I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
Julius Caesar was quite possibly the richest man on earth when he returned from Gaul.
He was certainly the richest man in Roman history to that point. Easily surpassing Pompey who was seriously wealthy.
The previous leader of the Populares cause, Marius, was filthy rich from the Rio Tinto mines in Spain.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
All the opposition to the proposed cycle bridge just down the river from me has come from well off retired people as far as I can tell.
They’re very cross at losing something like 12 trees from “their” personal green space (that they never actually paid for of course).
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
As we know by now, both SKS and Reeves hope that by saying “growth” enough it will eventually appear. The Candyman economic theory, if you will.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
I was listening to a R4 programme in the small hours this morning called Flag Town where the reporter was in York speaking to people from both sides of the great Flag War of 2025. Apart from a fair share of simplistic beings on each side there was a chap on the pro flags side who was one of those people who you do worry about.
He was articulate and argued well although had a habit of using a few clever words in the wrong context to seemingly impress that he is bright. He is the sort that a lot of people will think is very clever and reasoned but there was still the undercurrent of veiled aggression dressed as reason.
No point going into the arguments both sides put forward, not a bad listen but what was funny about him was that the reporter went into the chap’s corporate links and the companies he owns and one is some sort of defence analysis company etc. the reporter asked him about it and the guy sounded convincing explaining that he spent time in the defence industry and time as a contractor and learnt a lot and was annoyed he never put his predictions out there so he set up his company to share his analytical skills from the defence background.
The kicker was, which surprised me, the reporter pointing out the guy is 22 and asking how he could have built any sort of major experience in that background by that point.
I think the reporter was hinting at the unanswered questions about who was funding this guy and the people he seemed to be leading. Hopefully more diffing will be done as he did sound “reasonable” to many, articulate, told a good story but a bit murky.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
You mean the people massed on the pavements with their flags and placards aren't hardworking just managing concerned parents of vulnerable young children? Perhaps more money for HMRC, building services and trading standards would be the leftfield solution?
On Starmer, I think the most insightful, and empathetic, comment on this was from John McDonnell on WATO, who said he'd worked with Keir for a long time and if things haven't improved and his personal ratings are a problem then Keir will step aside. Expect a managed coronation, so not Burnham, I'm happy with my bet on Milliband.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
I was listening to a R4 programme in the small hours this morning called Flag Town where the reporter was in York speaking to people from both sides of the great Flag War of 2025. Apart from a fair share of simplistic beings on each side there was a chap on the pro flags side who was one of those people who you do worry about.
He was articulate and argued well although had a habit of using a few clever words in the wrong context to seemingly impress that he is bright. He is the sort that a lot of people will think is very clever and reasoned but there was still the undercurrent of veiled aggression dressed as reason.
No point going into the arguments both sides put forward, not a bad listen but what was funny about him was that the reporter went into the chap’s corporate links and the companies he owns and one is some sort of defence analysis company etc. the reporter asked him about it and the guy sounded convincing explaining that he spent time in the defence industry and time as a contractor and learnt a lot and was annoyed he never put his predictions out there so he set up his company to share his analytical skills from the defence background.
The kicker was, which surprised me, the reporter pointing out the guy is 22 and asking how he could have built any sort of major experience in that background by that point.
I think the reporter was hinting at the unanswered questions about who was funding this guy and the people he seemed to be leading. Hopefully more diffing will be done as he did sound “reasonable” to many, articulate, told a good story but a bit murky.
We know that there are large numbers of low information voters out there. They're not into politics, don't understand how stuff works, its boring. So they are wide open to be gaslit and then manipulated to the communicators who find the language to appeal to them. Making the boring interesting and telling them the "truth" to make them angry.
I have no doubt at all that there are plastic patriots who genuinely believe that white people like them are not rapists and paedophiles "because I'm nice" - its just "the other lot". And no amount of evidence will turn them because to do so is to make them question the "I'm nice" bit.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
The so-called serious crimes investigation agency will be installed under the interior ministry, while the indictment office will be established under the justice ministry.
The move comes after longstanding criticism that the prosecution has abused its exclusive powers by carrying out politically motivated investigations.
The Ministry of Economy and Finance, meanwhile, will be separated into the ministry of finance and economy, and the office for planning and budget, which will be installed under the prime minister's office. The change will take effect in January next year..
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Well, to start with, we need to have a conversation about regulations and laws.
The political class seems convinced that they have no cost.
They do. Each page of paper, each minute adds a cost. A drag on growth.
But, they cry “Grenfell” or “2008”.
In each case, regulatory paperwork was filed. Every bank I know of spent a fortune on regulatory paperwork. Grenfell had literal tons of paper proving that it was awesome, the bestest refurbished in the Spooniverse. Even that it was completely fireproof.
The problem is that rules and laws are written in a linear fashion.
The universe isn’t linear - which is why we need supercomputers to predict weather a few days down the line. And why we don’t need super computers to model *climate*.
Attempting to control something non-linear with linear rule sets is mathematically impossible. You end up adding extra rules forever. And it still doesn’t work.
So the linear system we have now could get so complicated that it could swallow the entire GDP of the U.K. and still not deliver.
What might work? Study costal erosion. In the past, linear modelling and actions repeatedly failed. Nowadays, by recognising the non-linearity of the phenomenon, it can actually be controlled and predicted to a degree.
What is needed is simple rule sets with obvious goals, enforcement, human judgement and discretion.
So in the case of Grenfell, the actual fire safety case could be written on a single side of A4. Then actually enforced by inspectors with the power to say “No, fuck that”.
This would probably have cost less than the regieme of endless paperwork bullshit that enabled hiding the fact that they were covering the building in fucking firelighters.
Where does populism come in? Well in Ancient Rome, part of the Populares platform was how justice moved slower and slower and only for the rich. The poor couldn’t get anything done. Caesar was famous for running a rapid court, as a judge - which upset the conservative types who loved long drawn out legal cases. Lots of opportunities for bribes (aka fees)
Sound familiar?
What many people are angry about is how the Machinery of State moves ever slower. Less furtherance amount of money per year. 10 years to think about building something.
Much of the anger against Starmer is that he seems happy to live in the mire of legalism. His job is to change the law to make things better.
