hit during the crisis, as they let the crisis hit as it should rather than using taxpayers money to save failed, zombie firms.

As a result they've grown considerably better since then, than we have. They shed the deadweight and recovered and are growing well.

Had the UK allowed our failed businesses to fail we may have seen a deeper contraction originally, but we wouldn't then be struggling to keep alive moribund, failed businesses and throwing good taxpayers money after bad.

We might actually have some productivity growth now.

+1, every time I've been to Reykjavik it feels wealthier than anywhere else I've been except for London (and given then circles I move in when in London that's not surprising).

HYUFD · June 30

RochdalePioneers said:
Meanwhile those Tory monsters in Downing Street have reacted in horror to the suggestion that their new Cripple a Cripple bill will send 250,000 people further into poverty.

"It's only 150,000" said Secretary of State Liz Lilley

Kemi could always just promise to scrap welfare and bring back the workhouse and lunatic asylums if she really wants clear blue water with Labour and Reform

isam · June 30

Have to agree with the header, there is only one game in town when it comes to this brand of politics, you only have to look at how UKIP did whenever anyone else was in charge. I suppose they might cost Reform 1-2% in the odd seat, more in Lowe’s case, but those people would probably vote UKIP/BNP etc anyway, and in net terms the voters not put off by associating with the far right would outweigh those lost to Habib and co

eek · June 30

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:
Establishing new political parties rarely achieves much success in UK politics under FPTP and Reform have already captured the populist post Brexit market. Lowe's idea of a traditional right pressure group seems rather more sensible than Habib's for a new political party
Remember though - Lowe and Nigel Ltd are implacable enemies. The right wing pressure desired is for Reform to lose...

The right wing media don't however have the ability to control the message the way they used to be able to.

I suspect it's essential that the Tories get Jenrick as leader sooner rather than later but he better be prepared to do a complete rebrand to hide the past as without that rebrand he's just the next leader in a party that a lot of voters will never trust.

Nigelb · June 30

Performative nonsense.

Supermarkets could be fined if they fail to hit new healthy eating targets
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-06-28/supermarkets-could-be-fined-if-they-fail-to-hit-new-healthy-eating-targets?s=09

bondegezou · June 30

glw said:
FPT:

Nigelb said:

Cookie said:

Nigelb said:
A stupid version of Cnut.
Still, it should provide a similar object lesson, albeit this time unintended.

Trump: "We're doing coal. I don't want windmills destroying our place. I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up half a mountain and they're ugly as hell."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1939334557582438496
Are collieries and spoil heaps and massive open-cast scars more beautiful?
It's more the insane economics that impresses me.

But granted, Trump has zero taste, too.
The economic damage Trump is doing is of a scale that might be comparable to a war. Essentially Trump is betting everything on the industries of the past, and hobbling the industries of the future. Short term this might look okay, and will please some areas of industry. Long term the US will be far behind in renewable energy, grid energy storage, electric vehicles, and the industries that underly them; like power semiconductors, batteries, power transmission systems, magnetics, etc.

As the damage is something that is accrued rather than immediate Trump can get away with it, for now at least. Long term he is doing trillions of dollars in damage to the US economy, and handing a huge amount of control to China, who are by far the best positioned country to reap the benefit of America's follies.

And some people want to vote for Reform UK to do the same thing!

HYUFD · June 30

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:
Establishing new political parties rarely achieves much success in UK politics under FPTP and Reform have already captured the populist post Brexit market. Lowe's idea of a traditional right pressure group seems rather more sensible than Habib's for a new political party
Remember though - Lowe and Nigel Ltd are implacable enemies. The right wing pressure desired is for Reform to lose...
The right wing media don't however have the ability to control the message the way they used to be able to.

I suspect it's essential that the Tories get Jenrick as leader sooner rather than later but he better be prepared to do a complete rebrand to hide the past as without that rebrand he's just the next leader in a party that a lot of voters will never trust.

Rebrand to what, 'Jenrick like Farage but even nastier?'

williamglenn · June 30

glw said:
FPT:

Malmesbury said:

Cookie said:

Nigelb said:
A stupid version of Cnut.
Still, it should provide a similar object lesson, albeit this time unintended.

Trump: "We're doing coal. I don't want windmills destroying our place. I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up half a mountain and they're ugly as hell."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1939334557582438496
Are collieries and spoil heaps and massive open-cast scars more beautiful?
All authoritarians of right and left have a fetish about Really Big Industry. Something about half naked men pouring STEEEEEEEEL. Dirty faces, BIG CHIMNEYYYYYYYYSSSSSSS!
Which is nuts because the industries of the future will be huge, they are the Really Big Industries of the 2050s and beyond. By which time in any non-mad country the idea that you burn stuff to get electricity when you can get if for "free" from the sky will seem very silly.

Do you expect all energy-intensive industry to move to countries close to the equator?

Malmesbury · June 30

I’ve been setting out policies for my political party for a while

1) voting system that is FPTP & perfectly proportional. All cheating is eliminated.
2) Education - all children of school damage placed in Zorb balls. This eliminates a whole series of problems in schools. Saracen APCs for the staff on all schools. Then they can play car football with the Zorb balls.
4) Compulsory CCF in all schools. Made more fun by very heavy weaponry.
5) Paramilitary traffic wardens. Anti material rifles to destroy any vehicle breaking rules. Small nukes for more widespread problems.
6) Nuclear power. An internal combustion engine running on nuclear bombs, essentially. Yes, we will nuke *ourselves* 3 times a minute.
7) Heavy lift space program - the DfE (as a whole) will perform the first manned landing on the Sun. Parliament (as whole) will land on Uranus.
8) Lessons will be learned. And how. The roads will be shaded by the crucified, who thought that “Lessons would be learned” - by other, littler, people.

Malmesbury · June 30

JosiasJessop said:
Test...

What’s the membership price for the “Test” party?

Andy_JS · June 30

wooliedyed said:
Heres a straw poll - will Advance UK register in a UK VI opinion poll in their own right at >1% this year?

No. Reform will continue to move towards an average of 35% though.

bondegezou · June 30

wooliedyed said:
Heres a straw poll - will Advance UK register in a UK VI opinion poll in their own right at >1% this year?

No!

RochdalePioneers · June 30

HYUFD said:

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:
Establishing new political parties rarely achieves much success in UK politics under FPTP and Reform have already captured the populist post Brexit market. Lowe's idea of a traditional right pressure group seems rather more sensible than Habib's for a new political party
Remember though - Lowe and Nigel Ltd are implacable enemies. The right wing pressure desired is for Reform to lose...
The right wing media don't however have the ability to control the message the way they used to be able to.

I suspect it's essential that the Tories get Jenrick as leader sooner rather than later but he better be prepared to do a complete rebrand to hide the past as without that rebrand he's just the next leader in a party that a lot of voters will never trust.
Rebrand to what, 'Jenrick like Farage but even nastier?'

What is the Conservative and Unionist Party for? It stopped being conservative or unionist in those final 5 years in office. Kemi Badenoch seems to think that the main issues gripping voters are woke bathrooms. Though as "the cost of living crisis" and "the state of public services" are the correct answers with the public blaming the Tories, I can understand why she hopes she is right.

We are in a post-truth politics. Jenrick could go out there and sell full-throated Thatcherism. A smaller state, taxes going down, lots of feel good retail politics, our boys kicking the foreign aggressor etc. We can't pay for it as you did in the 80s but that doesn't matter in a polity where punters don't want to be told no.

wooliedyed · June 30

Andy_JS said:

wooliedyed said:
Heres a straw poll - will Advance UK register in a UK VI opinion poll in their own right at >1% this year?
No. Reform will continue to move towards an average of 35% though.

