Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast
This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.
Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.
The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.
The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.
What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.
Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.
I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.
The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
The Brownshirts are the people who marched on the White House on 6 January 2021. I don't know enough about American politics to know whether such people are prominent in politics at the moment - my view is that 6 Jan wasn't a serious attempt at a coup, but a trial run to see what could be done, and the mob was effectively stood down to be used on some other occasion when needed.
One of Hitler's first moves was to consolidate power over the police, in his first coalition government as Chancellor, two of the three Nazi cabinet ministers were the interior ministers of Prussia and Germany. ICE is of course one of the Federal police forces that Trump can exert control over.
Concentration camps were initially for political opponents - Communists and Social Democrats - but most of the initial detainees were released. Later from 1936 or so they were used for various "undesirables" including habitual criminals. After 1933 the Party apparat was of course funded by the state. "Illegals" is certainly an out-group that MAGA has selected for persecution and yes their detention camps sound pretty much like concentration camps.
The lauding of a young warrior killed by political opponents is another echo of 30s' Germany.
So no it's not ludicrous to make comparisons with the Nazi rise to power. We may or may not be seeing a serious attempt to establish a quasi-fascist autocracy, but it makes sense to view the actions of the MAGA state on the assumption that this might be happening
So who is composing the 'Horst Kirk' song now? I think its weak to say on one hand that the people who marched on the White House in 2021 are the Brownshirts and then admit that you don't know enough about american politics... The SA were a party of the Nazi party - party members, wore uniforms, engaged in political violence against opponents. I don't recall Democrat conferences and meetings being stormed by Republicans in some sort of MAGA uniform.
Horst wrote his own song. Of course political marching songs are not a big thing in the social media era, although I am sure we will see the increased propagation of Kirk's views and soundbites.
And uniformed political thuggery isn't a big thing in modern politics either, unlike the post-WW1 era (the communists and socialists had them too). I may very likely be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised to see bands of roving MAGA thugs utilised as a tool during the mid term elections.
So was Nazism. Hitler made a very nice fortune on the royalties from all those (forced) sales of Mein Kampf.
I don't think anyone is saying MAGA is *actual* Nazism, just a possible quasi-fash authoritarian project, it's just instructive to compare it with how another movement came to power. Of course 2020s America is a very different place to 1920s Germany
I guess the issue I take with the comparison is that I think some expect a Reichstag fire and the end of democracy in the states. While it is fun to make some rather loose comparisons, the idea that folk in the states will tolerate a permanent Republican state is for the birds.
They aren't showing particular signs of doing anything about it at the moment, mind.
I firmly believe that Liz Truss, by introducing a new category of Prime Minister, disturbs the natural pattern of things and so got us into this mess. Let me explain:
Thatcher: fun Major: boring Blair: fun Brown: boring Cameron: fun May: boring Johnson: fun Truss: WEIRD Sunak: boring Starmer: boring
So was Nazism. Hitler made a very nice fortune on the royalties from all those (forced) sales of Mein Kampf.
I don't think anyone is saying MAGA is *actual* Nazism, just a possible quasi-fash authoritarian project, it's just instructive to compare it with how another movement came to power. Of course 2020s America is a very different place to 1920s Germany
Of course.
Then you see stuff like this.
Pentagon leaders are considering a new recruiting campaign that would encourage young people to honor the legacy of Charlie Kirk by joining the military, NBC News reports https://x.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1968725575054319626
There is also the suggestion that Jimmy Kimmel can be back on air by making a substantial donation. How long before everyone's job depends on the size of contribution?
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
The Brownshirts are the people who marched on the White House on 6 January 2021. I don't know enough about American politics to know whether such people are prominent in politics at the moment - my view is that 6 Jan wasn't a serious attempt at a coup, but a trial run to see what could be done, and the mob was effectively stood down to be used on some other occasion when needed.
One of Hitler's first moves was to consolidate power over the police, in his first coalition government as Chancellor, two of the three Nazi cabinet ministers were the interior ministers of Prussia and Germany. ICE is of course one of the Federal police forces that Trump can exert control over.
Concentration camps were initially for political opponents - Communists and Social Democrats - but most of the initial detainees were released. Later from 1936 or so they were used for various "undesirables" including habitual criminals. After 1933 the Party apparat was of course funded by the state. "Illegals" is certainly an out-group that MAGA has selected for persecution and yes their detention camps sound pretty much like concentration camps.
The lauding of a young warrior killed by political opponents is another echo of 30s' Germany.
So no it's not ludicrous to make comparisons with the Nazi rise to power. We may or may not be seeing a serious attempt to establish a quasi-fascist autocracy, but it makes sense to view the actions of the MAGA state on the assumption that this might be happening
So who is composing the 'Horst Kirk' song now? I think its weak to say on one hand that the people who marched on the White House in 2021 are the Brownshirts and then admit that you don't know enough about american politics... The SA were a party of the Nazi party - party members, wore uniforms, engaged in political violence against opponents. I don't recall Democrat conferences and meetings being stormed by Republicans in some sort of MAGA uniform.
I think you're being a bit naif here, Turbo. The Third Reich comparison does not fit exactly - Trump has not gone that far, yet - if he does. But his politicisation and weaponisation of state institutions IS in place, and being used. That comparison fits.
Project 2025 included a huge expansion of "political positions" - in the gift of the President - by recategorisation of civil service positions. Trump's servants have been combing through formerly neutral departments to purge anyone who even touched investigations into Trump then weaponising those departments (DOJ, FBI etc) in his personal interest. Reportedly at the FBI they are applying lie detector tests to prove loyalty:
In interviews and polygraph tests, the F.B.I. has asked senior employees whether they have said anything negative about Mr. Patel, according to two people with knowledge of the questions and others familiar with similar accounts. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/us/politics/fbi-polygraph-kash-patel.html
As for Brownshirts, look at the attack on the Capitol:
Around 12:30, a crowd of about 300 assembled east of the Capitol. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), a leader of the group of lawmakers who vowed to challenge the Electoral College vote, greeted these protesters with a raised fist as he passed by on his way to Congress's joint session in the early afternoon. At 12:52, a group of Oath Keepers, wearing black hoodies with prominent logos, left the rally at the Ellipse and changed into Army Combat Uniforms, with helmets, on their way to the Capitol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Together they injured 100+ police officers, and Trump pardoned or commuted 1600 offenders as one of his first acts.
The US Constitution could be neutered, or heavily redefined to remove all separation of powers.
I think that Putin's Russia is more of a model than Hitler's Germany.
I can't see how. Starmer, for all his faults, has a huge majority. And time. If he goes, what does Milliband bring to the table? He is comprehensively stupid on energy, and consistently wrong. Part of the reasons for high energy costs is that we tie to gas, part is the net zero pricing added in by government.
As I understand it, gas prices set the price of electricity in the UK (as the most expensive type of generation needed to meet demand) because of the marginal pricing system used in the energy market. So my question would be: Is there a viable alternative to a marginal pricing system? If so, why aren't we using it?
Govt has plans to reform the marginal pricing system with the aim of decoupling cheaper renewables from the gas price. So Miliband is doing it, it just takes longer to implement than thinking "I want to change it".
What would an alternative to a marginal pricing system look like? Again, as I understand it (and that's not particularly well!), marginal pricing is the "natural" way that pricing works - left to the market, prices will naturally be set by the most expensive supplier whose product is needed in order to meet demand. Presumably, moving away from this would require government intervention of some sort to force suppliers to sell electricity at a price lower than they would otherwise achieve on the open market?
It worked just fine when we had the CEGB generating the leccy and NEEB* supplying it to our house.
*Other regional electricity boards were also available.
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
Sorry if you dislike the comparions. In no way is anyone saying that history is repeating itself - America today is not Germany 1933. But the pattern of behaviour is there. Doing the same shit in a different way. Its absurd to claim that America is the land of free speech when the President is suing a major media outlet for their crime of not backing him. They are actively trying to silence and subjugate it just as they are bending the constitution to suit their will.
At which point will you accept this is authoritarianism? They are going to lose power in the midterms. Which is why they are engineering a way around that.
Doesn't suing mean going to court of law? Who makes the judgement? Where Trump may lose?
Well he now seems to be threatening broadcasters' FCC licences, which I would have thought would be within Trump's executive field of competence
The Democrats have been asleep at the wheel for the last decade, Trump's current term is built on the preparation he did in 2016-20 to undermine the "checks and balances" that the US thought they had. They needed to restore, rebalance and reinforce those checks during Biden's term and they did nothing.
I was wondering if the US would be in a better place today if Trump had beaten Biden in 2020.
If he had won there wouldn’t have been the Capitol attack, no stolen election crap etc etc. it’s possible that the level of power that MAGA have, the anger amongst Trump fans and so on would be less and the schism in the US less extreme.
Trump himself, without years inbetween presidencies, would not have time to build a team with whom they have created more extreme views on immigration, cutting govt spending and so on.
Musk didn’t buy twitter until 2022 and into the second year of second Trump term he might have been no fan of Trump either.
The democrats would also have had to go back to the drawing board and look for better candidates than Harris.
I know it’s just pointless alternative history but was just something that came to mind.
But then you have Trump in charge when Putin invades Ukraine. No HIMARS or many other weapons for Ukraine. Can't see that being good.
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
Sorry if you dislike the comparions. In no way is anyone saying that history is repeating itself - America today is not Germany 1933. But the pattern of behaviour is there. Doing the same shit in a different way. Its absurd to claim that America is the land of free speech when the President is suing a major media outlet for their crime of not backing him. They are actively trying to silence and subjugate it just as they are bending the constitution to suit their will.
At which point will you accept this is authoritarianism? They are going to lose power in the midterms. Which is why they are engineering a way around that.
Doesn't suing mean going to court of law? Who makes the judgement? Where Trump may lose?
Well he now seems to be threatening broadcasters' FCC licences, which I would have thought would be within Trump's executive field of competence
The Democrats have been asleep at the wheel for the last decade, Trump's current term is built on the preparation he did in 2016-20 to undermine the "checks and balances" that the US thought they had. They needed to restore, rebalance and reinforce those checks during Biden's term and they did nothing.
I was wondering if the US would be in a better place today if Trump had beaten Biden in 2020.
If he had won there wouldn’t have been the Capitol attack, no stolen election crap etc etc. it’s possible that the level of power that MAGA have, the anger amongst Trump fans and so on would be less and the schism in the US less extreme.
Trump himself, without years inbetween presidencies, would not have time to build a team with whom they have created more extreme views on immigration, cutting govt spending and so on.
Musk didn’t buy twitter until 2022 and into the second year of second Trump term he might have been no fan of Trump either.
The democrats would also have had to go back to the drawing board and look for better candidates than Harris.
I know it’s just pointless alternative history but was just something that came to mind.
It’s also something that plenty of Trump supporters have mentioned.
Life, in their eyes, is so much better now than if they’d won again in 2020 and had a relatively quiet second term.
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
Sorry if you dislike the comparions. In no way is anyone saying that history is repeating itself - America today is not Germany 1933. But the pattern of behaviour is there. Doing the same shit in a different way. Its absurd to claim that America is the land of free speech when the President is suing a major media outlet for their crime of not backing him. They are actively trying to silence and subjugate it just as they are bending the constitution to suit their will.
At which point will you accept this is authoritarianism? They are going to lose power in the midterms. Which is why they are engineering a way around that.
Doesn't suing mean going to court of law? Who makes the judgement? Where Trump may lose?
Well he now seems to be threatening broadcasters' FCC licences, which I would have thought would be within Trump's executive field of competence
That's one of the issues. The US State is still substantially stuck in periods between 1776 and 1900, so they are even more dependent on "good chaps" than we are.