Tbf to Sunak he needed a much more extensive word cloud to get down to those words.
We snigger, but the swear words do say something real about his slide into unpopularity, though probably not as much as the general tenor of the cloud as a whole.
@Malmesbury I agree with you. However much of the political decorum on this issue is about simply ripping up regulation. If we do that, without even considering replacement, we will experience the problems or pain the regulations were intended to cure to begin with.
Building safety is a good one - that’s my area. In my view, simply increasing limitation periods and making it easier for owners and tenants to enforce their legal and tortious rights would have been enough.
You can’t stop people building badly with more regulations alone. You can if they are likely to suffer financially if they do.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
Anyone who has had to try and resolve arguments knows that the stated issue and the actual issue aren't always the same thing.
The seriously poor mostly aren't going on these protests or putting out flags; they don't have the time or money to waste. There's something else going on- if I had to put a name to it, I'd want to explore a search for meaning/finding out what we are made of that previous generations found in war.
It's awkward to talk about, though I'm grateful to the boss who taught me to ask the "what would you want to happen/how could that happen" questions. But unless and until we can name the actual problem, we're not going to be able to fix it.
(Actually, we might not be able to fix it. Some problems are unfixable, which is why the British public hasn't really been happy with its government for decades. But it might help.)
@Malmesbury I agree with you. However much of the political decorum on this issue is about simply ripping up regulation. If we do that, without even considering replacement, we will experience the problems or pain the regulations were intended to cure to begin with.
Building safety is a good one - that’s my area. In my view, simply increasing limitation periods and making it easier for owners and tenants to enforce their legal and tortious rights would have been enough.
You can’t stop people building badly with more regulations alone. You can if they are likely to suffer financially if they do.
Instead, the post Grenfell legislation is way more restrictive. And bans building any more of what is the most popular form of housing in London.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
Pre-industrialisation, the rate of growth per capita was about 4% per century (subject to a unique event like the Black Death - output per head essentially doubled 1350-1400).
Good times meant rates of mortality fell, and the population rose. Bad times meant the reverse (Black Death excepted, where the survivors became much better off).
I don’t think we’ll get stuck in that rut, but the growth we enjoyed from 1950-2000 was probably exceptional.
@Malmesbury I agree with you. However much of the political decorum on this issue is about simply ripping up regulation. If we do that, without even considering replacement, we will experience the problems or pain the regulations were intended to cure to begin with.
Building safety is a good one - that’s my area. In my view, simply increasing limitation periods and making it easier for owners and tenants to enforce their legal and tortious rights would have been enough.
You can’t stop people building badly with more regulations alone. You can if they are likely to suffer financially if they do.
Instead, the post Grenfell legislation is way more restrictive. And bans building any more of what is the most popular form of housing in London.
I am not aware of the BSA banning anything off the top of my head. Do you mean that it makes it prohibitive to build?
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
That's defeatism. There's nothing difficult or abstract about generating economic growth. Low taxes, low spending and light but effective regulation encourage the private sector to invest and expand and individuals to aspire and work harder. Basic economic theory and abundant empirical evidence show this to be true. While growth is limited by available resources and technology this country has a long way to go before it hits those limits.
But it is a hard grind politically at the start and needs policies the exact opposite of the current government's.
What’s most notable about our current economic and political malaise is how, frankly, “mid” it is. 6 and 7.
I was at a dinner last night, a continuation of what is becoming that worryingly unhealthy Autumn event season that by the end of it has you longing for a home dinner of tomato pasta and a cup of tea. Surrounded by international colleagues and clients in a ridiculous place called Bacchanalia in Mayfair. The dining room was decorated by the same interior designers behind Leon’s flat overhaul.
They all have the same economic doldrums, the same low-energy passive aggressive attitude towards their governments. None of their countries are doing particularly mad or stupid things (there were no Americans there). It is all just a bit mid.
Starmer it seems is one of those myriad politicians who’s respected and liked more abroad than at home. They were very complimentary about his support for Zelenskyy, especially after the Oval Office debacle. But also not surprised at his unpopularity here, because that’s the pattern everywhere.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
You mean the people massed on the pavements with their flags and placards aren't hardworking just managing concerned parents of vulnerable young children? Perhaps more money for HMRC, building services and trading standards would be the leftfield solution?
On Starmer, I think the most insightful, and empathetic, comment on this was from John McDonnell on WATO, who said he'd worked with Keir for a long time and if things haven't improved and his personal ratings are a problem then Keir will step aside. Expect a managed coronation, so not Burnham, I'm happy with my bet on Milliband.
From Dumb to Dumber then , we are doomed to lunatics running the asylum if you are correct.
@Malmesbury I agree with you. However much of the political decorum on this issue is about simply ripping up regulation. If we do that, without even considering replacement, we will experience the problems or pain the regulations were intended to cure to begin with.
Building safety is a good one - that’s my area. In my view, simply increasing limitation periods and making it easier for owners and tenants to enforce their legal and tortious rights would have been enough.
You can’t stop people building badly with more regulations alone. You can if they are likely to suffer financially if they do.
Yes, this is the key to it. Grenfell was regulated. The council wanted to save 5p on the underserving poor, the manufacturer wanted to sell its EZBurn cladding. So do the paperwork and on it goes.
The solution is not to burn the regulations. All we do then is make it easier for the rich to make life harder for the undeserving poor. We need *better* regulations - that can be a reduction, but it isn't "just cut this blasted red tape"
The latter idea remained one of the right's anti-EU shibboleths. Get rid of the red tape from Brussels tying our hands. So we did, and replaced it with even more red tape tying hands and ankles. A Good Thing say the anti-red tape people...
Thanks for the header, as always. I'd like to join the various conversations but can't at the moment as my Internet has become very flaky & slow again.
@Malmesbury I agree with you. However much of the political decorum on this issue is about simply ripping up regulation. If we do that, without even considering replacement, we will experience the problems or pain the regulations were intended to cure to begin with.
Building safety is a good one - that’s my area. In my view, simply increasing limitation periods and making it easier for owners and tenants to enforce their legal and tortious rights would have been enough.
You can’t stop people building badly with more regulations alone. You can if they are likely to suffer financially if they do.