I doubt that. Over 35% in a five party system is probably getting towards 500 seats.
I agree Advance will not likely advance though

eek · June 30

HYUFD said:

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:
Establishing new political parties rarely achieves much success in UK politics under FPTP and Reform have already captured the populist post Brexit market. Lowe's idea of a traditional right pressure group seems rather more sensible than Habib's for a new political party
Remember though - Lowe and Nigel Ltd are implacable enemies. The right wing pressure desired is for Reform to lose...
The right wing media don't however have the ability to control the message the way they used to be able to.

I suspect it's essential that the Tories get Jenrick as leader sooner rather than later but he better be prepared to do a complete rebrand to hide the past as without that rebrand he's just the next leader in a party that a lot of voters will never trust.
Rebrand to what, 'Jenrick like Farage but even nastier?'

Currently it's Jenrick, like Farage but nastier attached to a brand that gave you austerity and higher mortgages thank to Truss...

Spot the problem I was trying to solve but yep that's the scale of the problem the Tory party has..

Malmesbury · June 30

williamglenn said:

glw said:
FPT:

Malmesbury said:

Cookie said:

Nigelb said:
A stupid version of Cnut.
Still, it should provide a similar object lesson, albeit this time unintended.

Trump: "We're doing coal. I don't want windmills destroying our place. I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up half a mountain and they're ugly as hell."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1939334557582438496
Are collieries and spoil heaps and massive open-cast scars more beautiful?
All authoritarians of right and left have a fetish about Really Big Industry. Something about half naked men pouring STEEEEEEEEL. Dirty faces, BIG CHIMNEYYYYYYYYSSSSSSS!
Which is nuts because the industries of the future will be huge, they are the Really Big Industries of the 2050s and beyond. By which time in any non-mad country the idea that you burn stuff to get electricity when you can get if for "free" from the sky will seem very silly.
Do you expect all energy-intensive industry to move to countries close to the equator?

Solar cells have already fallen in price so far as to ruin the economics of various long distance transmission schemes.

The bit that costs money is the power electronics - but that is scaled by the output, not the number of cells.

So 100 panels in the U.K. doesn’t cost that much more than 10 panels in Morocco. And the differential is still falling.

By some quotes, solar panels are now cheaper than some grades of plywood to cover things… so making a surface to keep the rain out may well default to solar quite soon.

RochdalePioneers · June 30

Malmesbury said:
I’ve been setting out policies for my political party for a while

1) voting system that is FPTP & perfectly proportional. All cheating is eliminated.
2) Education - all children of school damage placed in Zorb balls. This eliminates a whole series of problems in schools. Saracen APCs for the staff on all schools. Then they can play car football with the Zorb balls.
4) Compulsory CCF in all schools. Made more fun by very heavy weaponry.
5) Paramilitary traffic wardens. Anti material rifles to destroy any vehicle breaking rules. Small nukes for more widespread problems.
6) Nuclear power. An internal combustion engine running on nuclear bombs, essentially. Yes, we will nuke *ourselves* 3 times a minute.
7) Heavy lift space program - the DfE (as a whole) will perform the first manned landing on the Sun. Parliament (as whole) will land on Uranus.
8) Lessons will be learned. And how. The roads will be shaded by the crucified, who thought that “Lessons would be learned” - by other, littler, people.

1) War with France
2) Harsher punishment for Geography teachers
3) A right royal kick of the prince's backside

BartholomewRoberts · June 30

williamglenn said:

glw said:
FPT:

Malmesbury said:

Cookie said:

Nigelb said:
A stupid version of Cnut.
Still, it should provide a similar object lesson, albeit this time unintended.

Trump: "We're doing coal. I don't want windmills destroying our place. I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up half a mountain and they're ugly as hell."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1939334557582438496
Are collieries and spoil heaps and massive open-cast scars more beautiful?
All authoritarians of right and left have a fetish about Really Big Industry. Something about half naked men pouring STEEEEEEEEL. Dirty faces, BIG CHIMNEYYYYYYYYSSSSSSS!
Which is nuts because the industries of the future will be huge, they are the Really Big Industries of the 2050s and beyond. By which time in any non-mad country the idea that you burn stuff to get electricity when you can get if for "free" from the sky will seem very silly.
Do you expect all energy-intensive industry to move to countries close to the equator?

No, as I expect there to be an abundance of clean, cheap energy in all countries.

Yes countries near the equator may have a competitive advantage in solar, which they can take advantage of, but countries having a competitive advantage is nothing new. Doesn't and shouldn't mean all firms go to the same place.

The mistake for too long in this country has been an attitude of "energy consumption is bad, so we need to make it expensive".

That flawed mindset is (slowly) getting updated to a better mindset of "clean energy is good, so we need to make it cheap".

glw · June 30

williamglenn said:

glw said:
FPT:

Malmesbury said:

Cookie said:

Nigelb said:
A stupid version of Cnut.
Still, it should provide a similar object lesson, albeit this time unintended.

Trump: "We're doing coal. I don't want windmills destroying our place. I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up half a mountain and they're ugly as hell."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1939334557582438496
Are collieries and spoil heaps and massive open-cast scars more beautiful?
All authoritarians of right and left have a fetish about Really Big Industry. Something about half naked men pouring STEEEEEEEEL. Dirty faces, BIG CHIMNEYYYYYYYYSSSSSSS!
Which is nuts because the industries of the future will be huge, they are the Really Big Industries of the 2050s and beyond. By which time in any non-mad country the idea that you burn stuff to get electricity when you can get if for "free" from the sky will seem very silly.
Do you expect all energy-intensive industry to move to countries close to the equator?

No, because when power is cheap then relocating for such reasons is less important not more. Besides if transmission and storage systems improve we ought to be able to have our cake and eat it. Some really large solar installations might be built near the equator, but generally most industries will be operate just fine with renewables providing the power.

sarissa · June 30

with apologies to Major General Oliver P. Smith - "Advance, hell! You're just retreating in another direction"

HYUFD · June 30

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:
Establishing new political parties rarely achieves much success in UK politics under FPTP and Reform have already captured the populist post Brexit market. Lowe's idea of a traditional right pressure group seems rather more sensible than Habib's for a new political party
Remember though - Lowe and Nigel Ltd are implacable enemies. The right wing pressure desired is for Reform to lose...
The right wing media don't however have the ability to control the message the way they used to be able to.

I suspect it's essential that the Tories get Jenrick as leader sooner rather than later but he better be prepared to do a complete rebrand to hide the past as without that rebrand he's just the next leader in a party that a lot of voters will never trust.
Rebrand to what, 'Jenrick like Farage but even nastier?'
What is the Conservative and Unionist Party for? It stopped being conservative or unionist in those final 5 years in office. Kemi Badenoch seems to think that the main issues gripping voters are woke bathrooms. Though as "the cost of living crisis" and "the state of public services" are the correct answers with the public blaming the Tories, I can understand why she hopes she is right.

We are in a post-truth politics. Jenrick could go out there and sell full-throated Thatcherism. A smaller state, taxes going down, lots of feel good retail politics, our boys kicking the foreign aggressor etc. We can't pay for it as you did in the 80s but that doesn't matter in a polity where punters don't want to be told no.