In comes Trump, politicises the FCC appointment "because he can", upending expected practice. Then when something happens he does not like, his mushroom publcily says:
"X should go, or we will need to look at their entire operating license. ".
Plus there is a merger that needs Presidential appointment, which would not normally be politicised.
But Trump can, and his FCC mushroom will obey, so ... abracadabra.
So was Nazism. Hitler made a very nice fortune on the royalties from all those (forced) sales of Mein Kampf.
I don't think anyone is saying MAGA is *actual* Nazism, just a possible quasi-fash authoritarian project, it's just instructive to compare it with how another movement came to power. Of course 2020s America is a very different place to 1920s Germany
I guess the issue I take with the comparison is that I think some expect a Reichstag fire and the end of democracy in the states. While it is fun to make some rather loose comparisons, the idea that folk in the states will tolerate a permanent Republican state is for the birds.
They aren't showing particular signs of doing anything about it at the moment, mind.
And a "Reichstag fire" would be any security-related incident that could be a pretext for an authoritarian crackdown. That might be more difficult given the US constitution though. They could use the Kirk murder for that, but it might be hard given that it could challenge their own shibboleths like the individual right to bear arms, and the suspect came from a conservative, white, God-fearing (if heretical) and gun-loving family. So it seems like they are using it as a pretext to go after freedom of speech and the mainstream broadcast media in particular
Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast
This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.
Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.
The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.
The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.
What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.
Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.
I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.
The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
Yes, the only thing keeping the markets away from a serious run on bond rates, is that most large developed economics are in similar positions.
Borrowing – the difference between total public sector spending and income – was £18.0 billion in August 2025; this was £3.5 billion more than in August 2024 and the highest August borrowing for five years.
Borrowing in the financial year to August 2025 was £83.8 billion; this was £16.2 billion more than in the same five-month period of 2024 and the second-highest April to August borrowing since monthly records began in 1993, after that of 2020.
Maybe they should have actually raised taxes last Budget, rather than tinkering around the edges with stuff like farmers’ inheritances and private school VAT?
They did raise taxes last year, dramatically.
Problem is they raised the very worst possible tax to increase.
National Insurance is only payable by those actually working, or those actually creating jobs. Something we want to encourage, not discourage.
We heavily penalise paid employment by taxing it far, far more than unearned incomes, which is the polar opposite of what we should be doing - and Labour made that differential worse, with inevitable consequences.
By increasing taxes on productive employment, we've seen a slowdown in the economy, shock horror, which worsens the Budget.
We should be lowering and seeking to abolish National Insurance and equalising taxes between earned and unearned incomes, which would be Budget-friendly without trashing the economy.
No we should be ringfencing National Insurance for JSA and some health and social care and the state pension as it was set up to do
Why do we have to stick to what things were set up to do? Shall we only use Income Tax to fight the French? Actually that's an idea.
As most OECD nations fund their healthcare and social welfare with insurance ie largely contributory, unlike the dependency tax funded welfare you want
We would have to put NI up very substantially if we were to entirely fund healthcare, unemployment benefits and pensions that way.
And could reduce income tax accordingly in response
I can't see how. Starmer, for all his faults, has a huge majority. And time. If he goes, what does Milliband bring to the table? He is comprehensively stupid on energy, and consistently wrong. Part of the reasons for high energy costs is that we tie to gas, part is the net zero pricing added in by government.
As I understand it, gas prices set the price of electricity in the UK (as the most expensive type of generation needed to meet demand) because of the marginal pricing system used in the energy market. So my question would be: Is there a viable alternative to a marginal pricing system? If so, why aren't we using it?
Govt has plans to reform the marginal pricing system with the aim of decoupling cheaper renewables from the gas price. So Miliband is doing it, it just takes longer to implement than thinking "I want to change it".
What would an alternative to a marginal pricing system look like? Again, as I understand it (and that's not particularly well!), marginal pricing is the "natural" way that pricing works - left to the market, prices will naturally be set by the most expensive supplier whose product is needed in order to meet demand. Presumably, moving away from this would require government intervention of some sort to force suppliers to sell electricity at a price lower than they would otherwise achieve on the open market?
It worked just fine when we had the CEGB generating the leccy and NEEB* supplying it to our house.
*Other regional electricity boards were also available.
Presumably because they weren't required to make a profit. Is nationalisation the answer? Or should we be building more renewables and upgrading the grid so that gas isn't always needed to meet demand?
So was Nazism. Hitler made a very nice fortune on the royalties from all those (forced) sales of Mein Kampf.
I don't think anyone is saying MAGA is *actual* Nazism, just a possible quasi-fash authoritarian project, it's just instructive to compare it with how another movement came to power. Of course 2020s America is a very different place to 1920s Germany
I guess the issue I take with the comparison is that I think some expect a Reichstag fire and the end of democracy in the states. While it is fun to make some rather loose comparisons, the idea that folk in the states will tolerate a permanent Republican state is for the birds.
They aren't showing particular signs of doing anything about it at the moment, mind.
And a "Reichstag fire" would be any security-related incident that could be a pretext for an authoritarian crackdown. That might be more difficult given the US constitution though. They could use the Kirk murder for that, but it might be hard given that it could challenge their own shibboleths like the individual right to bear arms, and the suspect came from a conservative, white, God-fearing (if heretical) and gun-loving family. So it seems like they are using it as a pretext to go after freedom of speech and the mainstream broadcast media in particular
I would love to comment on the Charlie Kirk and free speech debate, but I have to fly to the US next week, so I can't.
You need to get some pro Trump comments on the record and in the bank.
I'd like to assist. His behaviour during the state visit - not too bad at all, was it?
Agreed?
Letching over the Princess of Wales?
I'm massively out of date, mentally, on the Royals. Read that as letching over Diana. The other day, when it was announced that the Queen was missing some Trump engagement due to not being well enough, I thought, "well, she is dead!".
I think that you, like me, simply had the Queen as an integral part of our lives for so long that we will NEVER get passed this.
The Queen versus a Queen.
They need to retire the term after someone becomes synonymous with it, like shirt numbers in football. Why not just make Camilla the King Consort or similar. Or even Empress or something.
Camilla is the Queen Consort. Prince Philip would have been the King Consort but they sidestepped that elephant trap.
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
The Brownshirts are the people who marched on the White House on 6 January 2021. I don't know enough about American politics to know whether such people are prominent in politics at the moment - my view is that 6 Jan wasn't a serious attempt at a coup, but a trial run to see what could be done, and the mob was effectively stood down to be used on some other occasion when needed.
One of Hitler's first moves was to consolidate power over the police, in his first coalition government as Chancellor, two of the three Nazi cabinet ministers were the interior ministers of Prussia and Germany. ICE is of course one of the Federal police forces that Trump can exert control over.
Concentration camps were initially for political opponents - Communists and Social Democrats - but most of the initial detainees were released. Later from 1936 or so they were used for various "undesirables" including habitual criminals. After 1933 the Party apparat was of course funded by the state. "Illegals" is certainly an out-group that MAGA has selected for persecution and yes their detention camps sound pretty much like concentration camps.
The lauding of a young warrior killed by political opponents is another echo of 30s' Germany.
So no it's not ludicrous to make comparisons with the Nazi rise to power. We may or may not be seeing a serious attempt to establish a quasi-fascist autocracy, but it makes sense to view the actions of the MAGA state on the assumption that this might be happening
So who is composing the 'Horst Kirk' song now? I think its weak to say on one hand that the people who marched on the White House in 2021 are the Brownshirts and then admit that you don't know enough about american politics... The SA were a party of the Nazi party - party members, wore uniforms, engaged in political violence against opponents. I don't recall Democrat conferences and meetings being stormed by Republicans in some sort of MAGA uniform.
I think you're being a bit naif here, Turbo. The Third Reich comparison does not fit exactly - Trump has not gone that far, yet - if he does. But his politicisation and weaponisation of state institutions IS in place, and being used. That comparison fits.
Project 2025 included a huge expansion of "political positions" - in the gift of the President - by recategorisation of civil service positions. Trump's servants have been combing through formerly neutral departments to purge anyone who even touched investigations into Trump then weaponising those departments (DOJ, FBI etc) in his personal interest. Reportedly at the FBI they are applying lie detector tests to prove loyalty:
In interviews and polygraph tests, the F.B.I. has asked senior employees whether they have said anything negative about Mr. Patel, according to two people with knowledge of the questions and others familiar with similar accounts. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/us/politics/fbi-polygraph-kash-patel.html
As for Brownshirts, look at the attack on the Capitol:
Around 12:30, a crowd of about 300 assembled east of the Capitol. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), a leader of the group of lawmakers who vowed to challenge the Electoral College vote, greeted these protesters with a raised fist as he passed by on his way to Congress's joint session in the early afternoon. At 12:52, a group of Oath Keepers, wearing black hoodies with prominent logos, left the rally at the Ellipse and changed into Army Combat Uniforms, with helmets, on their way to the Capitol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Together they injured 100+ police officers, and Trump pardoned or commuted 1600 offenders as one of his first acts.
The US Constitution could be neutered, or heavily redefined to remove all separation of powers.
I think that Putin's Russia is more of a model than Hitler's Germany.
I tend to use Mussolini's Italy, because of the cooperation from the integralist Roman Catholics, who can be seen as a counterpart of MAGA's religious wing. I have not thought through about Franco's Spain or Salazar's Portugal, the latter of which I do not know well.
Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast
This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.
Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.
The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.
The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.
What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.
Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.
I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.
The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
Yes, the only thing keeping the markets away from a serious run on bond rates, is that most large developed economics are in similar positions.
Everyone is now Japan circa 1999.
At some point though the markets will realise it's a Ponzi scheme everywhere. The UK could try to get ahead of things by fixing things now, especially as our demographic pressures, compared to some peers, are not actually that bad.
Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast
This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.
Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.
The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.
The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.
What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.
Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.
I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.
The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
The UK has an extremely long history of paying its debts. That buys quite a lot of trust, but it can't last forever.
I firmly believe that Liz Truss, by introducing a new category of Prime Minister, disturbs the natural pattern of things and so got us into this mess. Let me explain:
Thatcher: fun Major: boring Blair: fun Brown: boring Cameron: fun May: boring Johnson: fun Truss: WEIRD Sunak: boring Starmer: boring
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
Sorry if you dislike the comparions. In no way is anyone saying that history is repeating itself - America today is not Germany 1933. But the pattern of behaviour is there. Doing the same shit in a different way. Its absurd to claim that America is the land of free speech when the President is suing a major media outlet for their crime of not backing him. They are actively trying to silence and subjugate it just as they are bending the constitution to suit their will.
At which point will you accept this is authoritarianism? They are going to lose power in the midterms. Which is why they are engineering a way around that.
Doesn't suing mean going to court of law? Who makes the judgement? Where Trump may lose?
Well he now seems to be threatening broadcasters' FCC licences, which I would have thought would be within Trump's executive field of competence
The Democrats have been asleep at the wheel for the last decade, Trump's current term is built on the preparation he did in 2016-20 to undermine the "checks and balances" that the US thought they had. They needed to restore, rebalance and reinforce those checks during Biden's term and they did nothing.
I was wondering if the US would be in a better place today if Trump had beaten Biden in 2020.
If he had won there wouldn’t have been the Capitol attack, no stolen election crap etc etc. it’s possible that the level of power that MAGA have, the anger amongst Trump fans and so on would be less and the schism in the US less extreme.
Trump himself, without years inbetween presidencies, would not have time to build a team with whom they have created more extreme views on immigration, cutting govt spending and so on.
Musk didn’t buy twitter until 2022 and into the second year of second Trump term he might have been no fan of Trump either.
The democrats would also have had to go back to the drawing board and look for better candidates than Harris.
I know it’s just pointless alternative history but was just something that came to mind.
