Given he starts 19th this might sound daft, and it might be. But he's scored from 16th, 13th, and 20th in recent races.
Hi Morris Dancer, Son No1 and his girlfriend are having an amazing long weekend at Silverstone, they also ended up really enjoying the Fat Boy Slim concert last night before the big race today. I had never watched an F1 GP race before I met Fitaloon, but I quickly became a fan of the sport afterwards through him. We watched the Damon Hill documentary last night and I highly recommend it, the 1993/94 F1 seasons were the first time I managed to get to watch them all live along with Fitaloon which made this documentary all the more poignant because at the time I was busy having Sons No1 and 2. Previously my weekend shift work as a nurse meant I rarely got to watch most of the races live during the Ayrton Senna/Nigel Mansell era.
I saw Mansell twice at Silverstone. First time in '83 when he came fourth to Prost in the Lotus. And later in his dominant championship year when the Williams drove into the distance.
'83 was absolutely sweltering, the traffic was indescribable, and the atmosphere amazing.
I went to Silverstone once. Must have been early/mid 90s
I don't remember the year. I don't remember who won.
My abiding memory is how much better it was on TV than live...
The same is true of the Calcutta Cup match at Murrayfield. In the pub with a pint beats the stadium, every time.
Any sport is better watched at home where you see far more of the game, especially with modern multi-camera set-ups. What you get at the ground is atmosphere and the feeling that you too are part of unfolding events, a small footnote in history. I was there!
Football, rugby, athletics are definitely better at the venue. Golf, cycling and F1 better on TV. Tennis not much difference. Cricket depends on preference for giant beer garden vs following the minutiae.
And there is the other advantage of TV
Today I can see the F1
And the test match
And Wimbledon
And the Tour de France
And the Womens' Euros
In person I could see a very tiny part of 1 of them instead
Attendees of the test match today are certainly likely see a very tiny part of the event.
Labour 's pre- election absurdity of essentially saying "no new taxes on working people" has come back to bite them.
Last week's word cloud on here where the only words visible were "Winter Fuel Allowance" demonstrate they can't go for the oldsters, and the utter catastrophe of a Labour Government appearing to take money off the most vulnerable in society looked disgusting. Selling a carefully crafted and focused package to stem the burgeoning welfare bill could have worked by politicians less inept than Starmer, Kendall and Reeves. We can't afford to put everyone on PIP if they occasionally feel sad.
You're not wrong of course.
The problem was coming into office (and there would have been discussions with senior civil servants in advance), it was clear everything that needed to be done couldn't be done on day one. Most would need complex legislation and take time to have an impact.
Labour thought they needed to hit the ground running and instead they just hit the ground. In truth, the theory of taking winter fuel allowance away from wealthy pensioners wasn't a bad one but the way the policy was presented was about as bad as it could have been. Had Reeves said, for example, we'll take WFA away from higher rate taxpayers, yes, there'd have been grumbling particularly from those at the cliff edge of the thresholds but overall that would have been muted and probably forgotten.
The big problem remains "the small boats" for which Starmer, like Badenoch and Farage, has no coherent, practical or affordable solution.
Two excellent posts today from Mr S. Surely the Labour top brass (and the backroom policy wonks) must have felt that victory was at least possible by Christmas 2023 ..... and certainly by Easter 2024. We rather got the impression that the mindset was 'OMG we've won; what do we do now!"
Rather like Reform in the County Councils now.
If the LibDems had been in that position one could have understood it.
I do not think that is correct. For a start, some Labour ministers did hit the ground running. Many might disagree with what Ed Miliband and Bridget Phillipson have done but the point is, they've done it. Likewise Angela Rayner. ETA and Wes Streeting.
Where there has been a gaping hole is in economic policy, partly because of waiting for the OBR as posted earlier, but also because Reeves and Starmer are technocrats, apparently under the impression that Treasury civil servants already had a map pointing our way to the sunlit uplands but had been blocked by evil Tories for ideological reasons.
There is also, and the Conservatives are the same here, no guiding principle. Just as Kemi cannot say what is the point of the Conservative Party, so Starmer is silent on what Labour is for.
Labour has a gaping hole in economic policy because it (esp backbenchers) has no understanding of or interest in economics.
It is the 'give away be nice cus that makes me feel good party'.
It rather does because Starmer ran scared because Starmer ran scared of Sunak's economically illiterate politicking about Miliband's original growth plan, I would say instead.
As soon as Sunak started the rhetoric about his green investment and growth plan equating to "Labour irresponsibility", it was first heavily cut back, and then ditched. This was Labour's central economic and policy error so far, and they still have time to rethink on it.
Miliband as Chancellor would be fascinating. A proper - and coherent - roll of the dice on growth.
I'd be concerned for the blood pressure of most of Facebook and some PB posters though.
Given he starts 19th this might sound daft, and it might be. But he's scored from 16th, 13th, and 20th in recent races.
Hi Morris Dancer, Son No1 and his girlfriend are having an amazing long weekend at Silverstone, they also ended up really enjoying the Fat Boy Slim concert last night before the big race today. I had never watched an F1 GP race before I met Fitaloon, but I quickly became a fan of the sport afterwards through him. We watched the Damon Hill documentary last night and I highly recommend it, the 1993/94 F1 seasons were the first time I managed to get to watch them all live along with Fitaloon which made this documentary all the more poignant because at the time I was busy having Sons No1 and 2. Previously my weekend shift work as a nurse meant I rarely got to watch most of the races live during the Ayrton Senna/Nigel Mansell era.
I saw Mansell twice at Silverstone. First time in '83 when he came fourth to Prost in the Lotus. And later in his dominant championship year when the Williams drove into the distance.
'83 was absolutely sweltering, the traffic was indescribable, and the atmosphere amazing.
I went to Silverstone once. Must have been early/mid 90s
I don't remember the year. I don't remember who won.
My abiding memory is how much better it was on TV than live...
The same is true of the Calcutta Cup match at Murrayfield. In the pub with a pint beats the stadium, every time.
Any sport is better watched at home where you see far more of the game, especially with modern multi-camera set-ups. What you get at the ground is atmosphere and the feeling that you too are part of unfolding events, a small footnote in history. I was there!
Football, rugby, athletics are definitely better at the venue. Golf, cycling and F1 better on TV. Tennis not much difference. Cricket depends on preference for giant beer garden vs following the minutiae.
Cycling is better in person in the sense that you can ride along the course in advance of the race, do some of the climbs traffic free and take part in what is essentially a legitimate critical mass.
You can always watch the coverage afterwards.
I miss the Tour de Yorkshire. No way would I contemplate riding up Sutton Bank if it was open to traffic...
If I tried to ride some of the TdF climbs I fear I would end up cycling downhill backwards......
More risk of that in Yorkshire, I'd say. Most TdF climbs in the Alps are steady gradients which you could toddle up in a granny gear as long you've got all day.
On the other hand, a 33% chain snapper in the North Yorks Moors has a definite risk of stalling.
My picture of the day: Cav not having fun in the Dales
The u-turn on winter fuel allowance was a huge mistake.
It sent a message that (a) the government would give way when pressured, and, (b) the government wasn't so desperate for money that it couldn't find it elsewhere. And that encouraged the rebels on PIP cuts.
Who needs bond markets when the Bank of England can just create money out of thin air?
Or Quantitative Easing, as people trying to give the impression of cleverness call it.
If you take that too far people selling imports to Britain will want to be paid in a proper currency like dollars or euros and the value of Sterling will collapse.
The u-turn on winter fuel allowance was a huge mistake.
It sent a message that (a) the government would give way when pressured, and, (b) the government wasn't so desperate for money that it couldn't find it elsewhere. And that encouraged the rebels on PIP cuts.
Last thread was a hoot, cannot wait to hear more from "THE FALCON" when he awakens from his stupour.
And verily, See that His Sublime Grace LEONDAMUS, Lord Paramount of Camden, Warden of the Primrose Hill Borders, Commander of the Mighty Herd, He Who Rides The Unbridled Thunder, Surveyor of the PB Wastes and Whisperer to Kings, the Master known as Al-Saqr to the Desert Arabs, as Shahin to the Dusky Persians, and as THE FALCON to us all…
is awake. And maybe having a coffee
The Falcon of course has a dark history in politics. After the socialist revolution was overthrown in Argentina, left wingers were rounded up in green Falcons by the junta to be taken to meet their maker.
Oh the falcon, is a pretty bird, It wanders as it flies, We ask it easy questions, It tells us easy lies.
Phillipson is a bit crabby and tetchy on LauraK this morning.
Pressure. Pushing down on me.
I'm not a fan, but she seems to be doing very well to me. Not sure she is saying anything but very calm, quick speaking, not a single 'um', corrected a mis-speak very quickly. Really good at thinking on her feet.
She is a good speaker other than it is far too fast.
The BBC national treasure Laura Kuennsberg hates all Labour scumbags, she'll get the better of her by hook or by crook.
And why has Kuennsberg added the half-witted Paddy O'Connell to her already unlistenable and moronic podcast?
Paddy O'Connell can be colourful and imaginative at times, I think, although not always the most probing interviewer.
I think he's dreadful, but he pops up everywhere. Broadcasting House on his watch is unlistenable and over the years he has popped up presenting anything and everything from Newsnight, Steve Wright in the Afternoon, Jeremy Vine on R2, Today, WATO, PM.
I suppose he may be sh*te but his politics are more in keeping with BBC values than, Lineker, Vorderman, Maitlis, Sopel or Goodall.
He's mediocre (though can very occasionally rise to being good). The whimsy is irritating - and very occasionally works.
The u-turn on winter fuel allowance was a huge mistake.
It sent a message that (a) the government would give way when pressured, and, (b) the government wasn't so desperate for money that it couldn't find it elsewhere. And that encouraged the rebels on PIP cuts.
But the government is desperate for money.
It is all very silly.
Taxpayers giving winter fuel payments to millionaires purely because of their age is silly. Getting rid of it didn't raise enough money to make enough of a difference to show a benefit elsewhere (i.e. new hospitals or whatever). No political groundwork was laid for the change. Once the initial public reaction was out, that was the time for a quick u-turn within a week of the budget to 20-25k instead of either 12k or 35k thresholds. The new threshold will now be too high again at 35k.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Last thread was a hoot, cannot wait to hear more from "THE FALCON" when he awakens from his stupour.
And verily, See that His Sublime Grace LEONDAMUS, Lord Paramount of Camden, Warden of the Primrose Hill Borders, Commander of the Mighty Herd, He Who Rides The Unbridled Thunder, Surveyor of the PB Wastes and Whisperer to Kings, the Master known as Al-Saqr to the Desert Arabs, as Shahin to the Dusky Persians, and as THE FALCON to us all…
is awake. And maybe having a coffee
If you need a sidekick, I'm always happy to play The Tit
You do yourself down. Try calling yourself "The Merlin". Our smallest hawk. But damn it, good enough to power the Spitfire...