Reform have already largely captured that market. There is at least a market for what Boris sold 'being a Brexity Hezza' which could be somewhat distinctive from both Reform and the LDs

wooliedyed · June 30

isam said:
Have to agree with the header, there is only one game in town when it comes to this brand of politics, you only have to look at how UKIP did whenever anyone else was in charge. I suppose they might cost Reform 1-2% in the odd seat, more in Lowe’s case, but those people would probably vote UKIP/BNP etc anyway, and in net terms the voters not put off by associating with the far right would outweigh those lost to Habib and co

The only moderately successful Kipper campaign/period sans Nigel was Paul Nuttalls reign - second in the Stoke by election and they beat the Greens in votes in the 2017 election and won their last council election in Lancashire. All downhill afterwards with Bolton, Batten etc
A Nuttall 17 'UKIP performance' by another right party might cost Reform some seats

HYUFD · June 30

eek said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:
Establishing new political parties rarely achieves much success in UK politics under FPTP and Reform have already captured the populist post Brexit market. Lowe's idea of a traditional right pressure group seems rather more sensible than Habib's for a new political party
Remember though - Lowe and Nigel Ltd are implacable enemies. The right wing pressure desired is for Reform to lose...
The right wing media don't however have the ability to control the message the way they used to be able to.

I suspect it's essential that the Tories get Jenrick as leader sooner rather than later but he better be prepared to do a complete rebrand to hide the past as without that rebrand he's just the next leader in a party that a lot of voters will never trust.
Rebrand to what, 'Jenrick like Farage but even nastier?'
Currently it's Jenrick, like Farage but nastier attached to a brand that gave you austerity and higher mortgages thank to Truss...

Spot the problem I was trying to solve but yep that's the scale of the problem the Tory party has..

Which could be solved by a Truss defection to Reform

williamglenn · June 30

glw said:

williamglenn said:

glw said:
FPT:

Malmesbury said:

Cookie said:

Nigelb said:
A stupid version of Cnut.
Still, it should provide a similar object lesson, albeit this time unintended.

Trump: "We're doing coal. I don't want windmills destroying our place. I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up half a mountain and they're ugly as hell."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1939334557582438496
Are collieries and spoil heaps and massive open-cast scars more beautiful?
All authoritarians of right and left have a fetish about Really Big Industry. Something about half naked men pouring STEEEEEEEEL. Dirty faces, BIG CHIMNEYYYYYYYYSSSSSSS!
Which is nuts because the industries of the future will be huge, they are the Really Big Industries of the 2050s and beyond. By which time in any non-mad country the idea that you burn stuff to get electricity when you can get if for "free" from the sky will seem very silly.
Do you expect all energy-intensive industry to move to countries close to the equator?
No, because when power is cheap then relocating for such reasons is less important not more. Besides if transmission and storage systems improve we ought to be able to have our cake and eat it. Some really large solar installations might be built near the equator, but generally most industries will be operate just fine with renewables providing the power.

Isn't there a contradiction between thinking that renewables are "the industry of the future" and thinking that they will be commodified and as cheap as chips?

eek · June 30

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:
Establishing new political parties rarely achieves much success in UK politics under FPTP and Reform have already captured the populist post Brexit market. Lowe's idea of a traditional right pressure group seems rather more sensible than Habib's for a new political party
Remember though - Lowe and Nigel Ltd are implacable enemies. The right wing pressure desired is for Reform to lose...
The right wing media don't however have the ability to control the message the way they used to be able to.

I suspect it's essential that the Tories get Jenrick as leader sooner rather than later but he better be prepared to do a complete rebrand to hide the past as without that rebrand he's just the next leader in a party that a lot of voters will never trust.
Rebrand to what, 'Jenrick like Farage but even nastier?'
Currently it's Jenrick, like Farage but nastier attached to a brand that gave you austerity and higher mortgages thank to Truss...

Spot the problem I was trying to solve but yep that's the scale of the problem the Tory party has..
Which could be solved by a Truss defection to Reform

Got to say I think Nigel is bright enough to not let that happen...

sarissa · June 30

Nigelb said:
Performative nonsense.

Supermarkets could be fined if they fail to hit new healthy eating targets
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-06-28/supermarkets-could-be-fined-if-they-fail-to-hit-new-healthy-eating-targets?s=09

"Horses, there's your water!"

wooliedyed · June 30

Habib welcomes Lowes Restore movement and will 'help where they can' but says its at the ballot box you make the changes and thats where Advance come in

Stuartinromford · June 30

Nigelb said:
On a point of order, I would prefer the thread title to be The Fate of Farage.

Sounds like his enemies on the right (i.e. his many ex-colleagues) are Making Plans for Nigel.

Big_G_NorthWales · June 30

RochdalePioneers said:
Meanwhile those Tory monsters in Downing Street have reacted in horror to the suggestion that their new Cripple a Cripple bill will send 250,000 people further into poverty.

"It's only 150,000" said Secretary of State Liz Lilley

Good afternoon

I cannot believe labour mps will vote for this

It is cruel and becomes a two tier benefit

What an absolute shocker Starmer and Reeves have served up

And on UC and PIP as I understand it all claimants are telephone assessed when it should be face to face

I have no idea what Badenoch would propose but as I have consistently said those in real need should be supported but not those that receive pensions and free NHS when they have enough wealth to pay or be excluded

Andy_JS · June 30

Cold case success.

"Man, 92, guilty of murdering woman 58 years ago"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgk3jyl5prvo

RochdalePioneers · June 30

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Meanwhile those Tory monsters in Downing Street have reacted in horror to the suggestion that their new Cripple a Cripple bill will send 250,000 people further into poverty.

"It's only 150,000" said Secretary of State Liz Lilley
Good afternoon

I cannot believe labour mps will vote for this

It is cruel and becomes a two tier benefit

What an absolute shocker Starmer and Reeves have served up

And on UC and PIP as I understand it all claimants are telephone assessed when it should be face to face

I have no idea what Badenoch would propose but as I have consistently said those in real need should be supported but not those that receive pensions and free NHS when they have enough wealth to pay or be excluded

The Simple Truth is that both parties have proven to be absolutely monstrous in their approach to disabled people.

I am hugely sympathetic with the rebels and hope they win. At the same time I absolutely recognise that the welfare system is completely out of control. But you can't cut for performative cruelty and expect to save money.

A wholesale rethink of the whole system is needed.

glw · June 30

williamglenn said:

glw said:

williamglenn said:

glw said:
FPT:

Malmesbury said:

Cookie said:

Nigelb said:
A stupid version of Cnut.
Still, it should provide a similar object lesson, albeit this time unintended.

Trump: "We're doing coal. I don't want windmills destroying our place. I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up half a mountain and they're ugly as hell."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1939334557582438496
Are collieries and spoil heaps and massive open-cast scars more beautiful?
All authoritarians of right and left have a fetish about Really Big Industry. Something about half naked men pouring STEEEEEEEEL. Dirty faces, BIG CHIMNEYYYYYYYYSSSSSSS!
Which is nuts because the industries of the future will be huge, they are the Really Big Industries of the 2050s and beyond. By which time in any non-mad country the idea that you burn stuff to get electricity when you can get if for "free" from the sky will seem very silly.
Do you expect all energy-intensive industry to move to countries close to the equator?
No, because when power is cheap then relocating for such reasons is less important not more. Besides if transmission and storage systems improve we ought to be able to have our cake and eat it. Some really large solar installations might be built near the equator, but generally most industries will be operate just fine with renewables providing the power.
Isn't there a contradiction between thinking that renewables are "the industry of the future" and thinking that they will be commodified and as cheap as chips?

No, because economic growth tracks energy use closely. Renewables have to be as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels to displace them, but the demand and supply will still lead to a huge industry. It's just that it will be cheaper per watt and less polluting.

Morris_Dancer · June 30

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Meanwhile those Tory monsters in Downing Street have reacted in horror to the suggestion that their new Cripple a Cripple bill will send 250,000 people further into poverty.