But then you have Trump in charge when Putin invades Ukraine. No HIMARS or many other weapons for Ukraine. Can't see that being good.
But Putin wouldn't have dared do it with Trump there!
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
Sorry if you dislike the comparions. In no way is anyone saying that history is repeating itself - America today is not Germany 1933. But the pattern of behaviour is there. Doing the same shit in a different way. Its absurd to claim that America is the land of free speech when the President is suing a major media outlet for their crime of not backing him. They are actively trying to silence and subjugate it just as they are bending the constitution to suit their will.
At which point will you accept this is authoritarianism? They are going to lose power in the midterms. Which is why they are engineering a way around that.
Doesn't suing mean going to court of law? Who makes the judgement? Where Trump may lose?
Well he now seems to be threatening broadcasters' FCC licences, which I would have thought would be within Trump's executive field of competence
The Democrats have been asleep at the wheel for the last decade, Trump's current term is built on the preparation he did in 2016-20 to undermine the "checks and balances" that the US thought they had. They needed to restore, rebalance and reinforce those checks during Biden's term and they did nothing.
I was wondering if the US would be in a better place today if Trump had beaten Biden in 2020.
If he had won there wouldn’t have been the Capitol attack, no stolen election crap etc etc. it’s possible that the level of power that MAGA have, the anger amongst Trump fans and so on would be less and the schism in the US less extreme.
Trump himself, without years inbetween presidencies, would not have time to build a team with whom they have created more extreme views on immigration, cutting govt spending and so on.
Musk didn’t buy twitter until 2022 and into the second year of second Trump term he might have been no fan of Trump either.
The democrats would also have had to go back to the drawing board and look for better candidates than Harris.
I know it’s just pointless alternative history but was just something that came to mind.
It’s also something that plenty of Trump supporters have mentioned.
Life, in their eyes, is so much better now than if they’d won again in 2020 and had a relatively quiet second term.
So this whole horror show is punishment for the cheek of voting him out in 2020. Rightio.
I firmly believe that Liz Truss, by introducing a new category of Prime Minister, disturbs the natural pattern of things and so got us into this mess. Let me explain:
Thatcher: fun Major: boring Blair: fun Brown: boring Cameron: fun May: boring Johnson: fun Truss: WEIRD Sunak: boring Starmer: boring
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
Sorry if you dislike the comparions. In no way is anyone saying that history is repeating itself - America today is not Germany 1933. But the pattern of behaviour is there. Doing the same shit in a different way. Its absurd to claim that America is the land of free speech when the President is suing a major media outlet for their crime of not backing him. They are actively trying to silence and subjugate it just as they are bending the constitution to suit their will.
At which point will you accept this is authoritarianism? They are going to lose power in the midterms. Which is why they are engineering a way around that.
Doesn't suing mean going to court of law? Who makes the judgement? Where Trump may lose?
Well he now seems to be threatening broadcasters' FCC licences, which I would have thought would be within Trump's executive field of competence
The Democrats have been asleep at the wheel for the last decade, Trump's current term is built on the preparation he did in 2016-20 to undermine the "checks and balances" that the US thought they had. They needed to restore, rebalance and reinforce those checks during Biden's term and they did nothing.
I was wondering if the US would be in a better place today if Trump had beaten Biden in 2020.
If he had won there wouldn’t have been the Capitol attack, no stolen election crap etc etc. it’s possible that the level of power that MAGA have, the anger amongst Trump fans and so on would be less and the schism in the US less extreme.
Trump himself, without years inbetween presidencies, would not have time to build a team with whom they have created more extreme views on immigration, cutting govt spending and so on.
Musk didn’t buy twitter until 2022 and into the second year of second Trump term he might have been no fan of Trump either.
The democrats would also have had to go back to the drawing board and look for better candidates than Harris.
I know it’s just pointless alternative history but was just something that came to mind.
But then you have Trump in charge when Putin invades Ukraine. No HIMARS or many other weapons for Ukraine. Can't see that being good.
Yes, it's quite possible that could have seen Ukraine's early defeat. The role of the US in both warning Ukraine and Europe, just prior to the invasion, and coordinating the immediate response, is underestimated.
What Europe would look like in that scenario is pretty hard to define, but it would almost certainly be a great deal worse than where we are now.
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
The Brownshirts are the people who marched on the White House on 6 January 2021. I don't know enough about American politics to know whether such people are prominent in politics at the moment - my view is that 6 Jan wasn't a serious attempt at a coup, but a trial run to see what could be done, and the mob was effectively stood down to be used on some other occasion when needed.
One of Hitler's first moves was to consolidate power over the police, in his first coalition government as Chancellor, two of the three Nazi cabinet ministers were the interior ministers of Prussia and Germany. ICE is of course one of the Federal police forces that Trump can exert control over.
Concentration camps were initially for political opponents - Communists and Social Democrats - but most of the initial detainees were released. Later from 1936 or so they were used for various "undesirables" including habitual criminals. After 1933 the Party apparat was of course funded by the state. "Illegals" is certainly an out-group that MAGA has selected for persecution and yes their detention camps sound pretty much like concentration camps.
The lauding of a young warrior killed by political opponents is another echo of 30s' Germany.
So no it's not ludicrous to make comparisons with the Nazi rise to power. We may or may not be seeing a serious attempt to establish a quasi-fascist autocracy, but it makes sense to view the actions of the MAGA state on the assumption that this might be happening
So who is composing the 'Horst Kirk' song now? I think its weak to say on one hand that the people who marched on the White House in 2021 are the Brownshirts and then admit that you don't know enough about american politics... The SA were a party of the Nazi party - party members, wore uniforms, engaged in political violence against opponents. I don't recall Democrat conferences and meetings being stormed by Republicans in some sort of MAGA uniform.
I think you're being a bit naif here, Turbo. The Third Reich comparison does not fit exactly - Trump has not gone that far, yet - if he does. But his politicisation and weaponisation of state institutions IS in place, and being used. That comparison fits.
Project 2025 included a huge expansion of "political positions" - in the gift of the President - by recategorisation of civil service positions. Trump's servants have been combing through formerly neutral departments to purge anyone who even touched investigations into Trump then weaponising those departments (DOJ, FBI etc) in his personal interest. Reportedly at the FBI they are applying lie detector tests to prove loyalty:
In interviews and polygraph tests, the F.B.I. has asked senior employees whether they have said anything negative about Mr. Patel, according to two people with knowledge of the questions and others familiar with similar accounts. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/us/politics/fbi-polygraph-kash-patel.html
As for Brownshirts, look at the attack on the Capitol:
Around 12:30, a crowd of about 300 assembled east of the Capitol. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), a leader of the group of lawmakers who vowed to challenge the Electoral College vote, greeted these protesters with a raised fist as he passed by on his way to Congress's joint session in the early afternoon. At 12:52, a group of Oath Keepers, wearing black hoodies with prominent logos, left the rally at the Ellipse and changed into Army Combat Uniforms, with helmets, on their way to the Capitol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Together they injured 100+ police officers, and Trump pardoned or commuted 1600 offenders as one of his first acts.
The US Constitution could be neutered, or heavily redefined to remove all separation of powers.
Yes and Starmer has a big enough majority that he could make a parliamentary term 30 years. How does Trump change the constitution?
I can't see how. Starmer, for all his faults, has a huge majority. And time. If he goes, what does Milliband bring to the table? He is comprehensively stupid on energy, and consistently wrong. Part of the reasons for high energy costs is that we tie to gas, part is the net zero pricing added in by government.
As I understand it, gas prices set the price of electricity in the UK (as the most expensive type of generation needed to meet demand) because of the marginal pricing system used in the energy market. So my question would be: Is there a viable alternative to a marginal pricing system? If so, why aren't we using it?
Ask Ed.
Ed seems to be religiously committed to "high prices to drive down consumption". You see similar stuff for water.
What happens when solar plus enough battery to create 24 hour power gets significantly cheaper than other methods (on the verge of happening) doesn't seem to have been considered.
Because it won't stop there. It will get cheaper.
I'm fully on board with reducing consumption but in recent times you can use zero and still pay a huge amount each day in standing charges.
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
The Brownshirts are the people who marched on the White House on 6 January 2021. I don't know enough about American politics to know whether such people are prominent in politics at the moment - my view is that 6 Jan wasn't a serious attempt at a coup, but a trial run to see what could be done, and the mob was effectively stood down to be used on some other occasion when needed.
One of Hitler's first moves was to consolidate power over the police, in his first coalition government as Chancellor, two of the three Nazi cabinet ministers were the interior ministers of Prussia and Germany. ICE is of course one of the Federal police forces that Trump can exert control over.
Concentration camps were initially for political opponents - Communists and Social Democrats - but most of the initial detainees were released. Later from 1936 or so they were used for various "undesirables" including habitual criminals. After 1933 the Party apparat was of course funded by the state. "Illegals" is certainly an out-group that MAGA has selected for persecution and yes their detention camps sound pretty much like concentration camps.
The lauding of a young warrior killed by political opponents is another echo of 30s' Germany.
So no it's not ludicrous to make comparisons with the Nazi rise to power. We may or may not be seeing a serious attempt to establish a quasi-fascist autocracy, but it makes sense to view the actions of the MAGA state on the assumption that this might be happening
So who is composing the 'Horst Kirk' song now? I think its weak to say on one hand that the people who marched on the White House in 2021 are the Brownshirts and then admit that you don't know enough about american politics... The SA were a party of the Nazi party - party members, wore uniforms, engaged in political violence against opponents. I don't recall Democrat conferences and meetings being stormed by Republicans in some sort of MAGA uniform.
I think you're being a bit naif here, Turbo. The Third Reich comparison does not fit exactly - Trump has not gone that far, yet - if he does. But his politicisation and weaponisation of state institutions IS in place, and being used. That comparison fits.
Project 2025 included a huge expansion of "political positions" - in the gift of the President - by recategorisation of civil service positions. Trump's servants have been combing through formerly neutral departments to purge anyone who even touched investigations into Trump then weaponising those departments (DOJ, FBI etc) in his personal interest. Reportedly at the FBI they are applying lie detector tests to prove loyalty:
In interviews and polygraph tests, the F.B.I. has asked senior employees whether they have said anything negative about Mr. Patel, according to two people with knowledge of the questions and others familiar with similar accounts. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/us/politics/fbi-polygraph-kash-patel.html
As for Brownshirts, look at the attack on the Capitol:
Around 12:30, a crowd of about 300 assembled east of the Capitol. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), a leader of the group of lawmakers who vowed to challenge the Electoral College vote, greeted these protesters with a raised fist as he passed by on his way to Congress's joint session in the early afternoon. At 12:52, a group of Oath Keepers, wearing black hoodies with prominent logos, left the rally at the Ellipse and changed into Army Combat Uniforms, with helmets, on their way to the Capitol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Together they injured 100+ police officers, and Trump pardoned or commuted 1600 offenders as one of his first acts.
The US Constitution could be neutered, or heavily redefined to remove all separation of powers.
I think that Putin's Russia is more of a model than Hitler's Germany.
I tend to use Mussolini's Italy, because of the cooperation from the integralist Roman Catholics, who can be seen as a counterpart of MAGA's religious wing. I have not thought through about Franco's Spain or Salazar's Portugal, the latter of which I do not know well.
But you are the historian iirc.
I know little about Mussolini's Italy, and Salazar's Portugal.
Like Franco, Trump is very wary of overseas wars, and sees the internal enemy as more dangerous than the external. Unlike Franco, he has no real ideological beliefs. Everything is about ego and self-aggrandisement. In that, I see him as similar to Putin. That could change if Vance were to succeed him.
Fascist regimes tend, eventually, to turn towards foreign adventurism.
I guess this doesn't come under their heading of wasteful spending ?