Instead, the post Grenfell legislation is way more restrictive. And bans building any more of what is the most popular form of housing in London.
There was a rather good article the other day about how regulations on avoiding A/C ended up with requirements to build complicated building with reduced density, and much harder to incorporate the “straight corridor with a staircase at each end” which is the real lesson of Grenfell.
@Malmesbury I agree with you. However much of the political decorum on this issue is about simply ripping up regulation. If we do that, without even considering replacement, we will experience the problems or pain the regulations were intended to cure to begin with.
Building safety is a good one - that’s my area. In my view, simply increasing limitation periods and making it easier for owners and tenants to enforce their legal and tortious rights would have been enough.
You can’t stop people building badly with more regulations alone. You can if they are likely to suffer financially if they do.
Instead, the post Grenfell legislation is way more restrictive. And bans building any more of what is the most popular form of housing in London.
I am not aware of the BSA banning anything off the top of my head. Do you mean that it makes it prohibitive to build?
The regulations and planning rules are colliding to make it much more expensive to build. Add on the usual Process State “we need 5 years to work out what the regulations actually mean” and building stops.
What’s most notable about our current economic and political malaise is how, frankly, “mid” it is. 6 and 7.
I was at a dinner last night, a continuation of what is becoming that worryingly unhealthy Autumn event season that by the end of it has you longing for a home dinner of tomato pasta and a cup of tea. Surrounded by international colleagues and clients in a ridiculous place called Bacchanalia in Mayfair. The dining room was decorated by the same interior designers behind Leon’s flat overhaul.
They all have the same economic doldrums, the same low-energy passive aggressive attitude towards their governments. None of their countries are doing particularly mad or stupid things (there were no Americans there). It is all just a bit mid.
Starmer it seems is one of those myriad politicians who’s respected and liked more abroad than at home. They were very complimentary about his support for Zelenskyy, especially after the Oval Office debacle. But also not surprised at his unpopularity here, because that’s the pattern everywhere.
Some of our problems would be a lot simpler if the country were 20% or so richer than it is. (Not all of them- staff costs would be 20% higher.) But the gap between what we hoped would happen and what has happened is certainly part of it. And nobody gets credit for a decade of dull, even if the alternative was a proper depression.
But I'm not convinced that the response is justified by the problem. Something harder to name is going on.
@Malmesbury I agree with you. However much of the political decorum on this issue is about simply ripping up regulation. If we do that, without even considering replacement, we will experience the problems or pain the regulations were intended to cure to begin with.
Building safety is a good one - that’s my area. In my view, simply increasing limitation periods and making it easier for owners and tenants to enforce their legal and tortious rights would have been enough.
You can’t stop people building badly with more regulations alone. You can if they are likely to suffer financially if they do.
Instead, the post Grenfell legislation is way more restrictive. And bans building any more of what is the most popular form of housing in London.
I am not aware of the BSA banning anything off the top of my head. Do you mean that it makes it prohibitive to build?
The regulations and planning rules are colliding to make it much more expensive to build. Add on the usual Process State “we need 5 years to work out what the regulations actually mean” and building stops.
See London.
Building hasn’t stopped in London though and a slow down has as much to do with stagnating property yields than regulation in of itself. I am a non-contentious construction lawyer and I am as busy as ever with new projects.
What’s most notable about our current economic and political malaise is how, frankly, “mid” it is. 6 and 7.
I was at a dinner last night, a continuation of what is becoming that worryingly unhealthy Autumn event season that by the end of it has you longing for a home dinner of tomato pasta and a cup of tea. Surrounded by international colleagues and clients in a ridiculous place called Bacchanalia in Mayfair. The dining room was decorated by the same interior designers behind Leon’s flat overhaul.
They all have the same economic doldrums, the same low-energy passive aggressive attitude towards their governments. None of their countries are doing particularly mad or stupid things (there were no Americans there). It is all just a bit mid.
Starmer it seems is one of those myriad politicians who’s respected and liked more abroad than at home. They were very complimentary about his support for Zelenskyy, especially after the Oval Office debacle. But also not surprised at his unpopularity here, because that’s the pattern everywhere.
Some of our problems would be a lot simpler if the country were 20% or so richer than it is. (Not all of them- staff costs would be 20% higher.) But the gap between what we hoped would happen and what has happened is certainly part of it. And nobody gets credit for a decade of dull, even if the alternative was a proper depression.
But I'm not convinced that the response is justified by the problem. Something harder to name is going on.
@Malmesbury I agree with you. However much of the political decorum on this issue is about simply ripping up regulation. If we do that, without even considering replacement, we will experience the problems or pain the regulations were intended to cure to begin with.
Building safety is a good one - that’s my area. In my view, simply increasing limitation periods and making it easier for owners and tenants to enforce their legal and tortious rights would have been enough.
You can’t stop people building badly with more regulations alone. You can if they are likely to suffer financially if they do.
Instead, the post Grenfell legislation is way more restrictive. And bans building any more of what is the most popular form of housing in London.
I am not aware of the BSA banning anything off the top of my head. Do you mean that it makes it prohibitive to build?
Housebuilding has collapsed in London because of the BSA. BSA signoff is required for any work on a building over 6 stories, new or existing. Even renovations have stalled because of this, including those making no structural changes whatsoever, because the BSA is so behind on processing applications.
This despite the fact that applicants are paying for the privilege & so the BSA is supposed to be self-funding.
@Malmesbury I agree with you. However much of the political decorum on this issue is about simply ripping up regulation. If we do that, without even considering replacement, we will experience the problems or pain the regulations were intended to cure to begin with.
Building safety is a good one - that’s my area. In my view, simply increasing limitation periods and making it easier for owners and tenants to enforce their legal and tortious rights would have been enough.
You can’t stop people building badly with more regulations alone. You can if they are likely to suffer financially if they do.
Instead, the post Grenfell legislation is way more restrictive. And bans building any more of what is the most popular form of housing in London.
I am not aware of the BSA banning anything off the top of my head. Do you mean that it makes it prohibitive to build?
Housebuilding has collapsed in London because of the BSA. BSA signoff is required for any work on a building over 6 stories, new or existing. Even renovations have stalled because of this, including those making no structural changes whatsoever, because the BSA is so behind on processing applications.