"It's only 150,000" said Secretary of State Liz Lilley
Good afternoon

I cannot believe labour mps will vote for this

It is cruel and becomes a two tier benefit

What an absolute shocker Starmer and Reeves have served up

And on UC and PIP as I understand it all claimants are telephone assessed when it should be face to face

I have no idea what Badenoch would propose but as I have consistently said those in real need should be supported but not those that receive pensions and free NHS when they have enough wealth to pay or be excluded
The Simple Truth is that both parties have proven to be absolutely monstrous in their approach to disabled people.

I am hugely sympathetic with the rebels and hope they win. At the same time I absolutely recognise that the welfare system is completely out of control. But you can't cut for performative cruelty and expect to save money.

A wholesale rethink of the whole system is needed.

How would you change the system?

viewcode · June 30

The trailer for "Project Hail Mary" is out. It's based on an Andy Weir book. His bibliography is

"The Martian". A male dork solves problems far from Earth thru maths and deduction. A film is made and it gets stacks of cash
"Artemis". the difficult second album. A young female smuggler solves a violent conspiracy on the Moon. It does not sell well and no film is made
"Project Hail Mary". Retreats to comfort zone. A male dork solves problems far from Earth thru maths and deduction. A film is made...

The trailer; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m08TxIsFTRI

Selebian · June 30

Nigelb said:
Performative nonsense.

Supermarkets could be fined if they fail to hit new healthy eating targets
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-06-28/supermarkets-could-be-fined-if-they-fail-to-hit-new-healthy-eating-targets?s=09

Law of unintended consequences? What if fines make supermarkets in some more deprived/lower healthy eating locations less financially viable and so they close, leaving only the smaller convenience stores (exempt).

I'm also put in mind of my mum's shopping habits when we were kids and she was managing a tight budget. We ate healthy, if uninspiring food, but she got the vast majority of fruit and veg at the market and then used the supermarket for all the pre-made stuff - the supermarket basket would probably have scored pretty badly on health.

The idea is noble enough, but it would seem to make more sense to go for minimum pricing/more tax on 'bad' things, maybe combined with subsidies for fruit and veg.

algarkirk · June 30

A pedant notes:

The Campaign for a Free Galilee is the odd man out here. The various Judean parties mentioned in the article do not overlap with it, in the same way that PC and the SNP do not overlap. Jesus invariably voted for the CFG but never qualified to vote in Judea as such. All the Judean parties and the CFG were happily united in their hatred of the Samaritan Liberation Front and the Front for the Liberation of Samaria. Its resemblance to the politics of the middle east today is remarkable.

williamglenn · June 30

glw said:

williamglenn said:

glw said:

williamglenn said:

glw said:
FPT:

Malmesbury said:

Cookie said:

Nigelb said:
A stupid version of Cnut.
Still, it should provide a similar object lesson, albeit this time unintended.

Trump: "We're doing coal. I don't want windmills destroying our place. I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up half a mountain and they're ugly as hell."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1939334557582438496
Are collieries and spoil heaps and massive open-cast scars more beautiful?
All authoritarians of right and left have a fetish about Really Big Industry. Something about half naked men pouring STEEEEEEEEL. Dirty faces, BIG CHIMNEYYYYYYYYSSSSSSS!
Which is nuts because the industries of the future will be huge, they are the Really Big Industries of the 2050s and beyond. By which time in any non-mad country the idea that you burn stuff to get electricity when you can get if for "free" from the sky will seem very silly.
Do you expect all energy-intensive industry to move to countries close to the equator?
No, because when power is cheap then relocating for such reasons is less important not more. Besides if transmission and storage systems improve we ought to be able to have our cake and eat it. Some really large solar installations might be built near the equator, but generally most industries will be operate just fine with renewables providing the power.
Isn't there a contradiction between thinking that renewables are "the industry of the future" and thinking that they will be commodified and as cheap as chips?
No, because economic growth tracks energy use closely. Renewables have to be as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels to displace them, but the demand and supply will still lead to a huge industry. It's just that it will be cheaper per watt and less polluting.

If you expect abundance then the most wrong-headed thing you could possibly do would be to restrict energy use because it will only slow down the adoption of new technology and put you at a competitive disadvantage. Trump's policies are more rational than ours.

Andy_JS · June 30

Dom Sibley has hit a triple century for Surrey v Durham.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/c2d5d03r0x4t

FrancisUrquhart · June 30

Sir Sadiq Khan: Welfare Bill still needs ‘radical transformation’

TheScreamingEagles · June 30

FrancisUrquhart said:
Sir Sadiq Khan: Welfare Bill still needs ‘radical transformation’

Is Sir Keir Starmer about to experience The Wrath of Khan?

Morris_Dancer · June 30

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Sir Sadiq Khan: Welfare Bill still needs ‘radical transformation’
Is Sir Keir Starmer about to experience The Wrath of Khan?

There's no way Sadiq is as smart as Noonien Singh.

To be fair, he's also certainly not as vengefully murderous. (Well, one hopes).

williamglenn · June 30

FrancisUrquhart said:
Sir Sadiq Khan: Welfare Bill still needs ‘radical transformation’

Starmer is in power but out of the office.

FrancisUrquhart · June 30

Canada ditches tax on tech giants in bid to restart US trade talks

With digital services tax rescinded, Donald Trump and Mark Carney agree to resume negotiations with a view to agreeing a deal by 21 July

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/30/canada-digital-services-tax-technology-giants-us-trade-talks

Malmesbury · June 30

RochdalePioneers said:

Malmesbury said:
I’ve been setting out policies for my political party for a while

1) voting system that is FPTP & perfectly proportional. All cheating is eliminated.
2) Education - all children of school damage placed in Zorb balls. This eliminates a whole series of problems in schools. Saracen APCs for the staff on all schools. Then they can play car football with the Zorb balls.
4) Compulsory CCF in all schools. Made more fun by very heavy weaponry.
5) Paramilitary traffic wardens. Anti material rifles to destroy any vehicle breaking rules. Small nukes for more widespread problems.
6) Nuclear power. An internal combustion engine running on nuclear bombs, essentially. Yes, we will nuke *ourselves* 3 times a minute.
7) Heavy lift space program - the DfE (as a whole) will perform the first manned landing on the Sun. Parliament (as whole) will land on Uranus.
8) Lessons will be learned. And how. The roads will be shaded by the crucified, who thought that “Lessons would be learned” - by other, littler, people.
1) War with France
2) Harsher punishment for Geography teachers
3) A right royal kick of the prince's backside

1) too obvious for statement
2) need the geography teachers for 1)
3) which prince?

algarkirk · June 30

Nigelb said:
Performative nonsense.

Supermarkets could be fined if they fail to hit new healthy eating targets
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-06-28/supermarkets-could-be-fined-if-they-fail-to-hit-new-healthy-eating-targets?s=09

I must be doubtful whether any of this markedly tentative story will stand up. too many 'coulds' at the important points. If it does it will be a sign that even though the other parties are totally useless Labour is just as bad.

BartholomewRoberts · June 30

williamglenn said:

glw said:

williamglenn said:

glw said:
FPT:

Malmesbury said:

Cookie said:

Nigelb said:
A stupid version of Cnut.
Still, it should provide a similar object lesson, albeit this time unintended.