Also the Bolton Paul Defiant; armament pointing backwards, disastrous in the daytime once the enemy knew what was up and reduced to lurking in the night hoping to bag a prize. And a load of useless to mediocre Faireys.
Merlin engines also powered America's best fighter, the Mustang, which gave the allies aerial superiority then supremacy over Europe. The Mustang's original engines had been no good but the Merlin fixed that. One of the key features of the war was allied cooperation and cross-fertilisation in arms development and manufacture. The axis powers never had that.
The Allison V-1710 was actually more powerful than the Merlin. Up to 15,000 feet Mustangs equipped with it were actually a bit faster.
Above 15k, the issue was the supercharger. The design of the Mustang hadn’t included a turbocharger, mostly for cost/simplicity reasons. The USAF preferred turbochargers for high altitude work.
So the Alison was left with a single stage supercharger in the Mustang. Hence the change to the Merlin with a two stage supercharger.
IIRC the RAF used Alison engines Mustangs until the end of the war, for low level ground attack.
The engineering development of performance piston engines during WWII, with the available technology of the 40s, was actually pretty amazing.
The term 'vibes-driven' is frequently used, usually in reference to more charismatic politicians like Johnson and Farage, but I think it applies to Starmer as well.
Prior to the election he and Reeves succeeded in presenting the image of competent administrators who can actually get things done. A year into government it seems that there doesn't seem to have been a plan. It is almost as though they genuinely believed that they would succeed simply by virtue of not being the Conservatives. Perhaps Sue Gray had a plan, but her career-long habit seems to have been not to write anything down, lest it be subject to FOI, so we shall probably never know.
There are two notable exceptions, where the government seems to know what it it is doing: Wes Streeting has a plan for the NHS (I think this will pay off by the next election; it may already be moving in the right direction) and Ed Miliband seems to be getting done exactly what he wants in energy (I am less sure this will pay off, but he seems so messianically sure of himself that I feel there must be something to it). Both of these are plans that I think were broadly outlined before the election unlike the recent attempt at welfare reform.
On central economic policy, it really was just 'vibes'. Sorry, I don't have it with me, Liz Truss ate my homework. But if they aren't going to raise any of the taxes that actually bring in revenue, they will have to cut spending. Saying 'growth' three times while clicking your heels together doesn't work.
I think they did have a plan - it was a political plan, consisting of a harsh phase entering Government, taking 'tough decisions', followed by pork barrel politics before the next election. It was a Gordon Brown sort of plan. There are a number of reasons why the plan has failed politically: 1. The economy is too delicate to withstand play acting of this nature. Reeves and Starmer's talking down of the fiscal and economic situation did genuine harm to it. 2. Their selected performative 'tough decisions' went badly. Particularly the WFA, but also the Farms Tax. 3. They weren't actually being 'tough' - caving in to the train drivers but complaining about the black hole hasn't made sense. 4. A combination of economical alarm, and political pressure has led to an immediate reversal, so they have had to fast forward the 'we can spend this because of our tough decisions'
In relation to number 3, a far bigger and braver version of this strategy would have been to actually stick to Tory spending plans like in 1997. Actually try and take £50bn off welfare or however much it was.
Gave that a like, despite the last paragraph, which is simple fantasy..
Given he starts 19th this might sound daft, and it might be. But he's scored from 16th, 13th, and 20th in recent races.
Hi Morris Dancer, Son No1 and his girlfriend are having an amazing long weekend at Silverstone, they also ended up really enjoying the Fat Boy Slim concert last night before the big race today. I had never watched an F1 GP race before I met Fitaloon, but I quickly became a fan of the sport afterwards through him. We watched the Damon Hill documentary last night and I highly recommend it, the 1993/94 F1 seasons were the first time I managed to get to watch them all live along with Fitaloon which made this documentary all the more poignant because at the time I was busy having Sons No1 and 2. Previously my weekend shift work as a nurse meant I rarely got to watch most of the races live during the Ayrton Senna/Nigel Mansell era.
I saw Mansell twice at Silverstone. First time in '83 when he came fourth to Prost in the Lotus. And later in his dominant championship year when the Williams drove into the distance.
'83 was absolutely sweltering, the traffic was indescribable, and the atmosphere amazing.
I went to Silverstone once. Must have been early/mid 90s
I don't remember the year. I don't remember who won.
My abiding memory is how much better it was on TV than live...
The same is true of the Calcutta Cup match at Murrayfield. In the pub with a pint beats the stadium, every time.
Any sport is better watched at home where you see far more of the game, especially with modern multi-camera set-ups. What you get at the ground is atmosphere and the feeling that you too are part of unfolding events, a small footnote in history. I was there!
Football, rugby, athletics are definitely better at the venue. Golf, cycling and F1 better on TV. Tennis not much difference. Cricket depends on preference for giant beer garden vs following the minutiae.
Cycling is better in person in the sense that you can ride along the course in advance of the race, do some of the climbs traffic free and take part in what is essentially a legitimate critical mass.
You can always watch the coverage afterwards.
I miss the Tour de Yorkshire. No way would I contemplate riding up Sutton Bank if it was open to traffic...
If I tried to ride some of the TdF climbs I fear I would end up cycling downhill backwards......
More risk of that in Yorkshire, I'd say. Most TdF climbs in the Alps are steady gradients which you could toddle up in a granny gear as long you've got all day.
On the other hand, a 33% chain snapper in the North Yorks Moors has a definite risk of stalling.
Most of your Alpine climbs are so long (Galibier, Madeleine, de la Loze, d'Huez) that your average civilian is going to gas out no matter how low their gearing is.
I think I've done almost all of the European monsters over the years and Angliru in the Asturian Pyrenees is the stand out for suffering. It's very steep, quite long, it's always as hot as balls and the road surface is absolutely shit and covered in gravel from landslides.
Generally, >35% is where you start to see hardware failures, assuming you can put down enough torque to keep moving but it's drive side spokes not chains that give up first.
Laura Kuensberg can be quirkily surprising at times, but she does seem to have an issue at others with not being questioning or critical enough with government press releases.
She's essentially an access journalist, and a pretty uncritical rehearser of what she's been told.
On topic, TSE says: "Labour’s problem is self inflicted, for fourteen years Labour kept on saying austerity was a choice, this week’s vote was when those chickens came home to roost."
The thing about this is, it *was* a choice. The economy was understimulated, you kind of could print money and spend it and nothing bad would happen, there would just be more useful work happening in the economy. Now there's inflation, and any money you spend on one thing has to come from somewhere else.
The problem here is that political messages have a time lag on reality ranging from 5 to 40 years. This is why Osborne applied the lessons from the 1970s and early 1980s to post-Lehman-shock Britain, and it's also why Starmer is now lumbered with a party full of people who don't realize that if you spend money on one thing you can't spend it on another thing.
Laura Kuensberg can be quirkily surprising at times, but she does seem to have an issue at others with not being questioning or critical enough with government press releases.
She's essentially an access journalist, and a pretty uncritical rehearser of what she's been told.
Comes across as if her journalistic training consisted of watching House of Cards.
Labour 's pre- election absurdity of essentially saying "no new taxes on working people" has come back to bite them.
Last week's word cloud on here where the only words visible were "Winter Fuel Allowance" demonstrate they can't go for the oldsters, and the utter catastrophe of a Labour Government appearing to take money off the most vulnerable in society looked disgusting. Selling a carefully crafted and focused package to stem the burgeoning welfare bill could have worked by politicians less inept than Starmer, Kendall and Reeves. We can't afford to put everyone on PIP if they occasionally feel sad.
You're not wrong of course.
The problem was coming into office (and there would have been discussions with senior civil servants in advance), it was clear everything that needed to be done couldn't be done on day one. Most would need complex legislation and take time to have an impact.
Labour thought they needed to hit the ground running and instead they just hit the ground. In truth, the theory of taking winter fuel allowance away from wealthy pensioners wasn't a bad one but the way the policy was presented was about as bad as it could have been. Had Reeves said, for example, we'll take WFA away from higher rate taxpayers, yes, there'd have been grumbling particularly from those at the cliff edge of the thresholds but overall that would have been muted and probably forgotten.
The big problem remains "the small boats" for which Starmer, like Badenoch and Farage, has no coherent, practical or affordable solution.
Labour 's pre- election absurdity of essentially saying "no new taxes on working people" has come back to bite them.
Last week's word cloud on here where the only words visible were "Winter Fuel Allowance" demonstrate they can't go for the oldsters, and the utter catastrophe of a Labour Government appearing to take money off the most vulnerable in society looked disgusting. Selling a carefully crafted and focused package to stem the burgeoning welfare bill could have worked by politicians less inept than Starmer, Kendall and Reeves. We can't afford to put everyone on PIP if they occasionally feel sad.
You're not wrong of course.
The problem was coming into office (and there would have been discussions with senior civil servants in advance), it was clear everything that needed to be done couldn't be done on day one. Most would need complex legislation and take time to have an impact.
Labour thought they needed to hit the ground running and instead they just hit the ground. In truth, the theory of taking winter fuel allowance away from wealthy pensioners wasn't a bad one but the way the policy was presented was about as bad as it could have been. Had Reeves said, for example, we'll take WFA away from higher rate taxpayers, yes, there'd have been grumbling particularly from those at the cliff edge of the thresholds but overall that would have been muted and probably forgotten.
The big problem remains "the small boats" for which Starmer, like Badenoch and Farage, has no coherent, practical or affordable solution.
Yes, small boats is the key. A pretty odd key mind you.
On topic, TSE says: "Labour’s problem is self inflicted, for fourteen years Labour kept on saying austerity was a choice, this week’s vote was when those chickens came home to roost."
The thing about this is, it *was* a choice. The economy was understimulated, you kind of could print money and spend it and nothing bad would happen, there would just be more useful work happening in the economy. Now there's inflation, and any money you spend on one thing has to come from somewhere else.
The problem here is that political messages have a time lag on reality ranging from 5 to 40 years. This is why Osborne applied the lessons from the 1970s and early 1980s to post-Lehman-shock Britain, and it's also why Starmer is now lumbered with a party full of people who don't realize that if you spend money on one thing you can't spend it on another thing.
Politicians being younger nowadays, this side of the pond at least, a problem for that. Some older heads in the cabinet would have been through more economic cycles and would be less tied to whatever the politics and policies of their youth happened to be.
Interesting that Rupert Lowe leapt to McMurdocks defence last night calling him a friend etc and insinuating its 'another' Inside hit job, presumably pointing without words at Zia Yusuf. Anderson and Pochin should maybe watch their backs
Edit - and obviously I mean the leak is the inside job, clearly there are questions to be answered etc
The problem (well, at least one of the problems), that Starmer has is that those who are now being disparaged as Liz Truss's are simply repeating the party line that was held all the way through a political campaign that, even by modern standards, was completely dishonest and delusional.