And so it begins. #AndreaJenkyns has awarded herself an increase of £150K to “run her office” as Mayor of Lincolnshire. Council taxpayers will now have to fork out £262K per annum for the privilege. https://x.com/johncornelius01/status/1968747930820530510
The other worrying thing for me is that drop off I'm VAT. I think we're seeing the effects now of booting out HNWIs to Italy showing itself on indirect tax take. Maybe not all of the shortfall but I'd venture a big portion has come from a reduction in spending on luxury items by people the government said "good riddance" to when they put taxes up on non-doms.
Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast
This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.
Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.
The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.
The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.
What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.
Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.
I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.
The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
Yes, the only thing keeping the markets away from a serious run on bond rates, is that most large developed economics are in similar positions.
Everyone is now Japan circa 1999.
At some point though the markets will realise it's a Ponzi scheme everywhere. The UK could try to get ahead of things by fixing things now, especially as our demographic pressures, compared to some peers, are not actually that bad.
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
Sorry if you dislike the comparions. In no way is anyone saying that history is repeating itself - America today is not Germany 1933. But the pattern of behaviour is there. Doing the same shit in a different way. Its absurd to claim that America is the land of free speech when the President is suing a major media outlet for their crime of not backing him. They are actively trying to silence and subjugate it just as they are bending the constitution to suit their will.
At which point will you accept this is authoritarianism? They are going to lose power in the midterms. Which is why they are engineering a way around that.
Doesn't suing mean going to court of law? Who makes the judgement? Where Trump may lose?
Well he now seems to be threatening broadcasters' FCC licences, which I would have thought would be within Trump's executive field of competence
The Democrats have been asleep at the wheel for the last decade, Trump's current term is built on the preparation he did in 2016-20 to undermine the "checks and balances" that the US thought they had. They needed to restore, rebalance and reinforce those checks during Biden's term and they did nothing.
I was wondering if the US would be in a better place today if Trump had beaten Biden in 2020.
If he had won there wouldn’t have been the Capitol attack, no stolen election crap etc etc. it’s possible that the level of power that MAGA have, the anger amongst Trump fans and so on would be less and the schism in the US less extreme.
Trump himself, without years inbetween presidencies, would not have time to build a team with whom they have created more extreme views on immigration, cutting govt spending and so on.
Musk didn’t buy twitter until 2022 and into the second year of second Trump term he might have been no fan of Trump either.
The democrats would also have had to go back to the drawing board and look for better candidates than Harris.
I know it’s just pointless alternative history but was just something that came to mind.
But then you have Trump in charge when Putin invades Ukraine. No HIMARS or many other weapons for Ukraine. Can't see that being good.
Yes, it's quite possible that could have seen Ukraine's early defeat. The role of the US in both warning Ukraine and Europe, just prior to the invasion, and coordinating the immediate response, is underestimated.
What Europe would look like in that scenario is pretty hard to define, but it would almost certainly be a great deal worse than where we are now.
A puppet government would be installed in Kyiv now, and Russian troops would be massing on the borders of Poland and Romania. Likely, there would be an insurgency in Ukraine, resulting in appalling reprisals by the Russians. Russian special forces would be destabilising the Baltic States. The thought is a terrifying one.
I can't see how. Starmer, for all his faults, has a huge majority. And time. If he goes, what does Milliband bring to the table? He is comprehensively stupid on energy, and consistently wrong. Part of the reasons for high energy costs is that we tie to gas, part is the net zero pricing added in by government.
As I understand it, gas prices set the price of electricity in the UK (as the most expensive type of generation needed to meet demand) because of the marginal pricing system used in the energy market. So my question would be: Is there a viable alternative to a marginal pricing system? If so, why aren't we using it?
Govt has plans to reform the marginal pricing system with the aim of decoupling cheaper renewables from the gas price. So Miliband is doing it, it just takes longer to implement than thinking "I want to change it".
What would an alternative to a marginal pricing system look like? Again, as I understand it (and that's not particularly well!), marginal pricing is the "natural" way that pricing works - left to the market, prices will naturally be set by the most expensive supplier whose product is needed in order to meet demand. Presumably, moving away from this would require government intervention of some sort to force suppliers to sell electricity at a price lower than they would otherwise achieve on the open market?
It worked just fine when we had the CEGB generating the leccy and NEEB* supplying it to our house.
*Other regional electricity boards were also available.
Presumably because they weren't required to make a profit. Is nationalisation the answer? Or should we be building more renewables and upgrading the grid so that gas isn't always needed to meet demand?
Just to point out that most of your electricity bill is not set by the price of gas. Almost all renewables are on fixed price contracts, so is some gas. The "unlink from gas" chat is far too simplistic.
In the long term, it's all about generating cheaply, reducing transmission costs and finding a way to store it. The government just needs to set the market up properly via nodal and variable tariffs.
Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast
This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.
Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.
The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.
The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.
What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.
Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.
I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.
The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
The UK has an extremely long history of paying its debts. That buys quite a lot of trust, but it can't last forever.
Yep, the UK is historically the Lannisters of the debt market. But we have not been in a situation like this outside a major war and the lack of urgency to address the problem across the political spectrum is palpable.
The other worrying thing for me is that drop off I'm VAT. I think we're seeing the effects now of booting out HNWIs to Italy showing itself on indirect tax take. Maybe not all of the shortfall but I'd venture a big portion has come from a reduction in spending on luxury items by people the government said "good riddance" to when they put taxes up on non-doms.
It sounds plausible but we have also seen high food price rises and most food does not attract VAT but leaves less for other spending.
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
The Brownshirts are the people who marched on the White House on 6 January 2021. I don't know enough about American politics to know whether such people are prominent in politics at the moment - my view is that 6 Jan wasn't a serious attempt at a coup, but a trial run to see what could be done, and the mob was effectively stood down to be used on some other occasion when needed.
One of Hitler's first moves was to consolidate power over the police, in his first coalition government as Chancellor, two of the three Nazi cabinet ministers were the interior ministers of Prussia and Germany. ICE is of course one of the Federal police forces that Trump can exert control over.
Concentration camps were initially for political opponents - Communists and Social Democrats - but most of the initial detainees were released. Later from 1936 or so they were used for various "undesirables" including habitual criminals. After 1933 the Party apparat was of course funded by the state. "Illegals" is certainly an out-group that MAGA has selected for persecution and yes their detention camps sound pretty much like concentration camps.
The lauding of a young warrior killed by political opponents is another echo of 30s' Germany.
So no it's not ludicrous to make comparisons with the Nazi rise to power. We may or may not be seeing a serious attempt to establish a quasi-fascist autocracy, but it makes sense to view the actions of the MAGA state on the assumption that this might be happening
So who is composing the 'Horst Kirk' song now? I think its weak to say on one hand that the people who marched on the White House in 2021 are the Brownshirts and then admit that you don't know enough about american politics... The SA were a party of the Nazi party - party members, wore uniforms, engaged in political violence against opponents. I don't recall Democrat conferences and meetings being stormed by Republicans in some sort of MAGA uniform.
I think you're being a bit naif here, Turbo. The Third Reich comparison does not fit exactly - Trump has not gone that far, yet - if he does. But his politicisation and weaponisation of state institutions IS in place, and being used. That comparison fits.
Project 2025 included a huge expansion of "political positions" - in the gift of the President - by recategorisation of civil service positions. Trump's servants have been combing through formerly neutral departments to purge anyone who even touched investigations into Trump then weaponising those departments (DOJ, FBI etc) in his personal interest. Reportedly at the FBI they are applying lie detector tests to prove loyalty:
In interviews and polygraph tests, the F.B.I. has asked senior employees whether they have said anything negative about Mr. Patel, according to two people with knowledge of the questions and others familiar with similar accounts. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/us/politics/fbi-polygraph-kash-patel.html
As for Brownshirts, look at the attack on the Capitol:
Around 12:30, a crowd of about 300 assembled east of the Capitol. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), a leader of the group of lawmakers who vowed to challenge the Electoral College vote, greeted these protesters with a raised fist as he passed by on his way to Congress's joint session in the early afternoon. At 12:52, a group of Oath Keepers, wearing black hoodies with prominent logos, left the rally at the Ellipse and changed into Army Combat Uniforms, with helmets, on their way to the Capitol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Together they injured 100+ police officers, and Trump pardoned or commuted 1600 offenders as one of his first acts.
The US Constitution could be neutered, or heavily redefined to remove all separation of powers.
Yes and Starmer has a big enough majority that he could make a parliamentary term 30 years. How does Trump change the constitution?
He's doing quite a lot practically by having Congress fail to perform it's role as a counterbalance so he can ignore chunks of it, and is altering the Constitutional settlement by having his Supreme Court remove key settled precedents.
eg Effective abolition of nationwide injunctions on the Federal Government, so a Court ruling only applies to the complainant in a particular case, and removal of criminal liability for the President on an expansive definition of "Official Acts".
One current target is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 - which established birthright citizenship.
Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast
This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.
Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.
The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.
The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.
What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.
Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.
I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.
The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
Yes, the only thing keeping the markets away from a serious run on bond rates, is that most large developed economics are in similar positions.
Everyone is now Japan circa 1999.
At some point though the markets will realise it's a Ponzi scheme everywhere. The UK could try to get ahead of things by fixing things now, especially as our demographic pressures, compared to some peers, are not actually that bad.
Yes, but do Labour have the cojones to cut public sector pensions and the state pension?
Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast
This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.
Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.
The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.
The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.
What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.
Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.
I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.
The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
Yes, the only thing keeping the markets away from a serious run on bond rates, is that most large developed economics are in similar positions.
Everyone is now Japan circa 1999.
At some point though the markets will realise it's a Ponzi scheme everywhere. The UK could try to get ahead of things by fixing things now, especially as our demographic pressures, compared to some peers, are not actually that bad.
Yes, but do Labour have the cojones to cut public sector pensions and the state pension?
I am not sure anyone does. Health and social care costs are the bigger problem, too.
I can't see how. Starmer, for all his faults, has a huge majority. And time. If he goes, what does Milliband bring to the table? He is comprehensively stupid on energy, and consistently wrong. Part of the reasons for high energy costs is that we tie to gas, part is the net zero pricing added in by government.
As I understand it, gas prices set the price of electricity in the UK (as the most expensive type of generation needed to meet demand) because of the marginal pricing system used in the energy market. So my question would be: Is there a viable alternative to a marginal pricing system? If so, why aren't we using it?
Govt has plans to reform the marginal pricing system with the aim of decoupling cheaper renewables from the gas price. So Miliband is doing it, it just takes longer to implement than thinking "I want to change it".
What would an alternative to a marginal pricing system look like? Again, as I understand it (and that's not particularly well!), marginal pricing is the "natural" way that pricing works - left to the market, prices will naturally be set by the most expensive supplier whose product is needed in order to meet demand. Presumably, moving away from this would require government intervention of some sort to force suppliers to sell electricity at a price lower than they would otherwise achieve on the open market?
It worked just fine when we had the CEGB generating the leccy and NEEB* supplying it to our house.
*Other regional electricity boards were also available.
Presumably because they weren't required to make a profit. Is nationalisation the answer? Or should we be building more renewables and upgrading the grid so that gas isn't always needed to meet demand?
It's not really an open market though, the alternative to selling to the UK would be trying to use the connectors to sell to a limited number of other countries or deal direct with a large consumer, if that's possible.
The Offshore wind industry have suggested long term fixed price supply contracts in return for a steady approval of new windfarms
Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast
This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.
Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.
The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.
The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.
What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.
Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.
I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.
The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
Yes, the only thing keeping the markets away from a serious run on bond rates, is that most large developed economics are in similar positions.
Everyone is now Japan circa 1999.