Trump: "We're doing coal. I don't want windmills destroying our place. I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up half a mountain and they're ugly as hell."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1939334557582438496
Are collieries and spoil heaps and massive open-cast scars more beautiful?
All authoritarians of right and left have a fetish about Really Big Industry. Something about half naked men pouring STEEEEEEEEL. Dirty faces, BIG CHIMNEYYYYYYYYSSSSSSS!
Which is nuts because the industries of the future will be huge, they are the Really Big Industries of the 2050s and beyond. By which time in any non-mad country the idea that you burn stuff to get electricity when you can get if for "free" from the sky will seem very silly.
Do you expect all energy-intensive industry to move to countries close to the equator?
No, because when power is cheap then relocating for such reasons is less important not more. Besides if transmission and storage systems improve we ought to be able to have our cake and eat it. Some really large solar installations might be built near the equator, but generally most industries will be operate just fine with renewables providing the power.
Isn't there a contradiction between thinking that renewables are "the industry of the future" and thinking that they will be commodified and as cheap as chips?

Not at all.

Plenty of industries are universal and cheap as chips.

Stack it high, sell it cheap, create a lot of it.

With an abundance of clean, cheap energy there will be plenty of energy created, and consumed and even better plenty of other stuff made with that energy . . . but without damaging the environment or impoverishing anyone.

Win/win. The future.

wooliedyed · June 30

FrancisUrquhart said:
Canada ditches tax on tech giants in bid to restart US trade talks

With digital services tax rescinded, Donald Trump and Mark Carney agree to resume negotiations with a view to agreeing a deal by 21 July

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/30/canada-digital-services-tax-technology-giants-us-trade-talks

Elbows down

IanB2 · June 30

The more right wing parties, the better!

Meanwhile, back to the mountain...

algarkirk · June 30

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:
Establishing new political parties rarely achieves much success in UK politics under FPTP and Reform have already captured the populist post Brexit market. Lowe's idea of a traditional right pressure group seems rather more sensible than Habib's for a new political party
Remember though - Lowe and Nigel Ltd are implacable enemies. The right wing pressure desired is for Reform to lose...
The right wing media don't however have the ability to control the message the way they used to be able to.

I suspect it's essential that the Tories get Jenrick as leader sooner rather than later but he better be prepared to do a complete rebrand to hide the past as without that rebrand he's just the next leader in a party that a lot of voters will never trust.
Rebrand to what, 'Jenrick like Farage but even nastier?'
What is the Conservative and Unionist Party for? It stopped being conservative or unionist in those final 5 years in office. Kemi Badenoch seems to think that the main issues gripping voters are woke bathrooms. Though as "the cost of living crisis" and "the state of public services" are the correct answers with the public blaming the Tories, I can understand why she hopes she is right.

We are in a post-truth politics. Jenrick could go out there and sell full-throated Thatcherism. A smaller state, taxes going down, lots of feel good retail politics, our boys kicking the foreign aggressor etc. We can't pay for it as you did in the 80s but that doesn't matter in a polity where punters don't want to be told no.

State expenditure (TME) in real terms rose under Thatcher. There were IIRC two years in which it fell slightly, but overall it rose. A genuine small state policy would have some tricky spelling out of detail to do. As this government is now finding out, even chopping half of one percent of TME and 0.2% of GDP (£5bn) loses the entire backbench. So getting to a sensible figure, like £100bn, is going to be a hard road. As Reform are perhaps about to discover.

carnforth · June 30

Amusingly bitchy review of Sarah Vine's autobiography in The New Statesman:

https://archive.is/SRYZb

scampi25 · June 30

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Sir Sadiq Khan: Welfare Bill still needs ‘radical transformation’
Is Sir Keir Starmer about to experience The Wrath of Khan?

Could be a Shatnering experience for him..

Sunil_Prasannan · June 30

Nigelb said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Those right-wing patriotic front parties in full:

UKIP - "the new right". Stop The Boats and all that. Rishi isn't a member despite them stealing his best slogan
RefUK Farage Ltd - Nigel promises to recruit at least one other person to the cabinet, otherwise he will do a Churchill and take as many roles as he sees fit
Social Democratic Party - not very social(ist) and as nobody votes for them not democratic either. "The best is Rod Liddle" apparently
Reclaim - Lozza's right to freedom of speech. Just his, not yours.
Advance UK - the Fucked by Farage self-help group
Retard UK - ok I made this up but someone will found it and insist its retard as in slow down our deline and not the other meaning
ConTory UK - Kemi's rebrand is going well if you hate the Tories
Retard UK, you say?

I'm also mindful of Selena Meyer forgetting the three Rs of her migration policy and making up Repel as one of them.

Someone needs to do the Repel Party. Your happy place where we're in favour of traditional British culture and values and that means drowning the darkies in the channel or shooting them if they float.
'The Repulse Party' would be better.

The five R Class battleships of WW1 and WW2 included two with "Re.." names:

Resolution
Revenge

plus two members that were redesigned as battlecruisers:

Repulse
Renown

And one that was cancelled:

Resistance

wooliedyed · June 30

scampi25 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Sir Sadiq Khan: Welfare Bill still needs ‘radical transformation’
Is Sir Keir Starmer about to experience The Wrath of Khan?
Could be a Shatnering experience for him..

What's he Doohan about it though?

tlg86 · June 30

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Nigelb said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Those right-wing patriotic front parties in full:

UKIP - "the new right". Stop The Boats and all that. Rishi isn't a member despite them stealing his best slogan
RefUK Farage Ltd - Nigel promises to recruit at least one other person to the cabinet, otherwise he will do a Churchill and take as many roles as he sees fit
Social Democratic Party - not very social(ist) and as nobody votes for them not democratic either. "The best is Rod Liddle" apparently
Reclaim - Lozza's right to freedom of speech. Just his, not yours.
Advance UK - the Fucked by Farage self-help group
Retard UK - ok I made this up but someone will found it and insist its retard as in slow down our deline and not the other meaning
ConTory UK - Kemi's rebrand is going well if you hate the Tories
Retard UK, you say?

I'm also mindful of Selena Meyer forgetting the three Rs of her migration policy and making up Repel as one of them.

Someone needs to do the Repel Party. Your happy place where we're in favour of traditional British culture and values and that means drowning the darkies in the channel or shooting them if they float.
'The Repulse Party' would be better.
The five R Class battleships of WW1 and WW2 included two with "Re.." names:

Resolution
Revenge

plus two members that were redesigned as battlecruisers:

Repulse
Renown

And one that was cancelled:

Resistance

Three also names of Class 50s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_50#Fleet_list

BartholomewRoberts · June 30

wooliedyed said:

scampi25 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Sir Sadiq Khan: Welfare Bill still needs ‘radical transformation’
Is Sir Keir Starmer about to experience The Wrath of Khan?
Could be a Shatnering experience for him..
What's he Doohan about it though?

With this many parties you can barely see DeForest for the trees.

Morris_Dancer · June 30

Just reading the BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg5xzpmxzgo

"Offer shopping vouchers to customers in return for being active and eating healthily, via a new app"

Hm. I realise I'm an outlier when it comes to loathing mobiles and not having a smartphone, but normalising the state monitoring your diet and exercise regimes is not something I like the sound of.

bondegezou · June 30

Morris_Dancer said:
Just reading the BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg5xzpmxzgo

"Offer shopping vouchers to customers in return for being active and eating healthily, via a new app"

Hm. I realise I'm an outlier when it comes to loathing mobiles and not having a smartphone, but normalising the state monitoring your diet and exercise regimes is not something I like the sound of.

Have you met RFK Jr? https://uk.news.yahoo.com/rfk-jr-wants-every-american-173748192.html

wooliedyed · June 30

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

scampi25 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Sir Sadiq Khan: Welfare Bill still needs ‘radical transformation’
Is Sir Keir Starmer about to experience The Wrath of Khan?
Could be a Shatnering experience for him..
What's he Doohan about it though?
With this many parties you can barely see DeForest for the trees.