This despite the fact that applicants are paying for the privilege & so the BSA is supposed to be self-funding.
I am aware of what the BSA does. Just today I am reviewing tender comments from bidding contractors for HRB commercial/resi fit outs following a build out in central London that has passed Gateway 3 funnily enough.
I am no fan of the BSA and I agree that the process is overburdensome and probably doesn’t achieve any of its aims but let’s not over exaggerate its effects.
@Malmesbury I agree with you. However much of the political decorum on this issue is about simply ripping up regulation. If we do that, without even considering replacement, we will experience the problems or pain the regulations were intended to cure to begin with.
Building safety is a good one - that’s my area. In my view, simply increasing limitation periods and making it easier for owners and tenants to enforce their legal and tortious rights would have been enough.
You can’t stop people building badly with more regulations alone. You can if they are likely to suffer financially if they do.
Instead, the post Grenfell legislation is way more restrictive. And bans building any more of what is the most popular form of housing in London.
I am not aware of the BSA banning anything off the top of my head. Do you mean that it makes it prohibitive to build?
The regulations and planning rules are colliding to make it much more expensive to build. Add on the usual Process State “we need 5 years to work out what the regulations actually mean” and building stops.
See London.
Building hasn’t stopped in London though and a slow down has as much to do with stagnating property yields than regulation in of itself. I am a non-contentious construction lawyer and I am as busy as ever with new projects.
There’s a building project going on literally in my back yard (in the mews overlooking our garden). I was one of very few local residents who didn’t write to object to the application (I wrote in approving).
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
What’s most notable about our current economic and political malaise is how, frankly, “mid” it is. 6 and 7.
I was at a dinner last night, a continuation of what is becoming that worryingly unhealthy Autumn event season that by the end of it has you longing for a home dinner of tomato pasta and a cup of tea. Surrounded by international colleagues and clients in a ridiculous place called Bacchanalia in Mayfair. The dining room was decorated by the same interior designers behind Leon’s flat overhaul.
They all have the same economic doldrums, the same low-energy passive aggressive attitude towards their governments. None of their countries are doing particularly mad or stupid things (there were no Americans there). It is all just a bit mid.
Starmer it seems is one of those myriad politicians who’s respected and liked more abroad than at home. They were very complimentary about his support for Zelenskyy, especially after the Oval Office debacle. But also not surprised at his unpopularity here, because that’s the pattern everywhere.
I don't want to be glazing on you too hard, but respect for getting both "mid" and "6/7" into your post.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
All the opposition to the proposed cycle bridge just down the river from me has come from well off retired people as far as I can tell.
They’re very cross at losing something like 12 trees from “their” personal green space (that they never actually paid for of course).
In what world is a cycle bridge anything other than a vanity project? It will do precisely zero to raise growth.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
@Malmesbury I agree with you. However much of the political decorum on this issue is about simply ripping up regulation. If we do that, without even considering replacement, we will experience the problems or pain the regulations were intended to cure to begin with.
Building safety is a good one - that’s my area. In my view, simply increasing limitation periods and making it easier for owners and tenants to enforce their legal and tortious rights would have been enough.
You can’t stop people building badly with more regulations alone. You can if they are likely to suffer financially if they do.
Yes, this is the key to it. Grenfell was regulated. The council wanted to save 5p on the underserving poor, the manufacturer wanted to sell its EZBurn cladding. So do the paperwork and on it goes.
The solution is not to burn the regulations. All we do then is make it easier for the rich to make life harder for the undeserving poor. We need *better* regulations - that can be a reduction, but it isn't "just cut this blasted red tape"
The latter idea remained one of the right's anti-EU shibboleths. Get rid of the red tape from Brussels tying our hands. So we did, and replaced it with even more red tape tying hands and ankles. A Good Thing say the anti-red tape people...
If you write a rule that is precise it can be worked around.as with grenfell
Better to have principles based rules: “thou shall not burn people to death” and to have them enforced by inspectors
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Similar pattern over the last few decades in semiconductors and biotech.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
Yes.
The difference is that Americans aren’t afraid to fail.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Similar pattern over the last few decades in semiconductors and biotech.
Thatcherism gifted us with a form of capitalism where instead of investing in something for long term reward you flog it off now for a cut. Its the most baffling mindset - ownership and investment are Bad Things.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
All the opposition to the proposed cycle bridge just down the river from me has come from well off retired people as far as I can tell.
They’re very cross at losing something like 12 trees from “their” personal green space (that they never actually paid for of course).
In what world is a cycle bridge anything other than a vanity project? It will do precisely zero to raise growth.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
The US is a much bigger and more diverse economy. That means you might have two potential unicorns in the UK and say twenty in the US. That makes it easier to spread the risk in the US. There's a deeper pool of capital, too. If the EU ever got their act together they could use the size of their capital and product markets to achieve something similar. But we couldn't be a part of that anyway after Brexit. Scale is what counts. That's why the US and China are the leaders in innovation.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
That's defeatism. There's nothing difficult or abstract about generating economic growth. Low taxes, low spending and light but effective regulation encourage the private sector to invest and expand and individuals to aspire and work harder. Basic economic theory and abundant empirical evidence show this to be true. While growth is limited by available resources and technology this country has a long way to go before it hits those limits.
But it is a hard grind politically at the start and needs policies the exact opposite of the current government's.
China and the United States have high growth and high spending.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
That's what drives me nuts about Labour, do we need more growth? Yes. Do they have any real idea how to achieve it? No.
Even the announced investment when Trump visited, all those tens of billions of pounds for new data centres, that probably won't be a net positive for the UK. It will further entrench Google, AWS, Azure and so on, and they will hoover billions out of the UK economy for services we are increasingly dependent on. It's more a technological occupation of the UK rather than something that is going to make the UK itself richer.
Although party support remained fairly constant in September, our prediction has been updated to reflect new information about tactical voting. This shows that many voters will vote tactically both for left-right partisan reasons, and also to keep Reform out. This costs Reform several dozen seats and deprives them of an overall parliamentary majority.
On our figures, a possible scenario would be a Reform-Conservative government, with Reform as the largest party."