At some point though the markets will realise it's a Ponzi scheme everywhere. The UK could try to get ahead of things by fixing things now, especially as our demographic pressures, compared to some peers, are not actually that bad.
Yes, but do Labour have the cojones to cut public sector pensions and the state pension?
There’s no way they have the cojones to tell the senior CS retirees currently on 2/3s of £100k final salary, that they need to learn to live on 20% less than that, nor to revalue them as career average.
They might be able to get away with reducing NI by 5% and increasing IT by 5% though.
I firmly believe that Liz Truss, by introducing a new category of Prime Minister, disturbs the natural pattern of things and so got us into this mess. Let me explain:
Thatcher: fun Major: boring Blair: fun Brown: boring Cameron: fun May: boring Johnson: fun Truss: WEIRD Sunak: boring Starmer: boring
Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast
This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.
Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.
The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.
The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.
What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.
Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.
I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.
The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
Yes, the only thing keeping the markets away from a serious run on bond rates, is that most large developed economics are in similar positions.
Everyone is now Japan circa 1999.
At some point though the markets will realise it's a Ponzi scheme everywhere. The UK could try to get ahead of things by fixing things now, especially as our demographic pressures, compared to some peers, are not actually that bad.
Yes, but do Labour have the cojones to cut public sector pensions and the state pension?
I am not sure anyone does. Health and social care costs are the bigger problem, too.
True, and like you I don't think any party will have what it takes to make the necessary cuts.
The other worrying thing for me is that drop off I'm VAT. I think we're seeing the effects now of booting out HNWIs to Italy showing itself on indirect tax take. Maybe not all of the shortfall but I'd venture a big portion has come from a reduction in spending on luxury items by people the government said "good riddance" to when they put taxes up on non-doms.
It sounds plausible but we have also seen high food price rises and most food does not attract VAT but leaves less for other spending.
I'd look for any impact to show up most strongly in self assessment income tax receipts/CGT, and those numbers aren't underperforming vs the OBR forecast.
Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast
This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.
Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.
The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.
The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.
What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.
Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.
I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.
The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
Yes, the only thing keeping the markets away from a serious run on bond rates, is that most large developed economics are in similar positions.
Everyone is now Japan circa 1999.
At some point though the markets will realise it's a Ponzi scheme everywhere. The UK could try to get ahead of things by fixing things now, especially as our demographic pressures, compared to some peers, are not actually that bad.
The triple lock has to go at some point.
Yes but ending the triple lock is hardly urgent, especially as it would presumably be replaced by some other sort of lock.
OT I tried Burger King's waygu burger. After its mixed reviews, to put it kindly, I nixed the rocket and mayo and added a slice of cheese. Verdict: good; better than their ordinary burgers; £11 is a lot though.
And the burger comes in a posh-looking cardboard box.
I had some wagyu sausages, as they were on offer. Quite nice beef sausages but I wouldn't pay the normal premium.
(Whatever happened to beef sausages? When I was a kid, they were almost as prominent as pork. Now you rarely see them. I suspect burgers are much more popular so all the beef offcuts go into them. Waitrose do beef & black pepper chipolatas, which I used to like, but I think they have gone skinless and in general I think they have lowered the quality of their "standard" range of sausages rather than put the price up)
Beef sausages are all over the place and in many takeaways the only option (halal, you see).
I'd agree about the drop in quality to keep the price down. I've stopped buying meat pies for that very reason.
Maybe I don't live in an ethnically diverse enough area, but I don't often see beef sausages - Waitrose for example only used to have the one item, and that was only available in chipolata. They have now added the wagyu sausages which I will get if I see them on offer. Whereas loads of different pork sausages. I am going to pop into Sainsburys today so I will have a look. I do need to start buying butchers' sausages but my local butcher's sausages are expensive but not that good. We do have a couple of specialist sausage butchers, but they are a few miles away and, as ever, I can't be arsed.
Tesco and Sainsburys used to do fantastic premium own brand sausages. They both changed their recipes (specifically, I think, of the skin) for reasons I can't remember, about 2 or 3 years ago, and are now much worse.
Heck sausages are the only decent ones. And even they have too much salt in them.
Local butcher for me, but that's no good if you lot can't be arsed to get to Warminster...
Curious. I'd have thought Labour would have suffered much more through Rayner-Gate and Mandy-Gate. And Reform's support seems to be flat-lining. I wonder if Sir Keir's recent troubles and the boot boys in Trafalgar Square have cancelled each other out.
Borrowing – the difference between total public sector spending and income – was £18.0 billion in August 2025; this was £3.5 billion more than in August 2024 and the highest August borrowing for five years.
Borrowing in the financial year to August 2025 was £83.8 billion; this was £16.2 billion more than in the same five-month period of 2024 and the second-highest April to August borrowing since monthly records began in 1993, after that of 2020.
Maybe they should have actually raised taxes last Budget, rather than tinkering around the edges with stuff like farmers’ inheritances and private school VAT?
They did raise taxes last year, dramatically.
Problem is they raised the very worst possible tax to increase.
National Insurance is only payable by those actually working, or those actually creating jobs. Something we want to encourage, not discourage.
We heavily penalise paid employment by taxing it far, far more than unearned incomes, which is the polar opposite of what we should be doing - and Labour made that differential worse, with inevitable consequences.
By increasing taxes on productive employment, we've seen a slowdown in the economy, shock horror, which worsens the Budget.
We should be lowering and seeking to abolish National Insurance and equalising taxes between earned and unearned incomes, which would be Budget-friendly without trashing the economy.
No we should be ringfencing National Insurance for JSA and some health and social care and the state pension as it was set up to do
Why do we have to stick to what things were set up to do? Shall we only use Income Tax to fight the French? Actually that's an idea.
As most OECD nations fund their healthcare and social welfare with insurance ie largely contributory, unlike the dependency tax funded welfare you want
We would have to put NI up very substantially if we were to entirely fund healthcare, unemployment benefits and pensions that way.
And could reduce income tax accordingly in response
The other worrying thing for me is that drop off I'm VAT. I think we're seeing the effects now of booting out HNWIs to Italy showing itself on indirect tax take. Maybe not all of the shortfall but I'd venture a big portion has come from a reduction in spending on luxury items by people the government said "good riddance" to when they put taxes up on non-doms.
It sounds plausible but we have also seen high food price rises and most food does not attract VAT but leaves less for other spending.
I'd look for any impact to show up most strongly in self assessment income tax receipts/CGT, and those numbers aren't underperforming vs the OBR forecast.
Aren't those a seriously lagging indicator, though?
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
The Brownshirts are the people who marched on the White House on 6 January 2021. I don't know enough about American politics to know whether such people are prominent in politics at the moment - my view is that 6 Jan wasn't a serious attempt at a coup, but a trial run to see what could be done, and the mob was effectively stood down to be used on some other occasion when needed.
One of Hitler's first moves was to consolidate power over the police, in his first coalition government as Chancellor, two of the three Nazi cabinet ministers were the interior ministers of Prussia and Germany. ICE is of course one of the Federal police forces that Trump can exert control over.
Concentration camps were initially for political opponents - Communists and Social Democrats - but most of the initial detainees were released. Later from 1936 or so they were used for various "undesirables" including habitual criminals. After 1933 the Party apparat was of course funded by the state. "Illegals" is certainly an out-group that MAGA has selected for persecution and yes their detention camps sound pretty much like concentration camps.
The lauding of a young warrior killed by political opponents is another echo of 30s' Germany.
So no it's not ludicrous to make comparisons with the Nazi rise to power. We may or may not be seeing a serious attempt to establish a quasi-fascist autocracy, but it makes sense to view the actions of the MAGA state on the assumption that this might be happening
So who is composing the 'Horst Kirk' song now? I think its weak to say on one hand that the people who marched on the White House in 2021 are the Brownshirts and then admit that you don't know enough about american politics... The SA were a party of the Nazi party - party members, wore uniforms, engaged in political violence against opponents. I don't recall Democrat conferences and meetings being stormed by Republicans in some sort of MAGA uniform.
I think you're being a bit naif here, Turbo. The Third Reich comparison does not fit exactly - Trump has not gone that far, yet - if he does. But his politicisation and weaponisation of state institutions IS in place, and being used. That comparison fits.
Project 2025 included a huge expansion of "political positions" - in the gift of the President - by recategorisation of civil service positions. Trump's servants have been combing through formerly neutral departments to purge anyone who even touched investigations into Trump then weaponising those departments (DOJ, FBI etc) in his personal interest. Reportedly at the FBI they are applying lie detector tests to prove loyalty:
In interviews and polygraph tests, the F.B.I. has asked senior employees whether they have said anything negative about Mr. Patel, according to two people with knowledge of the questions and others familiar with similar accounts. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/us/politics/fbi-polygraph-kash-patel.html
As for Brownshirts, look at the attack on the Capitol:
Around 12:30, a crowd of about 300 assembled east of the Capitol. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), a leader of the group of lawmakers who vowed to challenge the Electoral College vote, greeted these protesters with a raised fist as he passed by on his way to Congress's joint session in the early afternoon. At 12:52, a group of Oath Keepers, wearing black hoodies with prominent logos, left the rally at the Ellipse and changed into Army Combat Uniforms, with helmets, on their way to the Capitol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Together they injured 100+ police officers, and Trump pardoned or commuted 1600 offenders as one of his first acts.
The US Constitution could be neutered, or heavily redefined to remove all separation of powers.
Yes and Starmer has a big enough majority that he could make a parliamentary term 30 years. How does Trump change the constitution?
He's doing quite a lot practically by having Congress fail to perform it's role as a counterbalance so he can ignore chunks of it, and is altering the Constitutional settlement by having his Supreme Court remove key settled precedents.
eg Effective abolition of nationwide injunctions on the Federal Government, so a Court ruling only applies to the complainant in a particular case, and removal of criminal liability for the President on an expansive definition of "Official Acts".
One current target is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 - which established birthright citizenship.
He's changing plenty of things.
The creeping politicisation of the justice system is another element. Today's example.
Federal prosecutors in Virginia had uncovered no clear evidence to prove that James had knowingly committed mortgage fraud when she purchased a home in the state in 2023, ABC News first reported earlier this week, but Trump officials pushed U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert to nevertheless bring criminal charges against her, according to sources.
Administration officials have told Siebert of Trump's intention to fire him, sources familiar with the matter said. Siebert's last day on the job is expected to be Friday...
Curious. I'd have thought Labour would have suffered much more through Rayner-Gate and Mandy-Gate. And Reform's support seems to be flat-lining. I wonder if Sir Keir's recent troubles and the boot boys in Trafalgar Square have cancelled each other out.
There is a very small increase over time in the Reform share if you look at all opinion polls including MoreInCommon and FindOutNow which I know some people don't trust much.
I guess this doesn't come under their heading of wasteful spending ?
And so it begins. #AndreaJenkyns has awarded herself an increase of £150K to “run her office” as Mayor of Lincolnshire. Council taxpayers will now have to fork out £262K per annum for the privilege. https://x.com/johncornelius01/status/1968747930820530510
Grn 48.36% [+19.89 compared to May 2024 by-election] Lab 31.11% [-15.01] Rfm 10.12% [new] LD 4.18% [+1.69] Con 3.50% [-2.74] Ind 2.73% [new]
no Brighton & Hove ind [previously 16.69%]
swing Lab to Grn 17.45%
No surprise there; I live in the adjacent ward. Bad for the Tories. Queen's Park is a very prosperous part of Brighton, full of affluent professionals, and to get only 3.5% in such an area is fairly astonishing.
The other worrying thing for me is that drop off I'm VAT. I think we're seeing the effects now of booting out HNWIs to Italy showing itself on indirect tax take. Maybe not all of the shortfall but I'd venture a big portion has come from a reduction in spending on luxury items by people the government said "good riddance" to when they put taxes up on non-doms.