Getting into Niche(lle) jokes here

Sunil_Prasannan · June 30

tlg86 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Nigelb said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Those right-wing patriotic front parties in full:

UKIP - "the new right". Stop The Boats and all that. Rishi isn't a member despite them stealing his best slogan
RefUK Farage Ltd - Nigel promises to recruit at least one other person to the cabinet, otherwise he will do a Churchill and take as many roles as he sees fit
Social Democratic Party - not very social(ist) and as nobody votes for them not democratic either. "The best is Rod Liddle" apparently
Reclaim - Lozza's right to freedom of speech. Just his, not yours.
Advance UK - the Fucked by Farage self-help group
Retard UK - ok I made this up but someone will found it and insist its retard as in slow down our deline and not the other meaning
ConTory UK - Kemi's rebrand is going well if you hate the Tories
Retard UK, you say?

I'm also mindful of Selena Meyer forgetting the three Rs of her migration policy and making up Repel as one of them.

Someone needs to do the Repel Party. Your happy place where we're in favour of traditional British culture and values and that means drowning the darkies in the channel or shooting them if they float.
'The Repulse Party' would be better.
The five R Class battleships of WW1 and WW2 included two with "Re.." names:

Resolution
Revenge

plus two members that were redesigned as battlecruisers:

Repulse
Renown

And one that was cancelled:

Resistance
Three also names of Class 50s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_50#Fleet_list

Four, in fact!

tlg86 · June 30

https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1939697151388353021

@DPJHodges
This is utterly nuts. Liz Kendall has effectively admitted her changes threaten benefits for people who genuinely need it. That's why she's guaranteed to retain it for existing claimants. But she's also saying she's happy to see others in genuine need lose support from next year.

slade · June 30

JosiasJessop said:
For the mods / admins; I am finding it impossible to post on either the main site or vf on Chrome. It seems to work on Edge.

The quality of the site has therefore probably increased this morning...

Yes - I used vf and Edge.

eek · June 30

Morris_Dancer said:
Just reading the BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg5xzpmxzgo

"Offer shopping vouchers to customers in return for being active and eating healthily, via a new app"

Hm. I realise I'm an outlier when it comes to loathing mobiles and not having a smartphone, but normalising the state monitoring your diet and exercise regimes is not something I like the sound of.

Isn't that little different from the Vitality Health app which gave discounts for doing monitored exercise

Nigelb · June 30

Malmesbury said:

williamglenn said:

glw said:
FPT:

Malmesbury said:

Cookie said:

Nigelb said:
A stupid version of Cnut.
Still, it should provide a similar object lesson, albeit this time unintended.

Trump: "We're doing coal. I don't want windmills destroying our place. I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up half a mountain and they're ugly as hell."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1939334557582438496
Are collieries and spoil heaps and massive open-cast scars more beautiful?
All authoritarians of right and left have a fetish about Really Big Industry. Something about half naked men pouring STEEEEEEEEL. Dirty faces, BIG CHIMNEYYYYYYYYSSSSSSS!
Which is nuts because the industries of the future will be huge, they are the Really Big Industries of the 2050s and beyond. By which time in any non-mad country the idea that you burn stuff to get electricity when you can get if for "free" from the sky will seem very silly.
Do you expect all energy-intensive industry to move to countries close to the equator?
Solar cells have already fallen in price so far as to ruin the economics of various long distance transmission schemes.

The bit that costs money is the power electronics - but that is scaled by the output, not the number of cells.

So 100 panels in the U.K. doesn’t cost that much more than 10 panels in Morocco. And the differential is still falling.

By some quotes, solar panels are now cheaper than some grades of plywood to cover things… so making a surface to keep the rain out may well default to solar quite soon.

As Robert frequently reminds us, solar will eventually eat everything in terms of energy generation.

But the intermittency problem is still some way from being solved in places like the UK (at some point falling solar costs will sort that too, but it will take quite a while). The real question for our governments is what will best fill the gap - and it's not immediately obvious that the markets will best answer that question, given the volatility of fossil fuel and other prices.

algarkirk · June 30

A very odd Guardian story of a firm of solicitors doing its job in an unremarkable way, the Guardian hyping it up as if it's some sort of wicked injustice. Strange even by Guardian standards. And massively prejudicial towards the firm involved, almost as if it had some strange power to tell the courts what to order by way of injunction. A huge car crash of worthless opinion masquerading as news

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jun/30/british-law-firm-shakespeare-martineau-cardiff-university-protests

eek · June 30

Selebian said:

Nigelb said:
Performative nonsense.

Supermarkets could be fined if they fail to hit new healthy eating targets
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-06-28/supermarkets-could-be-fined-if-they-fail-to-hit-new-healthy-eating-targets?s=09
Law of unintended consequences? What if fines make supermarkets in some more deprived/lower healthy eating locations less financially viable and so they close, leaving only the smaller convenience stores (exempt).

I'm also put in mind of my mum's shopping habits when we were kids and she was managing a tight budget. We ate healthy, if uninspiring food, but she got the vast majority of fruit and veg at the market and then used the supermarket for all the pre-made stuff - the supermarket basket would probably have scored pretty badly on health.

The idea is noble enough, but it would seem to make more sense to go for minimum pricing/more tax on 'bad' things, maybe combined with subsidies for fruit and veg.

Local markets selling fruit and veg really aren't a thing anymore but it's very likely that people shop around getting different products from different supermarkets. I know I buy particular things from Aldi, Sainsburys and Tesco

Nigelb · June 30

bondegezou said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Just reading the BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg5xzpmxzgo

"Offer shopping vouchers to customers in return for being active and eating healthily, via a new app"

Hm. I realise I'm an outlier when it comes to loathing mobiles and not having a smartphone, but normalising the state monitoring your diet and exercise regimes is not something I like the sound of.
Have you met RFK Jr? https://uk.news.yahoo.com/rfk-jr-wants-every-american-173748192.html

This guy ?

carnforth · June 30

algarkirk said:
A very odd Guardian story of a firm of solicitors doing its job in an unremarkable way, the Guardian hyping it up as if it's some sort of wicked injustice. Strange even by Guardian standards. And massively prejudicial towards the firm involved, almost as if it had some strange power to tell the courts what to order by way of injunction. A huge car crash of worthless opinion masquerading as news

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jun/30/british-law-firm-shakespeare-martineau-cardiff-university-protests

That reads like a left-wing version of a "solicitors coaching asylum seekers" article.

LostPassword · June 30

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

glw said:

williamglenn said:

glw said:
FPT:

Malmesbury said:

Cookie said:

Nigelb said:
A stupid version of Cnut.
Still, it should provide a similar object lesson, albeit this time unintended.

Trump: "We're doing coal. I don't want windmills destroying our place. I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up half a mountain and they're ugly as hell."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1939334557582438496
Are collieries and spoil heaps and massive open-cast scars more beautiful?
All authoritarians of right and left have a fetish about Really Big Industry. Something about half naked men pouring STEEEEEEEEL. Dirty faces, BIG CHIMNEYYYYYYYYSSSSSSS!
Which is nuts because the industries of the future will be huge, they are the Really Big Industries of the 2050s and beyond. By which time in any non-mad country the idea that you burn stuff to get electricity when you can get if for "free" from the sky will seem very silly.
Do you expect all energy-intensive industry to move to countries close to the equator?
No, because when power is cheap then relocating for such reasons is less important not more. Besides if transmission and storage systems improve we ought to be able to have our cake and eat it. Some really large solar installations might be built near the equator, but generally most industries will be operate just fine with renewables providing the power.
Isn't there a contradiction between thinking that renewables are "the industry of the future" and thinking that they will be commodified and as cheap as chips?
Not at all.