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
The US is a much bigger and more diverse economy. That means you might have two potential unicorns in the UK and say twenty in the US. That makes it easier to spread the risk in the US. There's a deeper pool of capital, too. If the EU ever got their act together they could use the size of their capital and product markets to achieve something similar. But we couldn't be a part of that anyway after Brexit. Scale is what counts. That's why the US and China are the leaders in innovation.
Up to a point. Look though at Taiwan or S Korea, for small technology led economies.
Quite amusing story, I’m presuming our powers that be are ensuring these sort of gaps in the law will be closed in advance of driverless cars moving here.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Even worse, not only is British tech for sale, our government (of whatever stripe) prefers to support our competitors. Any IT (or now AI) project involves forking out to Microsoft, Google, Oracle or Palantir – none of them British (and all governed by US law when it comes to our data security).
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
The US is a much bigger and more diverse economy. That means you might have two potential unicorns in the UK and say twenty in the US. That makes it easier to spread the risk in the US. There's a deeper pool of capital, too. If the EU ever got their act together they could use the size of their capital and product markets to achieve something similar. But we couldn't be a part of that anyway after Brexit. Scale is what counts. That's why the US and China are the leaders in innovation.
There is another difference too, even in this online age. America is big. Physically big. Places are a long way apart. This means there can be more local monopolies, or at least domination. You can be the best supermarket or furniture showroom or car dealer in town because any potential rival in the next town is hundreds of miles away.
The individual acting as if he's in imminent danger in this video, recorded today, is Ilan Shor, a Moldovan oligarch (currently hiding in Moscow) that has been instrumental in Russia's catastrophic attempt to take over Moldova, which is estimated to have costed $400 million. https://x.com/Daractenus/status/1972721749117596046
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
The US is a much bigger and more diverse economy. That means you might have two potential unicorns in the UK and say twenty in the US. That makes it easier to spread the risk in the US. There's a deeper pool of capital, too. If the EU ever got their act together they could use the size of their capital and product markets to achieve something similar. But we couldn't be a part of that anyway after Brexit. Scale is what counts. That's why the US and China are the leaders in innovation.
Up to a point. Look though at Taiwan or S Korea, for small technology led economies.
Indeed: or, in their own way, Switzerland or Denmark or Norway. Or even Israel.
The individual acting as if he's in imminent danger in this video, recorded today, is Ilan Shor, a Moldovan oligarch (currently hiding in Moscow) that has been instrumental in Russia's catastrophic attempt to take over Moldova, which is estimated to have costed $400 million. https://x.com/Daractenus/status/1972721749117596046
Have his windows of opportunity narrowed somewhat?
Or should we comment that, like Maria von Trapp, he has discovered that where the Lord opens a door somewhere he opens a window?
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
That's what drives me nuts about Labour, do we need more growth? Yes. Do they have any real idea how to achieve it? No.
Even the announced investment when Trump visited, all those tens of billions of pounds for new data centres, that probably won't be a net positive for the UK. It will further entrench Google, AWS, Azure and so on, and they will hoover billions out of the UK economy for services we are increasingly dependent on. It's more a technological occupation of the UK rather than something that is going to make the UK itself richer.
I think you are quite right about the American colonization of the UK data space, which is unlikely to end well for the UK.
Perhaps more concerning is that it is not a party political problem- the Tories made a spectacular Horlicks of public administration, for which they were justly punished. Labour too seem unable to turn it around, and the outlook is increasingly concerning. The problems we face are not that difficult to solve- we could return to a primary surplus with relatively simple policies on pensions, for example. The fact is that the pressure that our politics faces seems to put everything in the "too difficult" box. So, without major reform of our public administration, including voting and other political reform, it seems that the political class is dead in the water.
Before everyone charges off to Reform, however, it is worth noting that Ed Davey and the Lib Dems have been talking about such reforms for decades and Ed Davey is the only UK Political leader prepared to take a stand against Trump. Both of these positions are popular, and we are seeing a steady climb in support for the Lib Dems as a result.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
The Dragons are risk averse. Everything has to be nailed down by patents, even though the Dragons themselves made their money without patents or even any notable intellectual property in fields like wholesale, retail or holiday camps.
Has he, like Steve 'Interesting' Davis, paid a 19 year old dancer to run round his hotel room in only her knickers?
Talking of which,
On the morning of Keir Starmer's conference speech here's a new post on an odd psychopathology in British politics - our main parties don't like the people who vote for them - the dreaded Professional Managerial Class. And so they are acting out like a divorced dad seeking cooler voters.
In general the Americans (and others mentioned) seem to like that they have businesses that are successful, the British seem to see them as things that just haven't been taxed enough.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
He was articulate and argued well although had a habit of using a few clever words in the wrong context to seemingly impress that he is bright. He is the sort that a lot of people will think is very clever and reasoned but there was still the undercurrent of veiled aggression dressed as reason.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
The Dragons are risk averse. Everything has to be nailed down by patents, even though the Dragons themselves made their money without patents or even any notable intellectual property in fields like wholesale, retail or holiday camps.
To be fair to the Dragons, of late 'supplicants' have only been offering small shares in their enterprises for (to me) substantial sums of money.
And Good Morning one and all.
On a different note, has anything been heard of Mr & Mrs HYUFD lately?
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
He was articulate and argued well although had a habit of using a few clever words in the wrong context to seemingly impress that he is bright. He is the sort that a lot of people will think is very clever and reasoned but there was still the undercurrent of veiled aggression dressed as reason.
(snip)
Sounds like someone we know....?
Part of radicalisation has always been finding people who realise that they have got as high as they are going to go and aren't happy about it. Much like flags on lampposts.
But 22 year olds shouldn't be thinking like that, surely?
The individual acting as if he's in imminent danger in this video, recorded today, is Ilan Shor, a Moldovan oligarch (currently hiding in Moscow) that has been instrumental in Russia's catastrophic attempt to take over Moldova, which is estimated to have costed $400 million. https://x.com/Daractenus/status/1972721749117596046
Have his windows of opportunity narrowed somewhat?
Or should we comment that, like Maria von Trapp, he has discovered that where the Lord opens a door somewhere he opens a window?
Stands the Kremlin clock at ten to three ? And is there polonium 210 still for tea ?
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
Yes.
The difference is that Americans aren’t afraid to fail.