It sounds plausible but we have also seen high food price rises and most food does not attract VAT but leaves less for other spending.
I'd look for any impact to show up most strongly in self assessment income tax receipts/CGT, and those numbers aren't underperforming vs the OBR forecast.
Aren't those a seriously lagging indicator, though?
True, but this supposed exodus isn't meant to be a new phenomenon, as the last government's abolition of the non dom status was well flagged, and other drivers like Brexit's impact on London as a financial centre have also been in train for some time.
'@CraigMurrayOrg A day I shall never forget. Speaking at the UN in Geneva in favour of Scottish Independence, I stated that the UK is a force for evil in the world. And people from all over the globe interrupted with spontaneous applause' https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1968720543416287530
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
The Brownshirts are the people who marched on the White House on 6 January 2021. I don't know enough about American politics to know whether such people are prominent in politics at the moment - my view is that 6 Jan wasn't a serious attempt at a coup, but a trial run to see what could be done, and the mob was effectively stood down to be used on some other occasion when needed.
One of Hitler's first moves was to consolidate power over the police, in his first coalition government as Chancellor, two of the three Nazi cabinet ministers were the interior ministers of Prussia and Germany. ICE is of course one of the Federal police forces that Trump can exert control over.
Concentration camps were initially for political opponents - Communists and Social Democrats - but most of the initial detainees were released. Later from 1936 or so they were used for various "undesirables" including habitual criminals. After 1933 the Party apparat was of course funded by the state. "Illegals" is certainly an out-group that MAGA has selected for persecution and yes their detention camps sound pretty much like concentration camps.
The lauding of a young warrior killed by political opponents is another echo of 30s' Germany.
So no it's not ludicrous to make comparisons with the Nazi rise to power. We may or may not be seeing a serious attempt to establish a quasi-fascist autocracy, but it makes sense to view the actions of the MAGA state on the assumption that this might be happening
So who is composing the 'Horst Kirk' song now? I think its weak to say on one hand that the people who marched on the White House in 2021 are the Brownshirts and then admit that you don't know enough about american politics... The SA were a party of the Nazi party - party members, wore uniforms, engaged in political violence against opponents. I don't recall Democrat conferences and meetings being stormed by Republicans in some sort of MAGA uniform.
I think you're being a bit naif here, Turbo. The Third Reich comparison does not fit exactly - Trump has not gone that far, yet - if he does. But his politicisation and weaponisation of state institutions IS in place, and being used. That comparison fits.
Project 2025 included a huge expansion of "political positions" - in the gift of the President - by recategorisation of civil service positions. Trump's servants have been combing through formerly neutral departments to purge anyone who even touched investigations into Trump then weaponising those departments (DOJ, FBI etc) in his personal interest. Reportedly at the FBI they are applying lie detector tests to prove loyalty:
In interviews and polygraph tests, the F.B.I. has asked senior employees whether they have said anything negative about Mr. Patel, according to two people with knowledge of the questions and others familiar with similar accounts. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/us/politics/fbi-polygraph-kash-patel.html
As for Brownshirts, look at the attack on the Capitol:
Around 12:30, a crowd of about 300 assembled east of the Capitol. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), a leader of the group of lawmakers who vowed to challenge the Electoral College vote, greeted these protesters with a raised fist as he passed by on his way to Congress's joint session in the early afternoon. At 12:52, a group of Oath Keepers, wearing black hoodies with prominent logos, left the rally at the Ellipse and changed into Army Combat Uniforms, with helmets, on their way to the Capitol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Together they injured 100+ police officers, and Trump pardoned or commuted 1600 offenders as one of his first acts.
The US Constitution could be neutered, or heavily redefined to remove all separation of powers.
I think that Putin's Russia is more of a model than Hitler's Germany.
I tend to use Mussolini's Italy, because of the cooperation from the integralist Roman Catholics, who can be seen as a counterpart of MAGA's religious wing. I have not thought through about Franco's Spain or Salazar's Portugal, the latter of which I do not know well.
But you are the historian iirc.
I know little about Mussolini's Italy, and Salazar's Portugal.
Like Franco, Trump is very wary of overseas wars, and sees the internal enemy as more dangerous than the external. Unlike Franco, he has no real ideological beliefs. Everything is about ego and self-aggrandisement. In that, I see him as similar to Putin. That could change if Vance were to succeed him.
Fascist regimes tend, eventually, to turn towards foreign adventurism.
Peronism? It’s got the “endless fight against internal enemies”, cult of the leader and the fuckwit economics.
Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast
This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.
Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.
The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.
The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.
What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.
Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.
I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.
The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
Yes, the only thing keeping the markets away from a serious run on bond rates, is that most large developed economics are in similar positions.
Everyone is now Japan circa 1999.
At some point though the markets will realise it's a Ponzi scheme everywhere. The UK could try to get ahead of things by fixing things now, especially as our demographic pressures, compared to some peers, are not actually that bad.
The triple lock has to go at some point.
It does, but that is just the start of it. Plenty of other sacred cows are going to have to be slaughtered too, I’m afraid.
Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast
This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.
Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.
The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.
The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.
What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.
Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.
I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.
The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
Yes, the only thing keeping the markets away from a serious run on bond rates, is that most large developed economics are in similar positions.
Everyone is now Japan circa 1999.
At some point though the markets will realise it's a Ponzi scheme everywhere. The UK could try to get ahead of things by fixing things now, especially as our demographic pressures, compared to some peers, are not actually that bad.
Yes, but do Labour have the cojones to cut public sector pensions and the state pension?
I am not sure anyone does. Health and social care costs are the bigger problem, too.
They don't.
The unfortunate thing is that when cuts are eventually forced on us from outside, by our creditors, that will be considerably more painful that would be the case if we were to start right now actively addressing our debt situation, voluntarily.
I guess this doesn't come under their heading of wasteful spending ?
And so it begins. #AndreaJenkyns has awarded herself an increase of £150K to “run her office” as Mayor of Lincolnshire. Council taxpayers will now have to fork out £262K per annum for the privilege. https://x.com/johncornelius01/status/1968747930820530510
'@CraigMurrayOrg A day I shall never forget. Speaking at the UN in Geneva in favour of Scottish Independence, I stated that the UK is a force for evil in the world. And people from all over the globe interrupted with spontaneous applause' https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1968720543416287530
O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.
1) Emma Raducanu ever winning a Slam again 2) Donald Trump being in office past Jan 2029
Well, Leon predicted Emma Raducanu would become the pre-eminent global sporting icon of the 21st Century, so let's hear his view on Trump 2029 and we have the future.
So was Nazism. Hitler made a very nice fortune on the royalties from all those (forced) sales of Mein Kampf.
I don't think anyone is saying MAGA is *actual* Nazism, just a possible quasi-fash authoritarian project, it's just instructive to compare it with how another movement came to power. Of course 2020s America is a very different place to 1920s Germany
I guess the issue I take with the comparison is that I think some expect a Reichstag fire and the end of democracy in the states. While it is fun to make some rather loose comparisons, the idea that folk in the states will tolerate a permanent Republican state is for the birds.
They aren't showing particular signs of doing anything about it at the moment, mind.
And a "Reichstag fire" would be any security-related incident that could be a pretext for an authoritarian crackdown. That might be more difficult given the US constitution though. They could use the Kirk murder for that, but it might be hard given that it could challenge their own shibboleths like the individual right to bear arms, and the suspect came from a conservative, white, God-fearing (if heretical) and gun-loving family. So it seems like they are using it as a pretext to go after freedom of speech and the mainstream broadcast media in particular
Worth noting that there were multiple “Reichstag fire” events of various sizes, in Nazi Germany. Each one was used to push things further.
It’s actually fairly common in the imposition of authoritarian regimes - they don’t need to manufacture them. Their opponents provide some slight cause - the regime then massively overreacts
Curious. I'd have thought Labour would have suffered much more through Rayner-Gate and Mandy-Gate. And Reform's support seems to be flat-lining. I wonder if Sir Keir's recent troubles and the boot boys in Trafalgar Square have cancelled each other out.
They might not have much further to fall, absent another seismic event. I can see how 2 in 10 people probably aren’t on the extremes, have a vague affinity with centrist social democracy, and hate the idea of Reform/The Tories/The Greens/Magic Grandpa winning an election. So Labour will have to do.
I can't see how. Starmer, for all his faults, has a huge majority. And time. If he goes, what does Milliband bring to the table? He is comprehensively stupid on energy, and consistently wrong. Part of the reasons for high energy costs is that we tie to gas, part is the net zero pricing added in by government.
As I understand it, gas prices set the price of electricity in the UK (as the most expensive type of generation needed to meet demand) because of the marginal pricing system used in the energy market. So my question would be: Is there a viable alternative to a marginal pricing system? If so, why aren't we using it?
Ask Ed.
Ed seems to be religiously committed to "high prices to drive down consumption". You see similar stuff for water.
What happens when solar plus enough battery to create 24 hour power gets significantly cheaper than other methods (on the verge of happening) doesn't seem to have been considered.
Because it won't stop there. It will get cheaper.
My assumption was that the profits drive renewable investments.
1) Emma Raducanu ever winning a Slam again 2) Donald Trump being in office past Jan 2029
The only way Trump isn't in office in 2029 is if he dies first. Anyone who thinks he'll just step down as required by the constitution is naive to put it mildly.
1) Emma Raducanu ever winning a Slam again 2) Donald Trump being in office past Jan 2029
The only way Trump isn't in office in 2029 is if he dies first. Anyone who thinks he'll just step down as required by the constitution is naive to put it mildly.
My view is it’s much more likely he runs with a proxy - e.g Eric Trump runs in 2028 ostensibly as his own candidate but, of course, he’ll make DJT his “senior advisor” if he wins, nudge nudge. Oh and he’ll also be his campaign manager, and he’ll speak at all the rallies, etc etc.
I would love to comment on the Charlie Kirk and free speech debate, but I have to fly to the US next week, so I can't.
You need to get some pro Trump comments on the record and in the bank.
I'd like to assist. His behaviour during the state visit - not too bad at all, was it?
Agreed?
Letching over the Princess of Wales?
I'm massively out of date, mentally, on the Royals. Read that as letching over Diana. The other day, when it was announced that the Queen was missing some Trump engagement due to not being well enough, I thought, "well, she is dead!".
I think that you, like me, simply had the Queen as an integral part of our lives for so long that we will NEVER get passed this.
If it's any consolation to you and Selebian, Mrs C was also confused by the announcement (I'd read it in a format which made it clearer, but she'd heard it on the radio).
Grn 48.36% [+19.89 compared to May 2024 by-election] Lab 31.11% [-15.01] Rfm 10.12% [new] LD 4.18% [+1.69] Con 3.50% [-2.74] Ind 2.73% [new]
no Brighton & Hove ind [previously 16.69%]
swing Lab to Grn 17.45%
No surprise there; I live in the adjacent ward. Bad for the Tories. Queen's Park is a very prosperous part of Brighton, full of affluent professionals, and to get only 3.5% in such an area is fairly astonishing.
Tories got 12% of the vote there in 2019, so not that different to Reform plus Con now. Obviously, losing lots of votes to Reform isn't good for the Tories, but this is not fertile ground for the Tories.
Borrowing – the difference between total public sector spending and income – was £18.0 billion in August 2025; this was £3.5 billion more than in August 2024 and the highest August borrowing for five years.
Borrowing in the financial year to August 2025 was £83.8 billion; this was £16.2 billion more than in the same five-month period of 2024 and the second-highest April to August borrowing since monthly records began in 1993, after that of 2020.
Maybe they should have actually raised taxes last Budget, rather than tinkering around the edges with stuff like farmers’ inheritances and private school VAT?