We do not have unlimited room for manoeuvre. We are totally dependent on the bond market to fund current spending. We are continuously increasing already unsustainable levels of debt. We simply cannot hope to grow our way out of this. We are not alone.
The last point is important. When the inevitable sovereign debt crisis bites it won't just bite us. The whole of western Europe (Germany is in a much better position but far from safe) and the US will be torn apart by a hungry rottweiler and external demand will collapse at the same time as our domestic demand. Even over borrowed China will not be immune. It is going to make 2008 look like a gentle zephyr on a summer's day. We can't avoid this, it is too late. But we can start to batten down the hatches so it is mildly less painful.
This sort of thing, which once would have been quite breathtaking, has now become routine.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/05/texas-flood-recovery-dozens-dead-children-missing ..The afternoon news conference began with a series of long, self-congratulatory statements and praise for Trump from Republican officials, including Abbott, the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, senator John Cornyn and representative Chip Roy. It was only after reporters pressed them for details on the rescue and recovery effort that they provided an update on the missing and the dead...
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
I know. Looking pretty bleak for the US. I am often struggling to see how they get out of this with anything resembling a functioning democratic republic.
The term 'vibes-driven' is frequently used, usually in reference to more charismatic politicians like Johnson and Farage, but I think it applies to Starmer as well.
Prior to the election he and Reeves succeeded in presenting the image of competent administrators who can actually get things done. A year into government it seems that there doesn't seem to have been a plan. It is almost as though they genuinely believed that they would succeed simply by virtue of not being the Conservatives. Perhaps Sue Gray had a plan, but her career-long habit seems to have been not to write anything down, lest it be subject to FOI, so we shall probably never know.
There are two notable exceptions, where the government seems to know what it it is doing: Wes Streeting has a plan for the NHS (I think this will pay off by the next election; it may already be moving in the right direction) and Ed Miliband seems to be getting done exactly what he wants in energy (I am less sure this will pay off, but he seems so messianically sure of himself that I feel there must be something to it). Both of these are plans that I think were broadly outlined before the election unlike the recent attempt at welfare reform.
On central economic policy, it really was just 'vibes'. Sorry, I don't have it with me, Liz Truss ate my homework. But if they aren't going to raise any of the taxes that actually bring in revenue, they will have to cut spending. Saying 'growth' three times while clicking your heels together doesn't work.
I think they did have a plan - it was a political plan, consisting of a harsh phase entering Government, taking 'tough decisions', followed by pork barrel politics before the next election. It was a Gordon Brown sort of plan. There are a number of reasons why the plan has failed politically: 1. The economy is too delicate to withstand play acting of this nature. Reeves and Starmer's talking down of the fiscal and economic situation did genuine harm to it. 2. Their selected performative 'tough decisions' went badly. Particularly the WFA, but also the Farms Tax. 3. They weren't actually being 'tough' - caving in to the train drivers but complaining about the black hole hasn't made sense. 4. A combination of economical alarm, and political pressure has led to an immediate reversal, so they have had to fast forward the 'we can spend this because of our tough decisions'
In relation to number 3, a far bigger and braver version of this strategy would have been to actually stick to Tory spending plans like in 1997. Actually try and take £50bn off welfare or however much it was.
Gave that a like, despite the last paragraph, which is simple fantasy..
It would still have only taken welfare spending down to pre-covid levels.
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
It's so blindingly obvious that over the next few decades a large proportion of the jobs people do now won't need to be done by humans any more. Perhaps people assume that other jobs that do need to be done by humans will materialise to replace them, just because that's what happened in earlier phases of mechanisation. I don't think there's really any reason to think that will happen, apart from wishful thinking.
The really frightening thing is that no politician on earth seems to be talking about this or trying to work out how to deal with it.
But perhaps this government's dilemma just reflects the next stage of the transfer of power from national governments to multinational business.
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
I know. Looking pretty bleak for the US. I am often struggling to see how they get out of this with anything resembling a functioning democratic republic.
It might take another civil war to get there
A more optimistic take is that the cult of Trump collapses under its own contradictions
Labour 's pre- election absurdity of essentially saying "no new taxes on working people" has come back to bite them.
Last week's word cloud on here where the only words visible were "Winter Fuel Allowance" demonstrate they can't go for the oldsters, and the utter catastrophe of a Labour Government appearing to take money off the most vulnerable in society looked disgusting. Selling a carefully crafted and focused package to stem the burgeoning welfare bill could have worked by politicians less inept than Starmer, Kendall and Reeves. We can't afford to put everyone on PIP if they occasionally feel sad.
You're not wrong of course.
The problem was coming into office (and there would have been discussions with senior civil servants in advance), it was clear everything that needed to be done couldn't be done on day one. Most would need complex legislation and take time to have an impact.
Labour thought they needed to hit the ground running and instead they just hit the ground. In truth, the theory of taking winter fuel allowance away from wealthy pensioners wasn't a bad one but the way the policy was presented was about as bad as it could have been. Had Reeves said, for example, we'll take WFA away from higher rate taxpayers, yes, there'd have been grumbling particularly from those at the cliff edge of the thresholds but overall that would have been muted and probably forgotten.
The big problem remains "the small boats" for which Starmer, like Badenoch and Farage, has no coherent, practical or affordable solution.
Labour 's pre- election absurdity of essentially saying "no new taxes on working people" has come back to bite them.
Last week's word cloud on here where the only words visible were "Winter Fuel Allowance" demonstrate they can't go for the oldsters, and the utter catastrophe of a Labour Government appearing to take money off the most vulnerable in society looked disgusting. Selling a carefully crafted and focused package to stem the burgeoning welfare bill could have worked by politicians less inept than Starmer, Kendall and Reeves. We can't afford to put everyone on PIP if they occasionally feel sad.
You're not wrong of course.
The problem was coming into office (and there would have been discussions with senior civil servants in advance), it was clear everything that needed to be done couldn't be done on day one. Most would need complex legislation and take time to have an impact.
Labour thought they needed to hit the ground running and instead they just hit the ground. In truth, the theory of taking winter fuel allowance away from wealthy pensioners wasn't a bad one but the way the policy was presented was about as bad as it could have been. Had Reeves said, for example, we'll take WFA away from higher rate taxpayers, yes, there'd have been grumbling particularly from those at the cliff edge of the thresholds but overall that would have been muted and probably forgotten.
The big problem remains "the small boats" for which Starmer, like Badenoch and Farage, has no coherent, practical or affordable solution.
Yes, small boats is the key. A pretty odd key mind you.
Amazing that people still believe that transparent political gimmick is a key issue.
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
I know. Looking pretty bleak for the US. I am often struggling to see how they get out of this with anything resembling a functioning democratic republic.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea wants a word.
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
In (relatively) positive news, it's raining at Edgbaston and although it's expected to be dry before lunch, there's a good chance of quite a lot after, according to the BBC.
The term 'vibes-driven' is frequently used, usually in reference to more charismatic politicians like Johnson and Farage, but I think it applies to Starmer as well.
Prior to the election he and Reeves succeeded in presenting the image of competent administrators who can actually get things done. A year into government it seems that there doesn't seem to have been a plan. It is almost as though they genuinely believed that they would succeed simply by virtue of not being the Conservatives. Perhaps Sue Gray had a plan, but her career-long habit seems to have been not to write anything down, lest it be subject to FOI, so we shall probably never know.
There are two notable exceptions, where the government seems to know what it it is doing: Wes Streeting has a plan for the NHS (I think this will pay off by the next election; it may already be moving in the right direction) and Ed Miliband seems to be getting done exactly what he wants in energy (I am less sure this will pay off, but he seems so messianically sure of himself that I feel there must be something to it). Both of these are plans that I think were broadly outlined before the election unlike the recent attempt at welfare reform.
On central economic policy, it really was just 'vibes'. Sorry, I don't have it with me, Liz Truss ate my homework. But if they aren't going to raise any of the taxes that actually bring in revenue, they will have to cut spending. Saying 'growth' three times while clicking your heels together doesn't work.
I think they did have a plan - it was a political plan, consisting of a harsh phase entering Government, taking 'tough decisions', followed by pork barrel politics before the next election. It was a Gordon Brown sort of plan. There are a number of reasons why the plan has failed politically: 1. The economy is too delicate to withstand play acting of this nature. Reeves and Starmer's talking down of the fiscal and economic situation did genuine harm to it. 2. Their selected performative 'tough decisions' went badly. Particularly the WFA, but also the Farms Tax. 3. They weren't actually being 'tough' - caving in to the train drivers but complaining about the black hole hasn't made sense. 4. A combination of economical alarm, and political pressure has led to an immediate reversal, so they have had to fast forward the 'we can spend this because of our tough decisions'
In relation to number 3, a far bigger and braver version of this strategy would have been to actually stick to Tory spending plans like in 1997. Actually try and take £50bn off welfare or however much it was.
Gave that a like, despite the last paragraph, which is simple fantasy..
It would still have only taken welfare spending down to pre-covid levels.
Not even half realistic for an incoming Labour government, though. Their real task (which so far they are failing), was to get the growth in welfare spending under control, while bringing in sufficient tax rises to move the dial, without cratering economic growth. Over time, there's a chance that might have succeeded.
It would have been a very hard task, but they've already ducked several options in that direction.
Swingeing welfare cuts are, as we've seen, politically impossible for this government. Absent some external intervention like the IMF.
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this Sky News report from Tehran. Obviously if you want to take the temperature in Iran you speak to Shia fundamentalists and government officials. No mention of the widespread hatred that exists towards the mullahs.
The term 'vibes-driven' is frequently used, usually in reference to more charismatic politicians like Johnson and Farage, but I think it applies to Starmer as well.
Prior to the election he and Reeves succeeded in presenting the image of competent administrators who can actually get things done. A year into government it seems that there doesn't seem to have been a plan. It is almost as though they genuinely believed that they would succeed simply by virtue of not being the Conservatives. Perhaps Sue Gray had a plan, but her career-long habit seems to have been not to write anything down, lest it be subject to FOI, so we shall probably never know.
There are two notable exceptions, where the government seems to know what it it is doing: Wes Streeting has a plan for the NHS (I think this will pay off by the next election; it may already be moving in the right direction) and Ed Miliband seems to be getting done exactly what he wants in energy (I am less sure this will pay off, but he seems so messianically sure of himself that I feel there must be something to it). Both of these are plans that I think were broadly outlined before the election unlike the recent attempt at welfare reform.
On central economic policy, it really was just 'vibes'. Sorry, I don't have it with me, Liz Truss ate my homework. But if they aren't going to raise any of the taxes that actually bring in revenue, they will have to cut spending. Saying 'growth' three times while clicking your heels together doesn't work.