They just go bankrupt and pop up again, like Americans do when they get ill and can't pay the hospital bill
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
He was articulate and argued well although had a habit of using a few clever words in the wrong context to seemingly impress that he is bright. He is the sort that a lot of people will think is very clever and reasoned but there was still the undercurrent of veiled aggression dressed as reason.
(snip)
Sounds like someone we know....?
Part of radicalisation has always been finding people who realise that they have got as high as they are going to go and aren't happy about it. Much like flags on lampposts.
But 22 year olds shouldn't be thinking like that, surely?
It would be interesting to see any deep dive on the guy, he’s either a fantasist Walt making up stories about being in the defence industry, an unknown genius who was co-opted into the defence industry very young or he’s a plant being backed by people who need a frontman.
The individual acting as if he's in imminent danger in this video, recorded today, is Ilan Shor, a Moldovan oligarch (currently hiding in Moscow) that has been instrumental in Russia's catastrophic attempt to take over Moldova, which is estimated to have costed $400 million. https://x.com/Daractenus/status/1972721749117596046
Have his windows of opportunity narrowed somewhat?
Or should we comment that, like Maria von Trapp, he has discovered that where the Lord opens a door somewhere he opens a window?
Stands the Kremlin clock at ten to three ? And is there polonium 210 still for tea ?
Yes, but less than half as much as there was at the start of May.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Low trust is the driver of reform.
Strength of purpose and clarity of direction are far more important than poverty
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
Private Equity says hello in a swashbuckling style. Pirates the lot of them.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
Private Equity says hello in a swashbuckling style. Pirates the lot of them.
Are their swashes really that buckled, or their buckles really that swashed?
An awful lot of PE seems to be buying up cash cows and loading them with borrowing.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
The Dragons are risk averse. Everything has to be nailed down by patents, even though the Dragons themselves made their money without patents or even any notable intellectual property in fields like wholesale, retail or holiday camps.
To be fair to the Dragons, of late 'supplicants' have only been offering small shares in their enterprises for (to me) substantial sums of money.
And Good Morning one and all.
On a different note, has anything been heard of Mr & Mrs HYUFD lately?
Ahead of his conference speech Keir Starmer’s approval rating has fallen to another new low of -48. Badenoch is at -21. Farage at -9 and Ed Davey is the least disapproved of at -
That bit ot positive bump of Starmer on the world stage quickly gone away. Fat bloke in a wetsuit aka the unknown stuntman pissing people off the least.
The individual acting as if he's in imminent danger in this video, recorded today, is Ilan Shor, a Moldovan oligarch (currently hiding in Moscow) that has been instrumental in Russia's catastrophic attempt to take over Moldova, which is estimated to have costed $400 million. https://x.com/Daractenus/status/1972721749117596046
He needs to avoid balconies for the foreseeable future!
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
The Dragons are risk averse. Everything has to be nailed down by patents, even though the Dragons themselves made their money without patents or even any notable intellectual property in fields like wholesale, retail or holiday camps.
To be fair to the Dragons, of late 'supplicants' have only been offering small shares in their enterprises for (to me) substantial sums of money.
And Good Morning one and all.
On a different note, has anything been heard of Mr & Mrs HYUFD lately?
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
The other question is whether any of it at all gets concentrated in the UK.
They had the chap who confounded Games Workshop on R4 this morning talking about the Games industry in light of the Saudi buy and it’s the same story as with anything vaguely technological in the UK. People in the UK create great things, nobody wants to really throw funding into them and then a US company or similar swoop in, buy it and then pocket all the upside, the taxes, the growth.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
Is it structural or is it cultural?
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
The Dragons are risk averse. Everything has to be nailed down by patents, even though the Dragons themselves made their money without patents or even any notable intellectual property in fields like wholesale, retail or holiday camps.
I think it is about time rather than risk, per se.
They are rarely completely passive investors so how many businesses can one dragon play an admittedly very part time role in? Twenty, sure. Fifty maybe just about. Hundred not practical.
So they end up investing in five to ten per series, and obviously they end up with the best available and some businesses that could work miss out because of the competition and limited attention of the dragons.
60 years old. A source of much joy and wonder in the young me. As well as the "FIVE!" countdown, I still remember theme music within the show - like the music for the Crablogger....
In general the Americans (and others mentioned) seem to like that they have businesses that are successful, the British seem to see them as things that just haven't been taxed enough.
On the topic of UK wealth/great business making, from my perspective of entire non engagement, but with links to people who are keenly involved in the task of making money. The following points.
1) I think since the Mayflower onwards we have, for various reasons, in the end exported large amounts of local indigenous UK wealth making talent.
2) I am told that a massive proportion of people at the very top of growing businesses in the UK were born abroad or are next generation thereof.
3) We are a very old, in the sense of historic continuity, set of islands in the UK, both a bit tired and with an immense sense of entitlement.
4) We are, for the moment but not for much longer, wealthy enough to survive on low to medium ambition, especially oputside London and the south east.
5) In my part of the world we have factories of well known outfits. The ones which come to mind are all foreign owned, some with previous long UK ownership history.
6) There are still enormous numbers of people wanting create, run and own smaller and medium sized things.
One final straw in the wind, from page 28 of the Oxford admissions statistics, which stands as proxy for quite a few things: 55% of UK domiciled applicants admitted for medicine are BME. 45% are what they describe as 'White'. The figure for economics and management is 49%.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Low trust is the driver of reform.
Strength of purpose and clarity of direction are far more important than poverty
Imho
There is real evidence of systemic failure of governance and a loss of control.
Starmerism is imo about tackling that by doing the same things but trying to be 10% better. It simply won't work, radical change is needed. However that change should be wedded to western liberal democratic norms not authoritarian quick fixes that in reality shift power to the global broligarchy.
Comments
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
He was certainly the richest man in Roman history to that point. Easily surpassing Pompey who was seriously wealthy.
The previous leader of the Populares cause, Marius, was filthy rich from the Rio Tinto mines in Spain.
They’re very cross at losing something like 12 trees from “their” personal green space (that they never actually paid for of course).
What's the worst word ever to appear in a leader's word cloud?
A dis is just a dis...
Boris Johnson was both wankered and c worded when/after the partygate stories broke.