They did raise taxes last year, dramatically.
Problem is they raised the very worst possible tax to increase.
National Insurance is only payable by those actually working, or those actually creating jobs. Something we want to encourage, not discourage.
We heavily penalise paid employment by taxing it far, far more than unearned incomes, which is the polar opposite of what we should be doing - and Labour made that differential worse, with inevitable consequences.
By increasing taxes on productive employment, we've seen a slowdown in the economy, shock horror, which worsens the Budget.
We should be lowering and seeking to abolish National Insurance and equalising taxes between earned and unearned incomes, which would be Budget-friendly without trashing the economy.
No we should be ringfencing National Insurance for JSA and some health and social care and the state pension as it was set up to do
Why do we have to stick to what things were set up to do? Shall we only use Income Tax to fight the French? Actually that's an idea.
As most OECD nations fund their healthcare and social welfare with insurance ie largely contributory, unlike the dependency tax funded welfare you want
We would have to put NI up very substantially if we were to entirely fund healthcare, unemployment benefits and pensions that way.
And could reduce income tax accordingly in response
'@CraigMurrayOrg A day I shall never forget. Speaking at the UN in Geneva in favour of Scottish Independence, I stated that the UK is a force for evil in the world. And people from all over the globe interrupted with spontaneous applause' https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1968720543416287530
O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.
Perhaps I'm reaching here, but I doubt if those who are applauding are the representatives of liberal democracies.
The kinds of states that Craig Murray admires are the places that people escape from, rather than escape to.
I would love to comment on the Charlie Kirk and free speech debate, but I have to fly to the US next week, so I can't.
You need to get some pro Trump comments on the record and in the bank.
I'd like to assist. His behaviour during the state visit - not too bad at all, was it?
Agreed?
Letching over the Princess of Wales?
I'm massively out of date, mentally, on the Royals. Read that as letching over Diana. The other day, when it was announced that the Queen was missing some Trump engagement due to not being well enough, I thought, "well, she is dead!".
A friend of mine had a similar experience when visiting somewhere or other in Canada last year. How can this tree have possibly been planted by the Duke of Edinburgh when he was dead by this time? It had, of course, been planted by Prince Edward.
1) Emma Raducanu ever winning a Slam again 2) Donald Trump being in office past Jan 2029
The only way Trump isn't in office in 2029 is if he dies first. Anyone who thinks he'll just step down as required by the constitution is naive to put it mildly.
Presidents don't step down, they're elected for a fixed term of office.
So the next President will be elected in November 2028 and will take office in January 2029.
Trump can blockade himself in the White House and huff and puff all he wants.
And nobody will pay any attention beyond him being evicted and taken off to a care home.
Ed M's ambition and persistence, sticking around at the top of the party after defeat and still hunting for the top job 10 years on, demonstrates why he had 10x more leadership skills than David.
He's yesterday's man though, he needs to let it go.
I said the same about Trump, but there he is, President again. It's always said about that, that you can't 'go back' or you can't 'do a Wilson'. But I wonder if the autum of 1970 whether people had written Wilson off being PM again, but there you were, four years later and he was.
I'm biased though. I like Ed Miliband and think he would've made a decent (not great) Prime Minister. He might still though I think it's unlikely now.
'@CraigMurrayOrg A day I shall never forget. Speaking at the UN in Geneva in favour of Scottish Independence, I stated that the UK is a force for evil in the world. And people from all over the globe interrupted with spontaneous applause' https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1968720543416287530
O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.
Perhaps I'm reaching here, but I doubt if those who are applauding are the representatives of liberal democracies.
The kinds of states that Craig Murray admires are the places that people escape from, rather than escape to.
When the Berlin Wall fell, how come the human traffic was only in one direction?
Borrowing – the difference between total public sector spending and income – was £18.0 billion in August 2025; this was £3.5 billion more than in August 2024 and the highest August borrowing for five years.
Borrowing in the financial year to August 2025 was £83.8 billion; this was £16.2 billion more than in the same five-month period of 2024 and the second-highest April to August borrowing since monthly records began in 1993, after that of 2020.
Maybe they should have actually raised taxes last Budget, rather than tinkering around the edges with stuff like farmers’ inheritances and private school VAT?
They did raise taxes last year, dramatically.
Problem is they raised the very worst possible tax to increase.
National Insurance is only payable by those actually working, or those actually creating jobs. Something we want to encourage, not discourage.
We heavily penalise paid employment by taxing it far, far more than unearned incomes, which is the polar opposite of what we should be doing - and Labour made that differential worse, with inevitable consequences.
By increasing taxes on productive employment, we've seen a slowdown in the economy, shock horror, which worsens the Budget.
We should be lowering and seeking to abolish National Insurance and equalising taxes between earned and unearned incomes, which would be Budget-friendly without trashing the economy.
No we should be ringfencing National Insurance for JSA and some health and social care and the state pension as it was set up to do
Why do we have to stick to what things were set up to do? Shall we only use Income Tax to fight the French? Actually that's an idea.
As most OECD nations fund their healthcare and social welfare with insurance ie largely contributory, unlike the dependency tax funded welfare you want
We would have to put NI up very substantially if we were to entirely fund healthcare, unemployment benefits and pensions that way.
And could reduce income tax accordingly in response
Tax income don’t tax employment
Income tax is tax on income from employment
No, Income Tax is tax on income from employment, pensions, investments, savings, and many other sources.
I reckon Ed Miliband might be a good choice. He's had quite a while to reflect on what he could have done differently, he's been discreet and supportive since he stepped down, and I always believed he only entered that leadership election to make it clear he had a claim to a shadow post in his own right if his brother won.
If David Miliband had won the Tories wouldn’t have got a majority in 2015 . What he could have done differently was not to be a backstabbing Judas .
I suspect this is one reason why Ed can't unite the Labour Party. There's a widespread but to my mind completely bizarre belief that his older brother had the right to be leader and it was somehow a betrayal to stand in an open contest.
I don't bet, but I'm sure there were daily posts on here between 2010 and 2015 about how you could make a fortune by laying David Miliband to be next Prime Minister because of those with only a passing knowledge of politics didn't understand that David Miliband was not only not the Leader of the Opposition at the time, but wasn't even an MP.
1) Emma Raducanu ever winning a Slam again 2) Donald Trump being in office past Jan 2029
The only way Trump isn't in office in 2029 is if he dies first. Anyone who thinks he'll just step down as required by the constitution is naive to put it mildly.
Presidents don't step down, they're elected for a fixed term of office.
So the next President will be elected in November 2028 and will take office in January 2029.
Trump can blockade himself in the White House and huff and puff all he wants.
And nobody will pay any attention beyond him being evicted and taken off to a care home.
Is there a market anywhere on Donald Trump (the incumbent, not DJT Jr.) being president of the US on 21st Jan 2029?
Because I’d love to take some money off those who think differently.
'@CraigMurrayOrg A day I shall never forget. Speaking at the UN in Geneva in favour of Scottish Independence, I stated that the UK is a force for evil in the world. And people from all over the globe interrupted with spontaneous applause' https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1968720543416287530
O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.
Perhaps I'm reaching here, but I doubt if those who are applauding are the representatives of liberal democracies.
The kinds of states that Craig Murray admires are the places that people escape from, rather than escape to.
When the Berlin Wall fell, how come the human traffic was only in one direction?
Murray firmly believes that Mossad (who else?) were behind the Salisbury poisonings. It goes without saying that he is totally opposed to assisting Ukraine.
'@CraigMurrayOrg A day I shall never forget. Speaking at the UN in Geneva in favour of Scottish Independence, I stated that the UK is a force for evil in the world. And people from all over the globe interrupted with spontaneous applause' https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1968720543416287530
O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.
Perhaps I'm reaching here, but I doubt if those who are applauding are the representatives of liberal democracies.
The kinds of states that Craig Murray admires are the places that people escape from, rather than escape to.
When the Berlin Wall fell, how come the human traffic was only in one direction?
And now the buggers vote AFD , the ungrateful schweinhund.
'@CraigMurrayOrg A day I shall never forget. Speaking at the UN in Geneva in favour of Scottish Independence, I stated that the UK is a force for evil in the world. And people from all over the globe interrupted with spontaneous applause' https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1968720543416287530
O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.
Perhaps I'm reaching here, but I doubt if those who are applauding are the representatives of liberal democracies.
The kinds of states that Craig Murray admires are the places that people escape from, rather than escape to.
Murray an admirer of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela of course yes. He was born in Norfolk, he just uses Scottish independence as a vehicle for his anti UK, anti US, anti Israel ideology
Ed M's ambition and persistence, sticking around at the top of the party after defeat and still hunting for the top job 10 years on, demonstrates why he had 10x more leadership skills than David.
He's yesterday's man though, he needs to let it go.
I said the same about Trump, but there he is, President again. It's always said about that, that you can't 'go back' or you can't 'do a Wilson'. But I wonder if the autum of 1970 whether people had written Wilson off being PM again, but there you were, four years later and he was.
I'm biased though. I like Ed Miliband and think he would've made a decent (not great) Prime Minister. He might still though I think it's unlikely now.
Because of the change in political culture since Wilson’s time it’s much more likely in this country that we see GE’s as the ultimate verdict on a leader now, and being a GE loser is more or less the mark of Cain. Back in the day the political culture was that leaders were first among equals, figureheads of their wider movement, and serving pretty much at their pleasure until the men in grey suits had a polite word and let them know it was time for the new leader to ‘emerge’.
That said, its not inconceivable for someone to stand as leader in an election again, despite losing one already (indeed, we have a practical example of this from only six years ago in Corbyn). But I think there does have to be an unusual set of circumstances enabling it. In Corbyn’s case, he surprised significantly on the upside electorally - the first time around. For Miliband, he was the complete opposite. We all thought he stood a chance of at least delivering largest party status in 2015, even if a majority looked like a stretch.
'@CraigMurrayOrg A day I shall never forget. Speaking at the UN in Geneva in favour of Scottish Independence, I stated that the UK is a force for evil in the world. And people from all over the globe interrupted with spontaneous applause' https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1968720543416287530
O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.
Perhaps I'm reaching here, but I doubt if those who are applauding are the representatives of liberal democracies.
The kinds of states that Craig Murray admires are the places that people escape from, rather than escape to.
When the Berlin Wall fell, how come the human traffic was only in one direction?
Murray firmly believes that Mossad (who else?) were behind the Salisbury poisonings. It goes without saying that he is totally opposed to assisting Ukraine.
Candace Owens is already saying that Mossad killed Charlie Kirk.
There’s a bunch of crazies out there who wish to blame Israel for everything. They’ve been accused of 1000 of the last 10 things they’ve done.
'@CraigMurrayOrg A day I shall never forget. Speaking at the UN in Geneva in favour of Scottish Independence, I stated that the UK is a force for evil in the world. And people from all over the globe interrupted with spontaneous applause' https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1968720543416287530
O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.
Perhaps I'm reaching here, but I doubt if those who are applauding are the representatives of liberal democracies.
The kinds of states that Craig Murray admires are the places that people escape from, rather than escape to.
When the Berlin Wall fell, how come the human traffic was only in one direction?
Murray firmly believes that Mossad (who else?) were behind the Salisbury poisonings. It goes without saying that he is totally opposed to assisting Ukraine.
Candace Owens is already saying that Mossad killed Charlie Kirk.
There’s a bunch of crazies out there who wish to blame Israel for everything. They’ve been accused of 1000 of the last 10 things they’ve done.
That's the thing about blaming the Jews for everything. Not only are they extremely evil, they are extremely effective. There is no coup that they cannot pull off, and governments danc3e to their tune.
Ed M's ambition and persistence, sticking around at the top of the party after defeat and still hunting for the top job 10 years on, demonstrates why he had 10x more leadership skills than David.