I think they did have a plan - it was a political plan, consisting of a harsh phase entering Government, taking 'tough decisions', followed by pork barrel politics before the next election. It was a Gordon Brown sort of plan. There are a number of reasons why the plan has failed politically: 1. The economy is too delicate to withstand play acting of this nature. Reeves and Starmer's talking down of the fiscal and economic situation did genuine harm to it. 2. Their selected performative 'tough decisions' went badly. Particularly the WFA, but also the Farms Tax. 3. They weren't actually being 'tough' - caving in to the train drivers but complaining about the black hole hasn't made sense. 4. A combination of economical alarm, and political pressure has led to an immediate reversal, so they have had to fast forward the 'we can spend this because of our tough decisions'
In relation to number 3, a far bigger and braver version of this strategy would have been to actually stick to Tory spending plans like in 1997. Actually try and take £50bn off welfare or however much it was.
Gave that a like, despite the last paragraph, which is simple fantasy..
It would still have only taken welfare spending down to pre-covid levels.
Not even half realistic for an incoming Labour government, though. Their real task (which so far they are failing), was to get the growth in welfare spending under control, while bringing in sufficient tax rises to move the dial, without cratering economic growth. Over time, there's a chance that might have succeeded.
It would have been a very hard task, but they've already ducked several options in that direction.
Swingeing welfare cuts are, as we've seen, politically impossible for this government. Absent some external intervention like the IMF.
Welfare spending has to be considered carefully. How do you maintain spending which makes severely disabled people's lives better while stopping that which is 'wasted'?
37 years ago today since the Piper Alpha disaster. My Dad was working off shore in the North Sea at the time but he was away on a short holiday with my Mum and my sister and I were both at home house/cat and dog sitting for them. We had neither the radio or the TV on that day, but I always remember the phone started ringing as old friends of my Dad who didn't realise which rig he worked on or that he was on shore started phoning to check in with him and their relief when they discovered he was away on holiday. I think it was about the third random phonecall from an old friend of his when I said right what is going on and why is everyone suddenly phoning to check in on my Dad today.
I had moved from Aberdeen the year before to take up a nursing job in Edinburgh, but one of my best friends was on duty at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary when the news came in and the hospital went into emergency mode in preparation for a large amount of incoming casualties and she still talks about the utter shock and sadness that overwhelmed the staff on duty there that day when those casualties didn't materialise as the enormity of the tragedy unfolded.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
The term 'vibes-driven' is frequently used, usually in reference to more charismatic politicians like Johnson and Farage, but I think it applies to Starmer as well.
Prior to the election he and Reeves succeeded in presenting the image of competent administrators who can actually get things done. A year into government it seems that there doesn't seem to have been a plan. It is almost as though they genuinely believed that they would succeed simply by virtue of not being the Conservatives. Perhaps Sue Gray had a plan, but her career-long habit seems to have been not to write anything down, lest it be subject to FOI, so we shall probably never know.
There are two notable exceptions, where the government seems to know what it it is doing: Wes Streeting has a plan for the NHS (I think this will pay off by the next election; it may already be moving in the right direction) and Ed Miliband seems to be getting done exactly what he wants in energy (I am less sure this will pay off, but he seems so messianically sure of himself that I feel there must be something to it). Both of these are plans that I think were broadly outlined before the election unlike the recent attempt at welfare reform.
On central economic policy, it really was just 'vibes'. Sorry, I don't have it with me, Liz Truss ate my homework. But if they aren't going to raise any of the taxes that actually bring in revenue, they will have to cut spending. Saying 'growth' three times while clicking your heels together doesn't work.
I think they did have a plan - it was a political plan, consisting of a harsh phase entering Government, taking 'tough decisions', followed by pork barrel politics before the next election. It was a Gordon Brown sort of plan. There are a number of reasons why the plan has failed politically: 1. The economy is too delicate to withstand play acting of this nature. Reeves and Starmer's talking down of the fiscal and economic situation did genuine harm to it. 2. Their selected performative 'tough decisions' went badly. Particularly the WFA, but also the Farms Tax. 3. They weren't actually being 'tough' - caving in to the train drivers but complaining about the black hole hasn't made sense. 4. A combination of economical alarm, and political pressure has led to an immediate reversal, so they have had to fast forward the 'we can spend this because of our tough decisions'
In relation to number 3, a far bigger and braver version of this strategy would have been to actually stick to Tory spending plans like in 1997. Actually try and take £50bn off welfare or however much it was.
Gave that a like, despite the last paragraph, which is simple fantasy..
It would still have only taken welfare spending down to pre-covid levels.
Not even half realistic for an incoming Labour government, though. Their real task (which so far they are failing), was to get the growth in welfare spending under control, while bringing in sufficient tax rises to move the dial, without cratering economic growth. Over time, there's a chance that might have succeeded.
It would have been a very hard task, but they've already ducked several options in that direction.
Swingeing welfare cuts are, as we've seen, politically impossible for this government. Absent some external intervention like the IMF.
Welfare spending has to be considered carefully. How do you maintain spending which makes severely disabled people's lives better while stopping that which is 'wasted'?
Is the answer perhaps to outsource such decisions to a bureaucratic consultancy who will overcharge the government for very little effort? At least that way ministers are shielded a little from the individual decisions, and have another potential directorship to apply for once they are voted out.
Given he starts 19th this might sound daft, and it might be. But he's scored from 16th, 13th, and 20th in recent races.
Hi Morris Dancer, Son No1 and his girlfriend are having an amazing long weekend at Silverstone, they also ended up really enjoying the Fat Boy Slim concert last night before the big race today. I had never watched an F1 GP race before I met Fitaloon, but I quickly became a fan of the sport afterwards through him. We watched the Damon Hill documentary last night and I highly recommend it, the 1993/94 F1 seasons were the first time I managed to get to watch them all live along with Fitaloon which made this documentary all the more poignant because at the time I was busy having Sons No1 and 2. Previously my weekend shift work as a nurse meant I rarely got to watch most of the races live during the Ayrton Senna/Nigel Mansell era.
I saw Mansell twice at Silverstone. First time in '83 when he came fourth to Prost in the Lotus. And later in his dominant championship year when the Williams drove into the distance.
'83 was absolutely sweltering, the traffic was indescribable, and the atmosphere amazing.
I went to Silverstone once. Must have been early/mid 90s
I don't remember the year. I don't remember who won.
My abiding memory is how much better it was on TV than live...
The same is true of the Calcutta Cup match at Murrayfield. In the pub with a pint beats the stadium, every time.
Any sport is better watched at home where you see far more of the game, especially with modern multi-camera set-ups. What you get at the ground is atmosphere and the feeling that you too are part of unfolding events, a small footnote in history. I was there!
The two are so different. I was at the premiership semi when Bath beat Bristol. Best game at the rec in 20 years, sensational atmosphere. Watched the final on TV Nd while it was good to win, felt a bit flat. The atmosphere of live sport is why we go.
Who needs bond markets when the Bank of England can just create money out of thin air?
Or Quantitative Easing, as people trying to give the impression of cleverness call it.
A silly statement.
QE isn’t printing money that can be spent.
If you print money to spend, then you get into an inflationary spiral. Argentina has demonstrated this, most recently.
Hence borrowing money on the bond markets.
And despite what the Guardian said at the beginning of the Greek crisis, there is no human right that demands people lend you money at a low rate of interest.
The term 'vibes-driven' is frequently used, usually in reference to more charismatic politicians like Johnson and Farage, but I think it applies to Starmer as well.
Prior to the election he and Reeves succeeded in presenting the image of competent administrators who can actually get things done. A year into government it seems that there doesn't seem to have been a plan. It is almost as though they genuinely believed that they would succeed simply by virtue of not being the Conservatives. Perhaps Sue Gray had a plan, but her career-long habit seems to have been not to write anything down, lest it be subject to FOI, so we shall probably never know.
There are two notable exceptions, where the government seems to know what it it is doing: Wes Streeting has a plan for the NHS (I think this will pay off by the next election; it may already be moving in the right direction) and Ed Miliband seems to be getting done exactly what he wants in energy (I am less sure this will pay off, but he seems so messianically sure of himself that I feel there must be something to it). Both of these are plans that I think were broadly outlined before the election unlike the recent attempt at welfare reform.
On central economic policy, it really was just 'vibes'. Sorry, I don't have it with me, Liz Truss ate my homework. But if they aren't going to raise any of the taxes that actually bring in revenue, they will have to cut spending. Saying 'growth' three times while clicking your heels together doesn't work.
I think they did have a plan - it was a political plan, consisting of a harsh phase entering Government, taking 'tough decisions', followed by pork barrel politics before the next election. It was a Gordon Brown sort of plan. There are a number of reasons why the plan has failed politically: 1. The economy is too delicate to withstand play acting of this nature. Reeves and Starmer's talking down of the fiscal and economic situation did genuine harm to it. 2. Their selected performative 'tough decisions' went badly. Particularly the WFA, but also the Farms Tax. 3. They weren't actually being 'tough' - caving in to the train drivers but complaining about the black hole hasn't made sense. 4. A combination of economical alarm, and political pressure has led to an immediate reversal, so they have had to fast forward the 'we can spend this because of our tough decisions'
In relation to number 3, a far bigger and braver version of this strategy would have been to actually stick to Tory spending plans like in 1997. Actually try and take £50bn off welfare or however much it was.
Gave that a like, despite the last paragraph, which is simple fantasy..
It would still have only taken welfare spending down to pre-covid levels.
Not even half realistic for an incoming Labour government, though. Their real task (which so far they are failing), was to get the growth in welfare spending under control, while bringing in sufficient tax rises to move the dial, without cratering economic growth. Over time, there's a chance that might have succeeded.
It would have been a very hard task, but they've already ducked several options in that direction.
Swingeing welfare cuts are, as we've seen, politically impossible for this government. Absent some external intervention like the IMF.
Welfare spending has to be considered carefully. How do you maintain spending which makes severely disabled people's lives better while stopping that which is 'wasted'?
Reclassify what counts as disabled. Being merely a bit sad or anxious shouldn't qualify for any benefits behind unemployment benefits if that person doesn't have a job. Theresa May expanded the definition of disability to make it much broader as to what we count for disability benefits and we need to reverse this.
I suppose for a major new organisation like Sky most of the growth potential lies in the global south, where bashing the west probably plays quite well.
The term 'vibes-driven' is frequently used, usually in reference to more charismatic politicians like Johnson and Farage, but I think it applies to Starmer as well.