He was articulate and argued well although had a habit of using a few clever words in the wrong context to seemingly impress that he is bright. He is the sort that a lot of people will think is very clever and reasoned but there was still the undercurrent of veiled aggression dressed as reason.
No point going into the arguments both sides put forward, not a bad listen but what was funny about him was that the reporter went into the chap’s corporate links and the companies he owns and one is some sort of defence analysis company etc. the reporter asked him about it and the guy sounded convincing explaining that he spent time in the defence industry and time as a contractor and learnt a lot and was annoyed he never put his predictions out there so he set up his company to share his analytical skills from the defence background.
The kicker was, which surprised me, the reporter pointing out the guy is 22 and asking how he could have built any sort of major experience in that background by that point.
I think the reporter was hinting at the unanswered questions about who was funding this guy and the people he seemed to be leading. Hopefully more diffing will be done as he did sound “reasonable” to many, articulate, told a good story but a bit murky.
She is a lawyer working on the Government on its employment legislation. (I haven't the faintest idea how she votes and I wouldn't ask.)
Perhaps more money for HMRC, building services and trading standards would be the leftfield solution?
On Starmer, I think the most insightful, and empathetic, comment on this was from John McDonnell on WATO, who said he'd worked with Keir for a long time and if things haven't improved and his personal ratings are a problem then Keir will step aside.
Expect a managed coronation, so not Burnham, I'm happy with my bet on Milliband.
I have no doubt at all that there are plastic patriots who genuinely believe that white people like them are not rapists and paedophiles "because I'm nice" - its just "the other lot". And no amount of evidence will turn them because to do so is to make them question the "I'm nice" bit.
With the former it led to this comedy moment.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23077635.bbc-news-broadcasts-word-cloud-describing-rishi-sunak-c--twat/
A much needed reform.
Cabinet approves gov't reorganization bill abolishing prosecution office
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/politics/20250930/cabinet-approves-govt-reorganization-bill-abolishing-prosecution-office
..Under the revision to the Government Organization Act, the prosecution office will be shut down in October next year, 78 years after its establishment, and be replaced by two new agencies that will take on its investigative and indictment powers.
The so-called serious crimes investigation agency will be installed under the interior ministry, while the indictment office will be established under the justice ministry.
The move comes after longstanding criticism that the prosecution has abused its exclusive powers by carrying out politically motivated investigations.
The Ministry of Economy and Finance, meanwhile, will be separated into the ministry of finance and economy, and the office for planning and budget, which will be installed under the prime minister's office. The change will take effect in January next year..
The political class seems convinced that they have no cost.
They do. Each page of paper, each minute adds a cost. A drag on growth.
But, they cry “Grenfell” or “2008”.
In each case, regulatory paperwork was filed. Every bank I know of spent a fortune on regulatory paperwork. Grenfell had literal tons of paper proving that it was awesome, the bestest refurbished in the Spooniverse. Even that it was completely fireproof.
The problem is that rules and laws are written in a linear fashion.
The universe isn’t linear - which is why we need supercomputers to predict weather a few days down the line. And why we don’t need super computers to model *climate*.
Attempting to control something non-linear with linear rule sets is mathematically impossible. You end up adding extra rules forever. And it still doesn’t work.
So the linear system we have now could get so complicated that it could swallow the entire GDP of the U.K. and still not deliver.
What might work? Study costal erosion. In the past, linear modelling and actions repeatedly failed. Nowadays, by recognising the non-linearity of the phenomenon, it can actually be controlled and predicted to a degree.
What is needed is simple rule sets with obvious goals, enforcement, human judgement and discretion.
So in the case of Grenfell, the actual fire safety case could be written on a single side of A4. Then actually enforced by inspectors with the power to say “No, fuck that”.
This would probably have cost less than the regieme of endless paperwork bullshit that enabled hiding the fact that they were covering the building in fucking firelighters.
Where does populism come in? Well in Ancient Rome, part of the Populares platform was how justice moved slower and slower and only for the rich. The poor couldn’t get anything done. Caesar was famous for running a rapid court, as a judge - which upset the conservative types who loved long drawn out legal cases. Lots of opportunities for bribes (aka fees)
Sound familiar?
What many people are angry about is how the Machinery of State moves ever slower. Less furtherance amount of money per year. 10 years to think about building something.
Much of the anger against Starmer is that he seems happy to live in the mire of legalism. His job is to change the law to make things better.
We snigger, but the swear words do say something real about his slide into unpopularity, though probably not as much as the general tenor of the cloud as a whole.
Building safety is a good one - that’s my area. In my view, simply increasing limitation periods and making it easier for owners and tenants to enforce their legal and tortious rights would have been enough.
You can’t stop people building badly with more regulations alone. You can if they are likely to suffer financially if they do.
The seriously poor mostly aren't going on these protests or putting out flags; they don't have the time or money to waste. There's something else going on- if I had to put a name to it, I'd want to explore a search for meaning/finding out what we are made of that previous generations found in war.
It's awkward to talk about, though I'm grateful to the boss who taught me to ask the "what would you want to happen/how could that happen" questions. But unless and until we can name the actual problem, we're not going to be able to fix it.
(Actually, we might not be able to fix it. Some problems are unfixable, which is why the British public hasn't really been happy with its government for decades. But it might help.)
And bans building any more of what is the most popular form of housing in London.
Good times meant rates of mortality fell, and the population rose. Bad times meant the reverse (Black Death excepted, where the survivors became much better off).
I don’t think we’ll get stuck in that rut, but the growth we enjoyed from 1950-2000 was probably exceptional.
But it is a hard grind politically at the start and needs policies the exact opposite of the current government's.
I was at a dinner last night, a continuation of what is becoming that worryingly unhealthy Autumn event season that by the end of it has you longing for a home dinner of tomato pasta and a cup of tea. Surrounded by international colleagues and clients in a ridiculous place called Bacchanalia in Mayfair. The dining room was decorated by the same interior designers behind Leon’s flat overhaul.
They all have the same economic doldrums, the same low-energy passive aggressive attitude towards their governments. None of their countries are doing particularly mad or stupid things (there were no Americans there). It is all just a bit mid.