Plenty of industries are universal and cheap as chips.

Stack it high, sell it cheap, create a lot of it.

With an abundance of clean, cheap energy there will be plenty of energy created, and consumed and even better plenty of other stuff made with that energy . . . but without damaging the environment or impoverishing anyone.

Win/win. The future.

Also, in general, you want to have some capability to reproduce your energy infrastructure. As strategic industries go, there's not much that's more strategic than energy.

DecrepiterJohnL · June 30

JosiasJessop said:
For the mods / admins; I am finding it impossible to post on either the main site or vf on Chrome. It seems to work on Edge.

The quality of the site has therefore probably increased this morning...

This comment is via Chrome and vf.

DecrepiterJohnL · June 30

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:
For the mods / admins; I am finding it impossible to post on either the main site or vf on Chrome. It seems to work on Edge.

The quality of the site has therefore probably increased this morning...
This comment is via Chrome and vf.

And this via Edge and vf.

Malmesbury · June 30

eek said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Just reading the BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg5xzpmxzgo

"Offer shopping vouchers to customers in return for being active and eating healthily, via a new app"

Hm. I realise I'm an outlier when it comes to loathing mobiles and not having a smartphone, but normalising the state monitoring your diet and exercise regimes is not something I like the sound of.
Isn't that little different from the Vitality Health app which gave discounts for doing monitored exercise

Vitality was quite cleverly targeted - a system of earning points. Exercise was just a part of it - first was cheap sports equipment and memberships. Then exercise to get points. Getting a good result on a physical exam - BMI, blood pressure etc got you lots of points.

FrancisUrquhart · June 30

Judge grants Palestine Action urgent hearing to try to stop ban taking effect
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/30/palestine-action-ban-judge-court-hearing

Luvvies for terrorism have got themselves a letter writing campaign going,
https://artistsforpalestine.org.uk/2025/06/30/paul-weller-tilda-swinton-stop-the-proscription-of-palestine-action/

Apparently vandalising planes and equipment for Ukraine is stopping a genocide.

FrancisUrquhart · June 30

algarkirk said:
A very odd Guardian story of a firm of solicitors doing its job in an unremarkable way, the Guardian hyping it up as if it's some sort of wicked injustice. Strange even by Guardian standards. And massively prejudicial towards the firm involved, almost as if it had some strange power to tell the courts what to order by way of injunction. A huge car crash of worthless opinion masquerading as news

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jun/30/british-law-firm-shakespeare-martineau-cardiff-university-protests

Wrong sort of injunction....

OldKingCole · June 30

eek said:

Selebian said:

Nigelb said:
Performative nonsense.

Supermarkets could be fined if they fail to hit new healthy eating targets
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-06-28/supermarkets-could-be-fined-if-they-fail-to-hit-new-healthy-eating-targets?s=09
Law of unintended consequences? What if fines make supermarkets in some more deprived/lower healthy eating locations less financially viable and so they close, leaving only the smaller convenience stores (exempt).

I'm also put in mind of my mum's shopping habits when we were kids and she was managing a tight budget. We ate healthy, if uninspiring food, but she got the vast majority of fruit and veg at the market and then used the supermarket for all the pre-made stuff - the supermarket basket would probably have scored pretty badly on health.

The idea is noble enough, but it would seem to make more sense to go for minimum pricing/more tax on 'bad' things, maybe combined with subsidies for fruit and veg.
Local markets selling fruit and veg really aren't a thing anymore but it's very likely that people shop around getting different products from different supermarkets. I know I buy particular things from Aldi, Sainsburys and Tesco

Mrs C regularly shops at our weekly market for vegetables (and cheese) and also uses a couple of local supermarkets for other foodstuffs.

rcs1000 · June 30

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

Gallowgate said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Malmesbury said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Malmesbury said:

WhisperingOracle said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Morning all! Back after 3 days away at Tankfest.

An interesting piece in The Guardian - Britain is sick. Massive inequality and chronic poverty combined with front line service cuts means an NHS under siege and incurring enormous costs from people made ill by previous cuts.

I'll keep making this point until the hard of thinking (hello Labour!!!) get it - cuts without reform cost more money than you save.

We're going to need to spend more now on actual frontline healthcare to save a lot more in the long term and that means making savings on the stuff we are wasting money on. Cutting sickness welfare is not the answer, making people healthier is.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/britain-in-2025-sick-man-of-europe-battling-untreated-illness-crisis
Morning, PB.

Indeed. So much of Cameron and Osborne's programme of savings and long-term prudence turned out to be anything but that. Avoiding productive long-term investments, like the current governments crazy decision to scrap most of their green growth plan, can have parallel effects in the economic sphere.
The problem comes when trying to get people to acknowledge that there is a limit to spending. We have plenty of MPs who quite simply don’t believe that you can’t just stick it on the national credit card
Indeed, but, conversely, this can also just as easily become a fetishisation of cuts in themselves, and as an end in themselves.

Cameron and Osborne shouted this narrative almost every day, and yet they left the country in an even worse condition than when they started.
The problem they had was a structural deficit.

The response was *reduce the rate of increase of government spending* to above inflation, but below the rate of increase in GDP. Spending was never actually cut, overall.
So the key question is where do you cut, and where do you borrow or spend. Cameron and Osbourne seem to have got the calculus badly wrong, and all the bills are coming in now.

Neither unlimited spending or a Caneroonist narrativeil of cuts are going to get is out of this, I would say.
Invent a time machine and tell people to vote Tory in 1997?
For an even bigger financial bubble and crash, yes.
How? Ken Clarke would have kept control of interest rates and would have raised taxes during the 97-01 term. The bubble was all on Brown and Blair.
The MBS and derivatives bubble (and subsequent crash and credit crunch) would have happened anyway assuming no change in America. The key question therefore is, would the City under the Tories have been more or less likely to become a feckless Wall St tribute act?

My answer to this is certainly not less likely and most probably more. Yes, I know there was a speech by Peter Lilley. But that was an outlier and against the grain. In the years preceding the crash the Tory message was for lighter regulation because "those guys know what they're doing".

None of this is to excuse Brown btw. He got enamoured of the City (or rather its tax revenues) and took his eye off the ball. He dealt with the crisis brilliantly as PM but as Chancellor was culpable for our extreme vulnerability to it.
Under the Tories no bank was allowed to operate at 70:1 leverage after Barings went bankrupt. That was all on Labour and that's what created the crash in the UK. In retrospect the government should have let RBS and HBOS go bankrupt and only guaranteed 100% of customer deposits. Bailing out the financial services industry and socialising their losses set a terrible precedent and we're still paying for it today.
Northern Rock would of course have had to go bankrupt too on that basis.

The Bush administration of course let Lehmans go bankrupt with no bailout by contrast
Also fine. Bailing out the banks was a shit idea, the government should have, on day one just guaranteed 100% of customer deposits and then let the banks themselves go under then let the assets get sold off piecemeal. Let the shareholders and bondholders take the hit.
I would frame it as "let the market clear". The big jump in government debt was the price of failing to do that.
It's a little more complex than that: one person's saving is another one's debt. When is becomes clear that not all the debts will be repaid, then - one way or another - the value of savings need to be diminished. That can either be done via inflation, socialization, or the collapse of the banking system. (Guaranteeing all the deposits is just one of the forms of socialization.)
Value is a tricky word. The crisis itself was deflationary, so it's possible that people could have taken a nominal haircut on their savings without the value of those savings being affected.
One person's savings is another's debt.