Prior to the election he and Reeves succeeded in presenting the image of competent administrators who can actually get things done. A year into government it seems that there doesn't seem to have been a plan. It is almost as though they genuinely believed that they would succeed simply by virtue of not being the Conservatives. Perhaps Sue Gray had a plan, but her career-long habit seems to have been not to write anything down, lest it be subject to FOI, so we shall probably never know.
There are two notable exceptions, where the government seems to know what it it is doing: Wes Streeting has a plan for the NHS (I think this will pay off by the next election; it may already be moving in the right direction) and Ed Miliband seems to be getting done exactly what he wants in energy (I am less sure this will pay off, but he seems so messianically sure of himself that I feel there must be something to it). Both of these are plans that I think were broadly outlined before the election unlike the recent attempt at welfare reform.
On central economic policy, it really was just 'vibes'. Sorry, I don't have it with me, Liz Truss ate my homework. But if they aren't going to raise any of the taxes that actually bring in revenue, they will have to cut spending. Saying 'growth' three times while clicking your heels together doesn't work.
I think they did have a plan - it was a political plan, consisting of a harsh phase entering Government, taking 'tough decisions', followed by pork barrel politics before the next election. It was a Gordon Brown sort of plan. There are a number of reasons why the plan has failed politically: 1. The economy is too delicate to withstand play acting of this nature. Reeves and Starmer's talking down of the fiscal and economic situation did genuine harm to it. 2. Their selected performative 'tough decisions' went badly. Particularly the WFA, but also the Farms Tax. 3. They weren't actually being 'tough' - caving in to the train drivers but complaining about the black hole hasn't made sense. 4. A combination of economical alarm, and political pressure has led to an immediate reversal, so they have had to fast forward the 'we can spend this because of our tough decisions'
In relation to number 3, a far bigger and braver version of this strategy would have been to actually stick to Tory spending plans like in 1997. Actually try and take £50bn off welfare or however much it was.
Gave that a like, despite the last paragraph, which is simple fantasy..
It would still have only taken welfare spending down to pre-covid levels.
Not even half realistic for an incoming Labour government, though. Their real task (which so far they are failing), was to get the growth in welfare spending under control, while bringing in sufficient tax rises to move the dial, without cratering economic growth. Over time, there's a chance that might have succeeded.
It would have been a very hard task, but they've already ducked several options in that direction.
Swingeing welfare cuts are, as we've seen, politically impossible for this government. Absent some external intervention like the IMF.
Welfare spending has to be considered carefully. How do you maintain spending which makes severely disabled people's lives better while stopping that which is 'wasted'?
I didn't say it was easy - only necessary. If we don't get the spending/income balance in some sort of better equilibrium, then unconsidered cuts will eventually be forced on us, in all likelihood.
I don't really buy the rhetoric of "waste". While it exists, attacking it is unlikely to provide the sort of money needed. Some sort of balance of limiting spending growth, and increasing tax take is required.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
37 years ago today since the Piper Alpha disaster. My Dad was working off shore in the North Sea at the time but he was away on a short holiday with my Mum and my sister and I were both at home house/cat and dog sitting for them. We had neither the radio or the TV on that day, but I always remember the phone started ringing as old friends of my Dad who didn't realise which rig he worked on or that he was on shore started phoning to check in with him and their relief when they discovered he was away on holiday. I think it was about the third random phonecall from an old friend of his when I said right what is going on and why is everyone suddenly phoning to check in on my Dad today.
I had moved from Aberdeen the year before to take up a nursing job in Edinburgh, but one of my best friends was on duty at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary when the news came in and the hospital went into emergency mode in preparation for a large amount of incoming casualties and she still talks about the utter shock and sadness that overwhelmed the staff on duty there that day when those casualties didn't materialise as the enormity of the tragedy unfolded.
My firm acted for 3 of the deceased. We were a medium sized firm based in Cupar in Fife which shows how widespread the consequences were. A horrific tragedy.
The term 'vibes-driven' is frequently used, usually in reference to more charismatic politicians like Johnson and Farage, but I think it applies to Starmer as well.
Prior to the election he and Reeves succeeded in presenting the image of competent administrators who can actually get things done. A year into government it seems that there doesn't seem to have been a plan. It is almost as though they genuinely believed that they would succeed simply by virtue of not being the Conservatives. Perhaps Sue Gray had a plan, but her career-long habit seems to have been not to write anything down, lest it be subject to FOI, so we shall probably never know.
There are two notable exceptions, where the government seems to know what it it is doing: Wes Streeting has a plan for the NHS (I think this will pay off by the next election; it may already be moving in the right direction) and Ed Miliband seems to be getting done exactly what he wants in energy (I am less sure this will pay off, but he seems so messianically sure of himself that I feel there must be something to it). Both of these are plans that I think were broadly outlined before the election unlike the recent attempt at welfare reform.
On central economic policy, it really was just 'vibes'. Sorry, I don't have it with me, Liz Truss ate my homework. But if they aren't going to raise any of the taxes that actually bring in revenue, they will have to cut spending. Saying 'growth' three times while clicking your heels together doesn't work.
I think they did have a plan - it was a political plan, consisting of a harsh phase entering Government, taking 'tough decisions', followed by pork barrel politics before the next election. It was a Gordon Brown sort of plan. There are a number of reasons why the plan has failed politically: 1. The economy is too delicate to withstand play acting of this nature. Reeves and Starmer's talking down of the fiscal and economic situation did genuine harm to it. 2. Their selected performative 'tough decisions' went badly. Particularly the WFA, but also the Farms Tax. 3. They weren't actually being 'tough' - caving in to the train drivers but complaining about the black hole hasn't made sense. 4. A combination of economical alarm, and political pressure has led to an immediate reversal, so they have had to fast forward the 'we can spend this because of our tough decisions'
In relation to number 3, a far bigger and braver version of this strategy would have been to actually stick to Tory spending plans like in 1997. Actually try and take £50bn off welfare or however much it was.
Gave that a like, despite the last paragraph, which is simple fantasy..
It would still have only taken welfare spending down to pre-covid levels.
Not even half realistic for an incoming Labour government, though. Their real task (which so far they are failing), was to get the growth in welfare spending under control, while bringing in sufficient tax rises to move the dial, without cratering economic growth. Over time, there's a chance that might have succeeded.
It would have been a very hard task, but they've already ducked several options in that direction.
Swingeing welfare cuts are, as we've seen, politically impossible for this government. Absent some external intervention like the IMF.
Welfare spending has to be considered carefully. How do you maintain spending which makes severely disabled people's lives better while stopping that which is 'wasted'?
Reclassify what counts as disabled. Being merely a bit sad or anxious shouldn't qualify for any benefits behind unemployment benefits if that person doesn't have a job. Theresa May expanded the definition of disability to make it much broader as to what we count for disability benefits and we need to reverse this.
There may well be implications from the untouchable Equality Act. For good or ill, Harriet Harman has quite the legacy.
Last thread was a hoot, cannot wait to hear more from "THE FALCON" when he awakens from his stupour.
And verily, See that His Sublime Grace LEONDAMUS, Lord Paramount of Camden, Warden of the Primrose Hill Borders, Commander of the Mighty Herd, He Who Rides The Unbridled Thunder, Surveyor of the PB Wastes and Whisperer to Kings, the Master known as Al-Saqr to the Desert Arabs, as Shahin to the Dusky Persians, and as THE FALCON to us all…
is awake. And maybe having a coffee
If you need a sidekick, I'm always happy to play The Tit
You do yourself down. Try calling yourself "The Merlin". Our smallest hawk. But damn it, good enough to power the Spitfire...
Also the Bolton Paul Defiant; armament pointing backwards, disastrous in the daytime once the enemy knew what was up and reduced to lurking in the night hoping to bag a prize. And a load of useless to mediocre Faireys.
Merlin engines also powered America's best fighter, the Mustang, which gave the allies aerial superiority then supremacy over Europe. The Mustang's original engines had been no good but the Merlin fixed that. One of the key features of the war was allied cooperation and cross-fertilisation in arms development and manufacture. The axis powers never had that.
The Allison V-1710 was actually more powerful than the Merlin. Up to 15,000 feet Mustangs equipped with it were actually a bit faster.
Above 15k, the issue was the supercharger. The design of the Mustang hadn’t included a turbocharger, mostly for cost/simplicity reasons. The USAF preferred turbochargers for high altitude work.
So the Alison was left with a single stage supercharger in the Mustang. Hence the change to the Merlin with a two stage supercharger.
IIRC the RAF used Alison engines Mustangs until the end of the war, for low level ground attack.
The engineering development of performance piston engines during WWII, with the available technology of the 40s, was actually pretty amazing.
Combined with the fuel. By the end of the war, fuel had become so specialised that it was very difficult for the Germans to run captured aircraft on their fuel. The Allies had less problems, but still couldn’t run German aircraft at full power for all but the briefest times.
The 150 octane (and higher) were witches brews that only vaguely resembled “petrol”.
37 years ago today since the Piper Alpha disaster. My Dad was working off shore in the North Sea at the time but he was away on a short holiday with my Mum and my sister and I were both at home house/cat and dog sitting for them. We had neither the radio or the TV on that day, but I always remember the phone started ringing as old friends of my Dad who didn't realise which rig he worked on or that he was on shore started phoning to check in with him and their relief when they discovered he was away on holiday. I think it was about the third random phonecall from an old friend of his when I said right what is going on and why is everyone suddenly phoning to check in on my Dad today.
I had moved from Aberdeen the year before to take up a nursing job in Edinburgh, but one of my best friends was on duty at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary when the news came in and the hospital went into emergency mode in preparation for a large amount of incoming casualties and she still talks about the utter shock and sadness that overwhelmed the staff on duty there that day when those casualties didn't materialise as the enormity of the tragedy unfolded.
My firm acted for 3 of the deceased. We were a medium sized firm based in Cupar in Fife which shows how widespread the consequences were. A horrific tragedy.
It was, and lives long in our family's memory having lost a special member of the family on that bleak day
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
NI should be ringfenced for the state pension and JSA based on what it was founded to fund
A year from GE 2024 our MRP in @thetimes with @cazjwheeler finds Reform winners from Labour’s early stumbles. Tories/Lib Dems fight for third ➡️ REF UK 290 (+285) 🌹 LAB 126 (- 285) 🌳 CON 81 (-40) 🔶 LIB DEM 73 (+1) 🌍 GREEN 7 (+3) 🟡 SNP 42 (+33) 🟩 Plaid 4 (-) ⬜️ OTH 8 (+2)
It only gets worse here for Labour IMO because they either have to break their pledge not to put up the main taxes or make big cuts to welfare spending and up to a million public sector job cuts. I wouldn't be surprised if Labour end up with fewer than 100 seats after 2029.
Most likely they will end up going for a big wealth tax
I suppose for a major new organisation like Sky most of the growth potential lies in the global south, where bashing the west probably plays quite well.