Starmer it seems is one of those myriad politicians who’s respected and liked more abroad than at home. They were very complimentary about his support for Zelenskyy, especially after the Oval Office debacle. But also not surprised at his unpopularity here, because that’s the pattern everywhere.
The solution is not to burn the regulations. All we do then is make it easier for the rich to make life harder for the undeserving poor. We need *better* regulations - that can be a reduction, but it isn't "just cut this blasted red tape"
The latter idea remained one of the right's anti-EU shibboleths. Get rid of the red tape from Brussels tying our hands. So we did, and replaced it with even more red tape tying hands and ankles. A Good Thing say the anti-red tape people...
Good morning, everybody.
Frankly, we’re lucky it’s flags and not burnings.
See London.
But I'm not convinced that the response is justified by the problem. Something harder to name is going on.
I see Russia has advanced from throwing its own people, and the occasional North Korean, into the meat grinder to getting a load of horses killed too.
This despite the fact that applicants are paying for the privilege & so the BSA is supposed to be self-funding.
I am no fan of the BSA and I agree that the process is overburdensome and probably doesn’t achieve any of its aims but let’s not over exaggerate its effects.
https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/1972755394046132732
One has to feel very sorry for the poor horses, likely untrained for battle and probably stolen from people who knew how to look after them.
This should be at the forefront of political thinking at the moment - I want to hear Kemi, or anyone, start putting together really strong proposals for keeping innovation in the UK so we reap the long term rewards.
You can see the difference watching Dragons Den back to back with Shark Tank. The Americans throw vast sums at anything vaguely promising but the Brits will invest small amounts in basically a sure thing.
Are we just chronically risk adverse?
Better to have principles based rules: “thou shall not burn people to death” and to have them enforced by inspectors
The difference is that Americans aren’t afraid to fail.
Even the announced investment when Trump visited, all those tens of billions of pounds for new data centres, that probably won't be a net positive for the UK. It will further entrench Google, AWS, Azure and so on, and they will hoover billions out of the UK economy for services we are increasingly dependent on. It's more a technological occupation of the UK rather than something that is going to make the UK itself richer.
Although party support remained fairly constant in September, our prediction has been updated to reflect new information about tactical voting. This shows that many voters will vote tactically both for left-right partisan reasons, and also to keep Reform out. This costs Reform several dozen seats and deprives them of an overall parliamentary majority.
On our figures, a possible scenario would be a Reform-Conservative government, with Reform as the largest party."
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html
Look though at Taiwan or S Korea, for small technology led economies.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/29/waymo-illegal-u-turn-driverless-car
https://x.com/Daractenus/status/1972721749117596046
Or should we comment that, like Maria von Trapp, he has discovered that where the Lord opens a door somewhere he opens a window?
Perhaps more concerning is that it is not a party political problem- the Tories made a spectacular Horlicks of public administration, for which they were justly punished. Labour too seem unable to turn it around, and the outlook is increasingly concerning. The problems we face are not that difficult to solve- we could return to a primary surplus with relatively simple policies on pensions, for example. The fact is that the pressure that our politics faces seems to put everything in the "too difficult" box. So, without major reform of our public administration, including voting and other political reform, it seems that the political class is dead in the water.
Before everyone charges off to Reform, however, it is worth noting that Ed Davey and the Lib Dems have been talking about such reforms for decades and Ed Davey is the only UK Political leader prepared to take a stand against Trump. Both of these positions are popular, and we are seeing a steady climb in support for the Lib Dems as a result.
On the morning of Keir Starmer's conference speech here's a new post on an odd psychopathology in British politics - our main parties don't like the people who vote for them - the dreaded Professional Managerial Class. And so they are acting out like a divorced dad seeking cooler voters.
https://bsky.app/profile/benansell.bsky.social/post/3lzzw5r5qe22n
https://benansell.substack.com/p/british-politics-midlife-crisis
And Good Morning one and all.
On a different note, has anything been heard of Mr & Mrs HYUFD lately?
But 22 year olds shouldn't be thinking like that, surely?
And is there polonium 210 still for tea ?
It is the latest in a series of Trump administration efforts to dispute, silence or downplay climate change.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/28/energy-department-climate-change-emissions-banned-words-00583649
Strength of purpose and clarity of direction are far more important than poverty
Imho
An awful lot of PE seems to be buying up cash cows and loading them with borrowing.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5336999/#Comment_5336999
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1972929649631215860?s=19
That bit ot positive bump of Starmer on the world stage quickly gone away. Fat bloke in a wetsuit aka the unknown stuntman pissing people off the least.
A lot of generals Hegseth is gathering. I'm not sure that the official explanation is that likely. Hmm.
They are rarely completely passive investors so how many businesses can one dragon play an admittedly very part time role in? Twenty, sure. Fifty maybe just about. Hundred not practical.
So they end up investing in five to ten per series, and obviously they end up with the best available and some businesses that could work miss out because of the competition and limited attention of the dragons.
60 years old. A source of much joy and wonder in the young me. As well as the "FIVE!" countdown, I still remember theme music within the show - like the music for the Crablogger....
1) I think since the Mayflower onwards we have, for various reasons, in the end exported large amounts of local indigenous UK wealth making talent.
2) I am told that a massive proportion of people at the very top of growing businesses in the UK were born abroad or are next generation thereof.
3) We are a very old, in the sense of historic continuity, set of islands in the UK, both a bit tired and with an immense sense of entitlement.
4) We are, for the moment but not for much longer, wealthy enough to survive on low to medium ambition, especially oputside London and the south east.
5) In my part of the world we have factories of well known outfits. The ones which come to mind are all foreign owned, some with previous long UK ownership history.
6) There are still enormous numbers of people wanting create, run and own smaller and medium sized things.
One final straw in the wind, from page 28 of the Oxford admissions statistics, which stands as proxy for quite a few things: 55% of UK domiciled applicants admitted for medicine are BME. 45% are what they describe as 'White'. The figure for economics and management is 49%.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/AnnualAdmissionsStatisticalReport2025.pdf
Starmerism is imo about tackling that by doing the same things but trying to be 10% better. It simply won't work, radical change is needed. However that change should be wedded to western liberal democratic norms not authoritarian quick fixes that in reality shift power to the global broligarchy.