He's yesterday's man though, he needs to let it go.
I said the same about Trump, but there he is, President again. It's always said about that, that you can't 'go back' or you can't 'do a Wilson'. But I wonder if the autum of 1970 whether people had written Wilson off being PM again, but there you were, four years later and he was.
I'm biased though. I like Ed Miliband and think he would've made a decent (not great) Prime Minister. He might still though I think it's unlikely now.
Because of the change in political culture since Wilson’s time it’s much more likely in this country that we see GE’s as the ultimate verdict on a leader now, and being a GE loser is more or less the mark of Cain. Back in the day the political culture was that leaders were first among equals, figureheads of their wider movement, and serving pretty much at their pleasure until the men in grey suits had a polite word and let them know it was time for the new leader to ‘emerge’.
That said, its not inconceivable for someone to stand as leader in an election again, despite losing one already (indeed, we have a practical example of this from only six years ago in Corbyn). But I think there does have to be an unusual set of circumstances enabling it. In Corbyn’s case, he surprised significantly on the upside electorally - the first time around. For Miliband, he was the complete opposite. We all thought he stood a chance of at least delivering largest party status in 2015, even if a majority looked like a stretch.
I agree with the analysis; I'd only say that in 2015, Miliband DID gain seats outside of Scotland. Just he lost 40 seats in Scotland, arguably not in his ability to avoid (the independence referendum had totally polarised politics in Scotland) so the 15 seats he gained in England and Wales were overlooked as the net loss of 25 was all that was seen.
Of course, a 15 seat gain, (lets pretend for a second Scotland was 'frozen' as the 2010 result) still wouldn't have got Labour anywhere as the LDs collapsed.
To be fair, 2015 was a perfect storm for Labour. They lost 40 seats in Scotland that they had little chance of holding anyway given the IndyRef, and the Conservatives managed to take the bulk of the 62 seats the LDs held as the LD brand was now toxic because of what the LDs had done in government.
If you could take 2010's result and +15 Labour, - 15 Con (only) then things would've been different for Miliband. But of course, politics are not a system in isolation like that.
No, its entering a new era of Goebbelsism. The parallels between the US and 1933 Germany are clear.
Thats over the top. If anyone takes the time to actually study Nazi Germany then they would see that. An easy one is this - Trump, whatever one may think of him, actually won the position in a vote. Hitler didn't.
Which political parties have the US government proscribed? Where are the concentration camps? Where are the brown shirts - the Republican party militia?
There is a free press in the States. Jimmy Kimmel notwithstanding. As far as I was aware its the UK that arrests people for posts on X, not the US.
It isn't over the top. Hitler won the election was duly appointed Chancellor leading a minority government.
I am equating this to the Reichstag fire. Your questions are about what happened after Hitler seized total power - a while after the fire. But there are plenty of signs. The brownshirts are ICE. The concentration camps were established after the fire, but in the US that they are already creating camps for illegals (alligator alcatraz etc).
As for free press, there is not. Trump sues any media outlet that speak against him. And they are arresting people at the border for memes.
The brownshirts were a party militia that had murdered hundreds in fighting over the previous few years. ICE are an department of the US government. I don't recall them brawling with Democrats at political rallies. Concentration camps were for political opponents, and in the early stages were often set up up by the local SA, often in collusion with local police.
America has become a very litigious society. The home of suing a food seller for selling you a hot drink. There is free speech there. Its fun to make comparisions with the Nazis but its ludicrous too.
Sorry if you dislike the comparions. In no way is anyone saying that history is repeating itself - America today is not Germany 1933. But the pattern of behaviour is there. Doing the same shit in a different way. Its absurd to claim that America is the land of free speech when the President is suing a major media outlet for their crime of not backing him. They are actively trying to silence and subjugate it just as they are bending the constitution to suit their will.
At which point will you accept this is authoritarianism? They are going to lose power in the midterms. Which is why they are engineering a way around that.
Doesn't suing mean going to court of law? Who makes the judgement? Where Trump may lose?
Using lawsuits as a weapon in itself is a well used tactic.
Comments
It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.
And uniformed political thuggery isn't a big thing in modern politics either, unlike the post-WW1 era (the communists and socialists had them too). I may very likely be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised to see bands of roving MAGA thugs utilised as a tool during the mid term elections.
Thatcher: Weird
Major: Decent
Blair: War Criminal
Brown: Grumpy
Cameron: Entitled
May: Decent (except for the vans)
Johnson: Pick your adjective.
Truss: Weirdly incompetent
Sunak: Decent
Starmer: So far, so sub-optimal.
How long before everyone's job depends on the size of contribution?
*Other regional electricity boards were also available.
Life, in their eyes, is so much better now than if they’d won again in 2020 and had a relatively quiet second term.
In comes Trump, politicises the FCC appointment "because he can", upending expected practice. Then when something happens he does not like, his mushroom publcily says:
"X should go, or we will need to look at their entire operating license. ".
Plus there is a merger that needs Presidential appointment, which would not normally be politicised.
But Trump can, and his FCC mushroom will obey, so ... abracadabra.
Everyone is now Japan circa 1999.
@techneUK
Reform UK: 30% (-1)
Labour: 20% (-1)
Conservatives: 19% (+1)
Lib Dems: 15% (+1)
Greens: 9% (-1)
SNP: 3% (+1)
Others: 4% (=)
1635 Surveyed
Field Work: 17th & 18th Sep
+/- 5th Sep
Data: https://ll.ink/Lb52XT"
https://x.com/techneUK/status/1968979194349494452
But you are the historian iirc.
That buys quite a lot of trust, but it can't last forever.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106268
The role of the US in both warning Ukraine and Europe, just prior to the invasion, and coordinating the immediate response, is underestimated.
What Europe would look like in that scenario is pretty hard to define, but it would almost certainly be a great deal worse than where we are now.
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror - and were suddenly silenced..."
Like Franco, Trump is very wary of overseas wars, and sees the internal enemy as more dangerous than the external. Unlike Franco, he has no real ideological beliefs. Everything is about ego and self-aggrandisement. In that, I see him as similar to Putin. That could change if Vance were to succeed him.
Fascist regimes tend, eventually, to turn towards foreign adventurism.
And so it begins. #AndreaJenkyns has awarded herself an increase of £150K to “run her office” as Mayor of Lincolnshire. Council taxpayers will now have to fork out £262K per annum for the privilege.
https://x.com/johncornelius01/status/1968747930820530510
Grn 1133
Lab 729
Rfm 237
LDm 98
Con 82
Ind 64
Turnout 33.3%
Grn 48.36% [+19.89 compared to May 2024 by-election]
Lab 31.11% [-15.01]
Rfm 10.12% [new]
LD 4.18% [+1.69]
Con 3.50% [-2.74]
Ind 2.73% [new]
no Brighton & Hove ind [previously 16.69%]
swing Lab to Grn 17.45%
In the long term, it's all about generating cheaply, reducing transmission costs and finding a way to store it. The government just needs to set the market up properly via nodal and variable tariffs.
eg Effective abolition of nationwide injunctions on the Federal Government, so a Court ruling only applies to the complainant in a particular case, and removal of criminal liability for the President on an expansive definition of "Official Acts".
One current target is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 - which established birthright citizenship.
He's changing plenty of things.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/british-students-lack-drive-of-their-american-peers-says-business-secretary-5HjdDFy_2/
The Offshore wind industry have suggested long term fixed price supply contracts in return for a steady approval of new windfarms
They might be able to get away with reducing NI by 5% and increasing IT by 5% though.
Today's example.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-poised-fire-us-attorney-resisting-effort-charge/story?id=125700904
President Donald Trump is expected to fire the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after his office was unable to find incriminating evidence of mortgage fraud against New York Attorney General Letitia James, according to sources.
Federal prosecutors in Virginia had uncovered no clear evidence to prove that James had knowingly committed mortgage fraud when she purchased a home in the state in 2023, ABC News first reported earlier this week, but Trump officials pushed U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert to nevertheless bring criminal charges against her, according to sources.
Administration officials have told Siebert of Trump's intention to fire him, sources familiar with the matter said. Siebert's last day on the job is expected to be Friday...
Bad for the Tories. Queen's Park is a very prosperous part of Brighton, full of affluent professionals, and to get only 3.5% in such an area is fairly astonishing.
1) Emma Raducanu ever winning a Slam again
2) Donald Trump being in office past Jan 2029
'@CraigMurrayOrg
A day I shall never forget.
Speaking at the UN in Geneva in favour of Scottish Independence, I stated that the UK is a force for evil in the world.
And people from all over the globe interrupted with spontaneous applause'
https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1968720543416287530
Also no real ideology.
The unfortunate thing is that when cuts are eventually forced on us from outside, by our creditors, that will be considerably more painful that would be the case if we were to start right now actively addressing our debt situation, voluntarily.
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.
It’s actually fairly common in the imposition of authoritarian regimes - they don’t need to manufacture them. Their opponents provide some slight cause - the regime then massively overreacts
🚨🚨 AOC and her team are positioning her to run for president or the U.S. Senate in 2028, according to people familiar with her operation.
https://x.com/JimVandeHei/status/1968985717289169230
The Putin/Medvedev gambit, if you will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Brighton_and_Hove_City_Council_election#Queen's_Park
Tories got 12% of the vote there in 2019, so not that different to Reform plus Con now. Obviously, losing lots of votes to Reform isn't good for the Tories, but this is not fertile ground for the Tories.
Why a town that backed Labour since 1945 is swinging towards Reform
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/19/labour-reform-bootle-voters-frustrated/
The kinds of states that Craig Murray admires are the places that people escape from, rather than escape to.
So the next President will be elected in November 2028 and will take office in January 2029.
Trump can blockade himself in the White House and huff and puff all he wants.
And nobody will pay any attention beyond him being evicted and taken off to a care home.
It's always said about that, that you can't 'go back' or you can't 'do a Wilson'. But I wonder if the autum of 1970 whether people had written Wilson off being PM again, but there you were, four years later and he was.
I'm biased though. I like Ed Miliband and think he would've made a decent (not great) Prime Minister. He might still though I think it's unlikely now.
National Insurance is a tax on employment only.
Because I’d love to take some money off those who think differently.
That said, its not inconceivable for someone to stand as leader in an election again, despite losing one already (indeed, we have a practical example of this from only six years ago in Corbyn). But I think there does have to be an unusual set of circumstances enabling it. In Corbyn’s case, he surprised significantly on the upside electorally - the first time around. For Miliband, he was the complete opposite. We all thought he stood a chance of at least delivering largest party status in 2015, even if a majority looked like a stretch.
There’s a bunch of crazies out there who wish to blame Israel for everything. They’ve been accused of 1000 of the last 10 things they’ve done.
Results
- Simon Charleton, Labour Party – 729 votes
- Sunny Choudhury, Conservative Party – 82 votes
- Rudi Dikty-Daudiyan, Liberal Democrats – 98 votes
- Adrian Hart, Independent – 64 votes
- Marina Lademacher, Green Party – 1,133 votes - winner
- John Shepherd, Reform UK – 237 votes
The turnout in the Queen’s Park by-election was 33.28%.Of course, a 15 seat gain, (lets pretend for a second Scotland was 'frozen' as the 2010 result) still wouldn't have got Labour anywhere as the LDs collapsed.
To be fair, 2015 was a perfect storm for Labour. They lost 40 seats in Scotland that they had little chance of holding anyway given the IndyRef, and the Conservatives managed to take the bulk of the 62 seats the LDs held as the LD brand was now toxic because of what the LDs had done in government.
If you could take 2010's result and +15 Labour, - 15 Con (only) then things would've been different for Miliband. But of course, politics are not a system in isolation like that.