Sky, and Sky News in particular, is experiencing considerable financial issues
A year from GE 2024 our MRP in @thetimes with @cazjwheeler finds Reform winners from Labour’s early stumbles. Tories/Lib Dems fight for third ➡️ REF UK 290 (+285) 🌹 LAB 126 (- 285) 🌳 CON 81 (-40) 🔶 LIB DEM 73 (+1) 🌍 GREEN 7 (+3) 🟡 SNP 42 (+33) 🟩 Plaid 4 (-) ⬜️ OTH 8 (+2)
So Kemi Kingmaker as to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
NI should be ringfenced for the state pension and JSA based on what it was founded to fund
No it shouldn't
The state pension is an unaffordable universal benefit, and does need some form of means testing and the inevitable increase in the age
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
You’ll need to spend to save.
What about - “British jobs for British workers”?
A plan to increase the number of medics trained, so that at point x (15 years from now??) we are training 100%+ of the predicted requirements of the NHS?
Merge apprenticeships with degrees - the universities provide the academics and give transferability. The companies provide the work experience. This gets round the problem of quality/standards in apprenticeships. Also encourage mixed blue collar/white collar degrees.
One thing that is noticeable about US managerial types - they all did “shop” classes at school. Welding, carpentry, car maintenance etc. So there is much less fear of the practical and physical.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
All good ideas. They should also cease to indemnify the BOE against losses on its QT programme, and cease to pay commercial banks interest on their QE holdings (only).
It's not good optics to bung banks a huge subsidy or pay money to the BOE to burn, whilst you're expecting the poorer to make sacrifices.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
NI should be ringfenced for the state pension and JSA based on what it was founded to fund
No it shouldn't
The state pension is an unaffordable universal benefit, and does need some form of means testing and the inevitable increase in the age
Yes it should, the state pension was only created with national insurance to fund it, that was its original purpose.
There already is pension credit means tested for the poorest pensioners
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
I don't think this would make much difference, the wealthy already opt out of the NHS with private healthcare and health insurance. I also don't think that breaking the universal commitment of the NHS is a good idea. In an extreme scenario, let's say there's a terrorist attack in the square mile that targets an investment fund that funds arms purchases for Israel - do those people who are injured in it receive bills from the NHS after the fact because they likely are above the income threshold for NHS treatment?
I also think there's an aspect that high income earners still need to see something for their taxes and the NHS is a big something in the event of emergency illness etc...
I don't think there is enough to be gained from ending universal healthcare at the point of use. Maybe incentivising more middle income people to take private health insurance would work better but realistically the NHS needs to solve the 80/20 problem because it isn't the wealthy and middle income people that take up the resources, most are in the 80% that only use 20% of resources. It's finding solutions to get the 20% that use 80% of resources much healthier so they stop consuming so much health resource.
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
A year from GE 2024 our MRP in @thetimes with @cazjwheeler finds Reform winners from Labour’s early stumbles. Tories/Lib Dems fight for third ➡️ REF UK 290 (+285) 🌹 LAB 126 (- 285) 🌳 CON 81 (-40) 🔶 LIB DEM 73 (+1) 🌍 GREEN 7 (+3) 🟡 SNP 42 (+33) 🟩 Plaid 4 (-) ⬜️ OTH 8 (+2)
So Kemi Kingmaker as to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM
On this result let Farage run a minority and collapse the government once the polls turn. Prop Starmer up on this result and its game over forever
A year from GE 2024 our MRP in @thetimes with @cazjwheeler finds Reform winners from Labour’s early stumbles. Tories/Lib Dems fight for third ➡️ REF UK 290 (+285) 🌹 LAB 126 (- 285) 🌳 CON 81 (-40) 🔶 LIB DEM 73 (+1) 🌍 GREEN 7 (+3) 🟡 SNP 42 (+33) 🟩 Plaid 4 (-) ⬜️ OTH 8 (+2)
It only gets worse here for Labour IMO because they either have to break their pledge not to put up the main taxes or make big cuts to welfare spending and up to a million public sector job cuts. I wouldn't be surprised if Labour end up with fewer than 100 seats after 2029.
Most likely they will end up going for a big wealth tax
Yes, only solution they can get past Ange, easy to sell to a lot of voters that it’s the “wealthy paying their fair share” and can target it just above the point where anyone on the inside of the party is really affected so all wonderful.
Last thread was a hoot, cannot wait to hear more from "THE FALCON" when he awakens from his stupour.
And verily, See that His Sublime Grace LEONDAMUS, Lord Paramount of Camden, Warden of the Primrose Hill Borders, Commander of the Mighty Herd, He Who Rides The Unbridled Thunder, Surveyor of the PB Wastes and Whisperer to Kings, the Master known as Al-Saqr to the Desert Arabs, as Shahin to the Dusky Persians, and as THE FALCON to us all…
is awake. And maybe having a coffee
If you need a sidekick, I'm always happy to play The Tit
You do yourself down. Try calling yourself "The Merlin". Our smallest hawk. But damn it, good enough to power the Spitfire...
Also the Bolton Paul Defiant; armament pointing backwards, disastrous in the daytime once the enemy knew what was up and reduced to lurking in the night hoping to bag a prize. And a load of useless to mediocre Faireys.
Merlin engines also powered America's best fighter, the Mustang, which gave the allies aerial superiority then supremacy over Europe. The Mustang's original engines had been no good but the Merlin fixed that. One of the key features of the war was allied cooperation and cross-fertilisation in arms development and manufacture. The axis powers never had that.
The Allison V-1710 was actually more powerful than the Merlin. Up to 15,000 feet Mustangs equipped with it were actually a bit faster.
Above 15k, the issue was the supercharger. The design of the Mustang hadn’t included a turbocharger, mostly for cost/simplicity reasons. The USAF preferred turbochargers for high altitude work.
So the Alison was left with a single stage supercharger in the Mustang. Hence the change to the Merlin with a two stage supercharger.
IIRC the RAF used Alison engines Mustangs until the end of the war, for low level ground attack.
The engineering development of performance piston engines during WWII, with the available technology of the 40s, was actually pretty amazing.
A year from GE 2024 our MRP in @thetimes with @cazjwheeler finds Reform winners from Labour’s early stumbles. Tories/Lib Dems fight for third ➡️ REF UK 290 (+285) 🌹 LAB 126 (- 285) 🌳 CON 81 (-40) 🔶 LIB DEM 73 (+1) 🌍 GREEN 7 (+3) 🟡 SNP 42 (+33) 🟩 Plaid 4 (-) ⬜️ OTH 8 (+2)
So Kemi Kingmaker as to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM
On this result let Farage run a minority and collapse the government once the polls turn. Prop Starmer up on this result and its game over forever
Yep - on those results Labour couldn't be in Government - Reform would need to be left to run things until it rapidly fell apart. At which point a second election could occur which would probably lead to a Reform government with a majority but hecks that's going to be better than cobbling something else from that result.
37 years ago today since the Piper Alpha disaster. My Dad was working off shore in the North Sea at the time but he was away on a short holiday with my Mum and my sister and I were both at home house/cat and dog sitting for them. We had neither the radio or the TV on that day, but I always remember the phone started ringing as old friends of my Dad who didn't realise which rig he worked on or that he was on shore started phoning to check in with him and their relief when they discovered he was away on holiday. I think it was about the third random phonecall from an old friend of his when I said right what is going on and why is everyone suddenly phoning to check in on my Dad today.
I had moved from Aberdeen the year before to take up a nursing job in Edinburgh, but one of my best friends was on duty at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary when the news came in and the hospital went into emergency mode in preparation for a large amount of incoming casualties and she still talks about the utter shock and sadness that overwhelmed the staff on duty there that day when those casualties didn't materialise as the enormity of the tragedy unfolded.
I had my interview for my first job offshore on the day after Piper Alpha.
60 were due to be interviewed. 12 of us turned up.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
All good ideas. They should also cease to indemnify the BOE against losses on its QT programme, and cease to pay commercial banks interest on their QE holdings (only).
It's not good optics to bung banks a huge subsidy or pay money to the BOE to burn, whilst you're expecting the poorer to make sacrifices.
Yes both good suggestions, though if the government didn't have such inflationary policies that resulted in borrowing £150bn per year both of those go away because the bank stops its QT scheme and interest rates fall pretty rapidly so the delta between purchase yield and current yield becomes close to zero again.
A year from GE 2024 our MRP in @thetimes with @cazjwheeler finds Reform winners from Labour’s early stumbles. Tories/Lib Dems fight for third ➡️ REF UK 290 (+285) 🌹 LAB 126 (- 285) 🌳 CON 81 (-40) 🔶 LIB DEM 73 (+1) 🌍 GREEN 7 (+3) 🟡 SNP 42 (+33) 🟩 Plaid 4 (-) ⬜️ OTH 8 (+2)
It only gets worse here for Labour IMO because they either have to break their pledge not to put up the main taxes or make big cuts to welfare spending and up to a million public sector job cuts. I wouldn't be surprised if Labour end up with fewer than 100 seats after 2029.
Most likely they will end up going for a big wealth tax
The left really want to with Neil Kinnock (yes he was on Trevor Phillips this am) promoting it for those with 10 million plus at a rate of 2%
It has been mentioned on here a few times but Starmer opposes it and what about the markets ?
Labour simply cannot find it in their DNA to live within their means with spending their only joy, but as the header alludes to that is 'Truss' all over again
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
You’ll need to spend to save.
What about - “British jobs for British workers”?
"What about - 'British slobs for British shirkers'?" Sunil said, putting his feet up on the coffee table.
37 years ago today since the Piper Alpha disaster. My Dad was working off shore in the North Sea at the time but he was away on a short holiday with my Mum and my sister and I were both at home house/cat and dog sitting for them. We had neither the radio or the TV on that day, but I always remember the phone started ringing as old friends of my Dad who didn't realise which rig he worked on or that he was on shore started phoning to check in with him and their relief when they discovered he was away on holiday. I think it was about the third random phonecall from an old friend of his when I said right what is going on and why is everyone suddenly phoning to check in on my Dad today.
I had moved from Aberdeen the year before to take up a nursing job in Edinburgh, but one of my best friends was on duty at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary when the news came in and the hospital went into emergency mode in preparation for a large amount of incoming casualties and she still talks about the utter shock and sadness that overwhelmed the staff on duty there that day when those casualties didn't materialise as the enormity of the tragedy unfolded.
I had my interview for my first job offshore on the day after Piper Alpha.
60 were due to be interviewed. 12 of us turned up.
We all got jobs
I had been with Chevron about a week. An horrific introduction to the North Sea oil and gas industry.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
Agree with all of this. Especially like the merging of NI and IC and its extension to all income.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
I don't think this would make much difference, the wealthy already opt out of the NHS with private healthcare and health insurance. I also don't think that breaking the universal commitment of the NHS is a good idea. In an extreme scenario, let's say there's a terrorist attack in the square mile that targets an investment fund that funds arms purchases for Israel - do those people who are injured in it receive bills from the NHS after the fact because they likely are above the income threshold for NHS treatment?