When you save you are deferring consumption, by sending the fruits of your labor to someone else who is promising to deliver you the fruits of his labor in the future. All a bank is is a very thin sliver of equity between those two people.

And if that guy is unable to deliver the fruits of his labor in the future, then it is said saver who is on the hook.
Sure, but a financial crisis doesn't change the demographics, it doesn't destroy machinery and it doesn't render anyone infirm.

When assets get mispriced, you need to allow the deck to be reshuffled and for people who made bad bets to pay the price (and I include making deposits in a risky bank as a bad bet).
All of this academic commentary assumes that depositors are playing “capitalism”. In their eyes, they are not. They are just putting their hard-earned savings in what they think is a safe place for later use.
Up to a point. If someone makes a decision to put their money in an Icelandic savings account offering a higher rate of interest, they should be conscious that they are taking on additional risk.
Iceland handled the crisis very well indeed.

They didn't try to "save" their banks and allowed them to fail, implementing the deposit protection schemes.

Those who were protected, got their protections, up to pre-existing limits.

Those who were not, faced a haircut, as they should.

Creditors faced a haircut, as they should.

The taxpayer did not get an open-ended obligation.
As I recall, Iceland had the advantage that it was UK depositors who funded their banks not Icelandic ones. The Icelandic banks effectively let their UK subsidiaries fail, pushing the cost onto the UK taxpayer.
The UK taxpayer had no legal obligation to protect Icelandic deposits.
You're missing the point again.
Robert's comment nothing to do with 'legal obligation', rather that Iceland didn't have to worry about that part of the downstream consequences of letting their banks go under.

That was the UK's problem, whether ur not we decided to protect the deposits.

You were arguing that Iceland was proof we could have done the same. Quite clearly the consequences for us would have been very different.
We absolutely could have done the same.

Iceland honoured their legal obligations and let anyone who wasn't legally protected face the consequences.

We chose not to.

That was a political choice, not an economic necessity.

Iceland did have to worry about downstream consequences, but they worried about the ones they were legally obliged to do so, rather than protecting them all. We chose not to, but we had no reason why we couldn't have done the same as them.

Not all UK banks depositors were British citizens either, just like the Icelandic ones.
And saw unemployment soar in Iceland, its currency's value halve and its stock market effectively wiped out
Which was the medicine they needed to take to get over the crisis. Wiping out failed businesses sees unemployment rise, absolutely, but is better than keeping zombie firms alive unproductively.

They took a sharper hit during the crisis, as they let the crisis hit as it should rather than using taxpayers money to save failed, zombie firms.

As a result they've grown considerably better since then, than we have. They shed the deadweight and recovered and are growing well.

Had the UK allowed our failed businesses to fail we may have seen a deeper contraction originally, but we wouldn't then be struggling to keep alive moribund, failed businesses and throwing good taxpayers money after bad.

We might actually have some productivity growth now.
The banks and building societies themselves weren't outmoded businesses, what crashed Northern Rock, RBS, HBOS, Lehmans etc was lending far more than they held in capital and in particular giving loans to mortgage holders six or seven time their salary to buy homes when the absolute maximum should have been about 4 times. There was plenty of demand for their services

All banks lend more than they have in capital!

You lend the bank money when you deposit in your current account. They they lend it out to John Smith so he can borrow for a house,

If enough John Smiths fail to pay the bank back, then they will be unable to give you the money you deposited in your current account.

Cookie · June 30

eek said:

Selebian said:

Nigelb said:
Performative nonsense.

Supermarkets could be fined if they fail to hit new healthy eating targets
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-06-28/supermarkets-could-be-fined-if-they-fail-to-hit-new-healthy-eating-targets?s=09
Law of unintended consequences? What if fines make supermarkets in some more deprived/lower healthy eating locations less financially viable and so they close, leaving only the smaller convenience stores (exempt).

I'm also put in mind of my mum's shopping habits when we were kids and she was managing a tight budget. We ate healthy, if uninspiring food, but she got the vast majority of fruit and veg at the market and then used the supermarket for all the pre-made stuff - the supermarket basket would probably have scored pretty badly on health.

The idea is noble enough, but it would seem to make more sense to go for minimum pricing/more tax on 'bad' things, maybe combined with subsidies for fruit and veg.
Local markets selling fruit and veg really aren't a thing anymore but it's very likely that people shop around getting different products from different supermarkets. I know I buy particular things from Aldi, Sainsburys and Tesco

I don't know if this is universal - but our local greengrocers is around three times the price of supermarket fruit and veg. It's in no way artisan - it's a scruffy little shop - I just think the supermarkets run fruit and veg at a loss to get people in.

Eabhal · June 30

Morris_Dancer said:
Just reading the BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg5xzpmxzgo

"Offer shopping vouchers to customers in return for being active and eating healthily, via a new app"

Hm. I realise I'm an outlier when it comes to loathing mobiles and not having a smartphone, but normalising the state monitoring your diet and exercise regimes is not something I like the sound of.

They are just trying to replicate the successful insurance policies in the US which give you a lower premium if you are a healthy weight. I'd rather went went for £100 off income tax/uplift to UC payments than this though.

The other option is slap a tax on high calorie density food, but that has collateral damage compared with the simple one on drinks Osborne introduced.

OldKingCole · June 30

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Just reading the BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg5xzpmxzgo

"Offer shopping vouchers to customers in return for being active and eating healthily, via a new app"

Hm. I realise I'm an outlier when it comes to loathing mobiles and not having a smartphone, but normalising the state monitoring your diet and exercise regimes is not something I like the sound of.
Isn't that little different from the Vitality Health app which gave discounts for doing monitored exercise
Vitality was quite cleverly targeted - a system of earning points. Exercise was just a part of it - first was cheap sports equipment and memberships. Then exercise to get points. Getting a good result on a physical exam - BMI, blood pressure etc got you lots of points.

I know someone who uses Vitality. Because his mother died of MND life insurance is very difficult.

eek · June 30

Cookie said:

eek said:

Selebian said:

Nigelb said:
Performative nonsense.

Supermarkets could be fined if they fail to hit new healthy eating targets
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-06-28/supermarkets-could-be-fined-if-they-fail-to-hit-new-healthy-eating-targets?s=09
Law of unintended consequences? What if fines make supermarkets in some more deprived/lower healthy eating locations less financially viable and so they close, leaving only the smaller convenience stores (exempt).

I'm also put in mind of my mum's shopping habits when we were kids and she was managing a tight budget. We ate healthy, if uninspiring food, but she got the vast majority of fruit and veg at the market and then used the supermarket for all the pre-made stuff - the supermarket basket would probably have scored pretty badly on health.

The idea is noble enough, but it would seem to make more sense to go for minimum pricing/more tax on 'bad' things, maybe combined with subsidies for fruit and veg.
Local markets selling fruit and veg really aren't a thing anymore but it's very likely that people shop around getting different products from different supermarkets. I know I buy particular things from Aldi, Sainsburys and Tesco
I don't know if this is universal - but our local greengrocers is around three times the price of supermarket fruit and veg. It's in no way artisan - it's a scruffy little shop - I just think the supermarkets run fruit and veg at a loss to get people in.

oh they do. I'm actually struggling to think if we still have a fruit and veg stall in town, there is probably 1 in the market but I've not entered that place in a decade.. The one in the village has gone as has the two shops in town...

There is a man who has had a fruit and veg fan for decades but his timing is a bit inconsistent (which is awkward when I work from home and are in a call) and I'm always frightened that this week will be his last week as he is 75..

The Life of Nigel – politicalbetting.com

Comments