I also think there's an aspect that high income earners still need to see something for their taxes and the NHS is a big something in the event of emergency illness etc...
I don't think there is enough to be gained from ending universal healthcare at the point of use. Maybe incentivising more middle income people to take private health insurance would work better but realistically the NHS needs to solve the 80/20 problem because it isn't the wealthy and middle income people that take up the resources, most are in the 80% that only use 20% of resources. It's finding solutions to get the 20% that use 80% of resources much healthier so they stop consuming so much health resource.
Reminder that being opposed to air strikes killing thousands of civilians and the systematic kidnap and torture of doctors, doesn't make you the prime candidate to be a terrorist in that dramatis personae.
A year from GE 2024 our MRP in @thetimes with @cazjwheeler finds Reform winners from Labour’s early stumbles. Tories/Lib Dems fight for third ➡️ REF UK 290 (+285) 🌹 LAB 126 (- 285) 🌳 CON 81 (-40) 🔶 LIB DEM 73 (+1) 🌍 GREEN 7 (+3) 🟡 SNP 42 (+33) 🟩 Plaid 4 (-) ⬜️ OTH 8 (+2)
So Kemi Kingmaker as to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM
On those figures Starmer(?) would require Kemi, Davey and the SNP. Farage would only need Kemi OR Davey. Can't see Davey getting involved with either Tories or Reform.
The u-turn on winter fuel allowance was a huge mistake.
It sent a message that (a) the government would give way when pressured, and, (b) the government wasn't so desperate for money that it couldn't find it elsewhere. And that encouraged the rebels on PIP cuts.
But the government is desperate for money.
It is all very silly.
Taxpayers giving winter fuel payments to millionaires purely because of their age is silly. Getting rid of it didn't raise enough money to make enough of a difference to show a benefit elsewhere (i.e. new hospitals or whatever). No political groundwork was laid for the change. Once the initial public reaction was out, that was the time for a quick u-turn within a week of the budget to 20-25k instead of either 12k or 35k thresholds. The new threshold will now be too high again at 35k.
We are all well aware of the problems of the entitled elderly [1].
They fought in two world wars and had to walk uphill to school both ways. They paid into the tax system for.... ooooohhh, at least thirty years.... before retiring at 55 with a life expectatancy till they're 85. So they've definitely paid in for thirty years, whilst being net takers from the system between the ages of 0 to 25 and again from 55 to 85.
They vote, unlike the young, and they have nothing to do all day but moan about the current political situation.
So they are pandered to. By all political parties.
The winter fuel allowance should be scrapped. Totally. None of them spend it on winter fuel anyway.
[1] Yes, they aren't all like that. But I do know a few who DO think like that.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
NI should be ringfenced for the state pension and JSA based on what it was founded to fund
No it shouldn't
The state pension is an unaffordable universal benefit, and does need some form of means testing and the inevitable increase in the age
Yes it should, the state pension was only created with national insurance to fund it, that was its original purpose.
There already is pension credit means tested for the poorest pensioners
You live in the past in so much of your political views, and fail to recognise the world has moved on
Pensions should not be paid to the wealthy anymore than free NHS
We have to save huge sums and unless it is recognised difficult decisions have to be taken the bond markets will make the decison for us
A year from GE 2024 our MRP in @thetimes with @cazjwheeler finds Reform winners from Labour’s early stumbles. Tories/Lib Dems fight for third ➡️ REF UK 290 (+285) 🌹 LAB 126 (- 285) 🌳 CON 81 (-40) 🔶 LIB DEM 73 (+1) 🌍 GREEN 7 (+3) 🟡 SNP 42 (+33) 🟩 Plaid 4 (-) ⬜️ OTH 8 (+2)
So Kemi Kingmaker as to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM
How does Starmer with a loss of 285 seats carry on as PM??? Not a chance. Even if he gets replaced - by (gulp) Rayner? - how do the Cons and the LibDems backing Labour get them over the line? The SNP can demand a new referendum. Farage can probably give them it if it means he governs for England and Wales and NI.
A year from GE 2024 our MRP in @thetimes with @cazjwheeler finds Reform winners from Labour’s early stumbles. Tories/Lib Dems fight for third ➡️ REF UK 290 (+285) 🌹 LAB 126 (- 285) 🌳 CON 81 (-40) 🔶 LIB DEM 73 (+1) 🌍 GREEN 7 (+3) 🟡 SNP 42 (+33) 🟩 Plaid 4 (-) ⬜️ OTH 8 (+2)
So Kemi Kingmaker as to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM
On those figures Starmer(?) would require Kemi, Davey and the SNP. Farage would only need Kemi OR Davey. Can't see Davey getting involved with either Tories or Reform.
Reform almist certainly get nobody unkess they go into a pre election pact with the Tories, Labour might get LD, SNP, Plaid, Green or a combi This result would likely just be a minority reform govt waiting to be collapsed when they screw up
A year from GE 2024 our MRP in @thetimes with @cazjwheeler finds Reform winners from Labour’s early stumbles. Tories/Lib Dems fight for third ➡️ REF UK 290 (+285) 🌹 LAB 126 (- 285) 🌳 CON 81 (-40) 🔶 LIB DEM 73 (+1) 🌍 GREEN 7 (+3) 🟡 SNP 42 (+33) 🟩 Plaid 4 (-) ⬜️ OTH 8 (+2)
It only gets worse here for Labour IMO because they either have to break their pledge not to put up the main taxes or make big cuts to welfare spending and up to a million public sector job cuts. I wouldn't be surprised if Labour end up with fewer than 100 seats after 2029.
Most likely they will end up going for a big wealth tax
The left really want to with Neil Kinnock (yes he was on Trevor Phillips this am) promoting it for those with 10 million plus at a rate of 2%
It has been mentioned on here a few times but Starmer opposes it and what about the markets ?
Labour simply cannot find it in their DNA to live within their means with spending their only joy, but as the header alludes to that is 'Truss' all over again
One way to send the next x% percentile of rich people to work and retire abroad.
Reality is we’ve covered how to implement a wealth tax on here many times and the only thing you can tax is property as everything else is moveable
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
NI should be ringfenced for the state pension and JSA based on what it was founded to fund
No it shouldn't
The state pension is an unaffordable universal benefit, and does need some form of means testing and the inevitable increase in the age
Yes it should, the state pension was only created with national insurance to fund it, that was its original purpose.
There already is pension credit means tested for the poorest pensioners
You live in the past in so much of your political views, and fail to recognise the world has moved on
Pensions should not be paid to the wealthy anymore than free NHS
We have to save huge sums and unless it is recognised difficult decisions have to be taken the bond markets will make the decison for us
If you have paid in all your life via national insurance of course you are entitled to the state pension and many of wealthiest have private healthcare anyway (but are still entitled to use the NHS if an emergency having paid tax for it).
Labour as I have said will further whack up tax if it needs to fund its increased spending, its backbenchers would vote down further spending cuts
A year from GE 2024 our MRP in @thetimes with @cazjwheeler finds Reform winners from Labour’s early stumbles. Tories/Lib Dems fight for third ➡️ REF UK 290 (+285) 🌹 LAB 126 (- 285) 🌳 CON 81 (-40) 🔶 LIB DEM 73 (+1) 🌍 GREEN 7 (+3) 🟡 SNP 42 (+33) 🟩 Plaid 4 (-) ⬜️ OTH 8 (+2)
So Kemi Kingmaker as to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM
On those figures Starmer(?) would require Kemi, Davey and the SNP. Farage would only need Kemi OR Davey. Can't see Davey getting involved with either Tories or Reform.
Yes so most likely a Reform government propped up by the Kemi led Tories and the same applies if Jenrick became Tory leader.
If Cleverly or Stride became Tory leader not impossible they could back Starmer over Farage though, in return for some fiscal conservatism on tax and spend but again Starmer could then have problems with his backbenchers
37 years ago today since the Piper Alpha disaster. My Dad was working off shore in the North Sea at the time but he was away on a short holiday with my Mum and my sister and I were both at home house/cat and dog sitting for them. We had neither the radio or the TV on that day, but I always remember the phone started ringing as old friends of my Dad who didn't realise which rig he worked on or that he was on shore started phoning to check in with him and their relief when they discovered he was away on holiday. I think it was about the third random phonecall from an old friend of his when I said right what is going on and why is everyone suddenly phoning to check in on my Dad today.
I had moved from Aberdeen the year before to take up a nursing job in Edinburgh, but one of my best friends was on duty at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary when the news came in and the hospital went into emergency mode in preparation for a large amount of incoming casualties and she still talks about the utter shock and sadness that overwhelmed the staff on duty there that day when those casualties didn't materialise as the enormity of the tragedy unfolded.
I had my interview for my first job offshore on the day after Piper Alpha.
60 were due to be interviewed. 12 of us turned up.
We all got jobs
I had been with Chevron about a week. An horrific introduction to the North Sea oil and gas industry.
I have spent my whole career in the shadow of that night. It was utterly transformative for the oil industry around the world.... except the USA.
It may be little consolation to the relatives of those who died but it is undoubtedly the case that many times that number have worked in safety because of the changes wrought by Piper Alpha.
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
NI should be ringfenced for the state pension and JSA based on what it was founded to fund
No it shouldn't
The state pension is an unaffordable universal benefit, and does need some form of means testing and the inevitable increase in the age
There is the beginnings of a more coherent pension policy with the People's Pension - a sort of mandatory SIPP. However the PP contributions are too low to make any difference while triple lock is in play. You'd need a WASPI type approach where there is a 30 year lead in to allow people to build funds for the future. Do we have 30 years?
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
I don't think this would make much difference, the wealthy already opt out of the NHS with private healthcare and health insurance. I also don't think that breaking the universal commitment of the NHS is a good idea. In an extreme scenario, let's say there's a terrorist attack in the square mile that targets an investment fund that funds arms purchases for Israel - do those people who are injured in it receive bills from the NHS after the fact because they likely are above the income threshold for NHS treatment?
I also think there's an aspect that high income earners still need to see something for their taxes and the NHS is a big something in the event of emergency illness etc...
I don't think there is enough to be gained from ending universal healthcare at the point of use. Maybe incentivising more middle income people to take private health insurance would work better but realistically the NHS needs to solve the 80/20 problem because it isn't the wealthy and middle income people that take up the resources, most are in the 80% that only use 20% of resources. It's finding solutions to get the 20% that use 80% of resources much healthier so they stop consuming so much health resource.
Or let the 20% die off. Then you would have a world-class health service (and a lot more housing to fix that problem too).
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this Sky News report from Tehran. Obviously if you want to take the temperature in Iran you speak to Shia fundamentalists and government officials. No mention of the widespread hatred that exists towards the mullahs.
Totally agree. I spent some time listening to various Spaces involving exiled Iranians in recent weeks and the widespread hatred is palpable considering what they have done to those that protest against the Iranian Regime over recent years. I could not believe the SkyNews report from inside Iran and their lack of warnings about the fact that no one who values their life would speak openly or critically about the Regime to the Western press!
About a week ago the BBC aired a report at one check point at the Iranian border where they interviewed people including a retired Brit leaving and who had the audacity to complain about the lack of help from the UK embassy while the Israelis were bombing Tehran and the Regime made sure the internet was down and had effectively imposed a curfew to try to prevent unrest. You have to wonder why he had felt it safe to travel there at this time and I am assumming his relatives were friends of the current Regime. Unsurprisingly the reporter could not find one person entering Iran who was prepared to show their face far less speak to them on the record.
37 years ago today since the Piper Alpha disaster. My Dad was working off shore in the North Sea at the time but he was away on a short holiday with my Mum and my sister and I were both at home house/cat and dog sitting for them. We had neither the radio or the TV on that day, but I always remember the phone started ringing as old friends of my Dad who didn't realise which rig he worked on or that he was on shore started phoning to check in with him and their relief when they discovered he was away on holiday. I think it was about the third random phonecall from an old friend of his when I said right what is going on and why is everyone suddenly phoning to check in on my Dad today.
I had moved from Aberdeen the year before to take up a nursing job in Edinburgh, but one of my best friends was on duty at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary when the news came in and the hospital went into emergency mode in preparation for a large amount of incoming casualties and she still talks about the utter shock and sadness that overwhelmed the staff on duty there that day when those casualties didn't materialise as the enormity of the tragedy unfolded.
I had my interview for my first job offshore on the day after Piper Alpha.
60 were due to be interviewed. 12 of us turned up.
We all got jobs
I had been with Chevron about a week. An horrific introduction to the North Sea oil and gas industry.
I have spent my whole career in the shadow of that night. It was utterly transformative for the oil industry around the world.... except the USA.
It may be little consolation to the relatives of those who died but it is undoubtedly the case that many times that number have worked in safety because of the changes wrought by Piper Alpha.
And, dare I say it, the changes driven by the lawyers and the insurers as a result of the unbelievable fiscal cost of the disaster. The fees for the lawyers were frankly obscene. My firm gave some of our fees to the families, it simply seemed unconscionable to us.
Comments
I'd be concerned for the blood pressure of most of Facebook and some PB posters though.
On the other hand, a 33% chain snapper in the North Yorks Moors has a definite risk of stalling.
My picture of the day:
Cav not having fun in the Dales
It sent a message that (a) the government would give way when pressured, and, (b) the government wasn't so desperate for money that it couldn't find it elsewhere. And that encouraged the rebels on PIP cuts.
But the government is desperate for money.
There's no free lunch.
It wanders as it flies,
We ask it easy questions,
It tells us easy lies.
The whimsy is irritating - and very occasionally works.
Infinitely preferable to (eg) Webb.
Taxpayers giving winter fuel payments to millionaires purely because of their age is silly.
Getting rid of it didn't raise enough money to make enough of a difference to show a benefit elsewhere (i.e. new hospitals or whatever).
No political groundwork was laid for the change.
Once the initial public reaction was out, that was the time for a quick u-turn within a week of the budget to 20-25k instead of either 12k or 35k thresholds.
The new threshold will now be too high again at 35k.
Should we get pensioners back into work?
I think I've done almost all of the European monsters over the years and Angliru in the Asturian Pyrenees is the stand out for suffering. It's very steep, quite long, it's always as hot as balls and the road surface is absolutely shit and covered in gravel from landslides.
Generally, >35% is where you start to see hardware failures, assuming you can put down enough torque to keep moving but it's drive side spokes not chains that give up first.
The thing about this is, it *was* a choice. The economy was understimulated, you kind of could print money and spend it and nothing bad would happen, there would just be more useful work happening in the economy. Now there's inflation, and any money you spend on one thing has to come from somewhere else.
The problem here is that political messages have a time lag on reality ranging from 5 to 40 years. This is why Osborne applied the lessons from the 1970s and early 1980s to post-Lehman-shock Britain, and it's also why Starmer is now lumbered with a party full of people who don't realize that if you spend money on one thing you can't spend it on another thing.
Anderson and Pochin should maybe watch their backs
Edit - and obviously I mean the leak is the inside job, clearly there are questions to be answered etc
We do not have unlimited room for manoeuvre.
We are totally dependent on the bond market to fund current spending.
We are continuously increasing already unsustainable levels of debt.
We simply cannot hope to grow our way out of this.
We are not alone.
The last point is important. When the inevitable sovereign debt crisis bites it won't just bite us. The whole of western Europe (Germany is in a much better position but far from safe) and the US will be torn apart by a hungry rottweiler and external demand will collapse at the same time as our domestic demand. Even over borrowed China will not be immune. It is going to make 2008 look like a gentle zephyr on a summer's day. We can't avoid this, it is too late. But we can start to batten down the hatches so it is mildly less painful.
https://x.com/samcoatessky/status/1941800574892064853?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/05/texas-flood-recovery-dozens-dead-children-missing
..The afternoon news conference began with a series of long, self-congratulatory statements and praise for Trump from Republican officials, including Abbott, the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, senator John Cornyn and representative Chip Roy. It was only after reporters pressed them for details on the rescue and recovery effort that they provided an update on the missing and the dead...
The really frightening thing is that no politician on earth seems to be talking about this or trying to work out how to deal with it.
But perhaps this government's dilemma just reflects the next stage of the transfer of power from national governments to multinational business.
A more optimistic take is that the cult of Trump collapses under its own contradictions
Their real task (which so far they are failing), was to get the growth in welfare spending under control, while bringing in sufficient tax rises to move the dial, without cratering economic growth.
Over time, there's a chance that might have succeeded.
It would have been a very hard task, but they've already ducked several options in that direction.
Swingeing welfare cuts are, as we've seen, politically impossible for this government.
Absent some external intervention like the IMF.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/nobody-likes-trump-sky-news-finds-defiance-on-the-streets-of-tehran/ar-AA1I24QO?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=085b9769f327423ceb423443f392bd72&ei=15
Trump has claimed that he did not know the weight that the term, which originated in a Shakespearean play, carried.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/04/trump-antisemitic-trope-response-00440000
Senile old man
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
QE isn’t printing money that can be spent.
If you print money to spend, then you get into an inflationary spiral. Argentina has demonstrated this, most recently.
Hence borrowing money on the bond markets.
And despite what the Guardian said at the beginning of the Greek crisis, there is no human right that demands people lend you money at a low rate of interest.
If we don't get the spending/income balance in some sort of better equilibrium, then unconsidered cuts will eventually be forced on us, in all likelihood.
I don't really buy the rhetoric of "waste". While it exists, attacking it is unlikely to provide the sort of money needed.
Some sort of balance of limiting spending growth, and increasing tax take is required.
The 150 octane (and higher) were witches brews that only vaguely resembled “petrol”.
Surprised Penguin fell for the "the courts were wrong" excuse.
The state pension is an unaffordable universal benefit, and does need some form of means testing and the inevitable increase in the age
What about - “British jobs for British workers”?
A plan to increase the number of medics trained, so that at point x (15 years from now??) we are training 100%+ of the predicted requirements of the NHS?
Merge apprenticeships with degrees - the universities provide the academics and give transferability. The companies provide the work experience. This gets round the problem of quality/standards in apprenticeships. Also encourage mixed blue collar/white collar degrees.
One thing that is noticeable about US managerial types - they all did “shop” classes at school. Welding, carpentry, car maintenance etc. So there is much less fear of the practical and physical.
It's not good optics to bung banks a huge subsidy or pay money to the BOE to burn, whilst you're expecting the poorer to make sacrifices.
There already is pension credit means tested for the poorest pensioners
I also think there's an aspect that high income earners still need to see something for their taxes and the NHS is a big something in the event of emergency illness etc...
I don't think there is enough to be gained from ending universal healthcare at the point of use. Maybe incentivising more middle income people to take private health insurance would work better but realistically the NHS needs to solve the 80/20 problem because it isn't the wealthy and middle income people that take up the resources, most are in the 80% that only use 20% of resources. It's finding solutions to get the 20% that use 80% of resources much healthier so they stop consuming so much health resource.
60 were due to be interviewed. 12 of us turned up.
We all got jobs
It has been mentioned on here a few times but Starmer opposes it and what about the markets ?
Labour simply cannot find it in their DNA to live within their means with spending their only joy, but as the header alludes to that is 'Truss' all over again
Where else am I going to get a better opportunity to lob a bottle of piss at Max Verstappen other than at a Grand Prix circuit.
Can't see Davey getting involved with either Tories or Reform.
They fought in two world wars and had to walk uphill to school both ways. They paid into the tax system for.... ooooohhh, at least thirty years.... before retiring at 55 with a life expectatancy till they're 85. So they've definitely paid in for thirty years, whilst being net takers from the system between the ages of 0 to 25 and again from 55 to 85.
They vote, unlike the young, and they have nothing to do all day but moan about the current political situation.
So they are pandered to. By all political parties.
The winter fuel allowance should be scrapped. Totally. None of them spend it on winter fuel anyway.
[1] Yes, they aren't all like that. But I do know a few who DO think like that.
Pensions should not be paid to the wealthy anymore than free NHS
We have to save huge sums and unless it is recognised difficult decisions have to be taken the bond markets will make the decison for us
This result would likely just be a minority reform govt waiting to be collapsed when they screw up
Reality is we’ve covered how to implement a wealth tax on here many times and the only thing you can tax is property as everything else is moveable
Labour as I have said will further whack up tax if it needs to fund its increased spending, its backbenchers would vote down further spending cuts
If Cleverly or Stride became Tory leader not impossible they could back Starmer over Farage though, in return for some fiscal conservatism on tax and spend but again Starmer could then have problems with his backbenchers
It may be little consolation to the relatives of those who died but it is undoubtedly the case that many times that number have worked in safety because of the changes wrought by Piper Alpha.
Bit of a hard sell to the voters though.
About a week ago the BBC aired a report at one check point at the Iranian border where they interviewed people including a retired Brit leaving and who had the audacity to complain about the lack of help from the UK embassy while the Israelis were bombing Tehran and the Regime made sure the internet was down and had effectively imposed a curfew to try to prevent unrest. You have to wonder why he had felt it safe to travel there at this time and I am assumming his relatives were friends of the current Regime. Unsurprisingly the reporter could not find one person entering Iran who was prepared to show their face far less speak to them on the record.