Just received a union ballot for General Secretary. 2 candidates - the incumbent, with a bland statement which basically says nothing, and another candidate with a statement which can be summed up as 'Keir Starmer is bad, Labour is bad, Gaza, Keir Starmer is bad'.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
2/3 of Tory MPs did not vote for Jenrick last year and most MPs who backed Badenoch prefer Cleverly to Jenrick. Even Tory members did not vote for Jenrick.
At the moment Jenrick is more likely to be next Reform leader than next Conservative leader, if Kemi resigned or lost a VONC it would almost certainly be Cleverly who replaced her.
Unless and until Farage loses the next general election and steps down as Reform leader enabling the Tories to reunite the right again, most Tory MPs will not even consider making Jenrick their leader
Again you are wishcasting. The few remaining Tory MPs will vote for whoever sees off Reform and that's Jenrick. Not Stride, not Cleverly, not some other modern faceless version of Michael Ancram, but Jenrick.
Show me one poll where Jenrick wins back most voters the Tories have lost to Farage?
Cleverly is the preferred choice of all voters in polls over Jenrick and Cleverly is more likely to hold the 2024 Tory voters who voted for Sunak and Cleverly is more likely to get tactical votes from Labour and LD voters in Tory seats to beat Farage and Reform than Jenrick too
We have all been told before to be wary of hypothetical polling.
So people are more forgiving if it’s others who get hammered with tax rises . Who knew !
Clearly Reeves is going to throw in some sweeteners as she breaks the manifesto pledge so the child benefit cap to go , VAT on energy to go . Raising income tax and cutting NI at the same time might look on the face of it as political damage limitation but that will mean pensioners and those self-employed miss out.
It might be better to do something with tax thresholds equivalent to the cost of lowering NI by 2p.
Reeves needs to do something surprising which can deflect from the broken manifesto pledge .
One which I have not seen re-mentioned recently but which was being discussed months ago was a reduction in the VAT threshold for small businesses. Ours is anomalously high compared to European peers.
I think a problem is that that one can't be "middle way"-ed. It has to be the current "can earn a living without exceeding the threshold" (90k), or drop to a level where all such businesses are caught and "side gigs" are exempt, which would be more like £25k.
That imo makes it a difficult policy option - it is difficult to reduce to say £75k then £50k over several years.
This is an AI list of current EU numbers by country. They are free to set them below a max of €85k.
Austria €55,000 Belgium €25,000 Czech Republic ~€79,000 (CZK 2,000,000) Denmark ~€6,700 (DKK 50,000) Estonia €40,000 Finland €15,000 France €34,400 (services), €91,000 (goods) Germany €25,000 (previous year turnover, current forecast to exceed €100,000) Hungary None; exemption available for turnover below ~€30,000 (HUF 12,000,000) Ireland €42,500 (services), €85,000 (goods) Italy €85,000 (for special regime eligibility) Latvia €50,000 Lithuania €45,000 Luxembourg €35,000 Netherlands €25,000 Poland ~€46,500 (PLN 200,000) Slovak Republic €49,790 Slovenia €50,000 Spain No general threshold; registration required for any taxable activity Sweden ~€7,000 (SEK 80,000)
Er - if they're free to set them below a max of E85,000 why are several above that figure?
Also, I think VAT is going to be rolled into the Making Tax Digital nonsense anyway, which would cut the threshold to £20,000 by 2028.
That does not alter the fact that it's a stupid tax that tends to hit the poorest hardest.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
The US is a right of centre nation, we are more a liberal centrist nation but concerned about immigration like most western nations
I forgot to respond to your immigration comment. In the last two decades which has been the party of uncontrolled non-EU immigration?
The Conservatives won their Brexit on the back of too many Poles in the queue at the GP, and I suspect the accession country immigration policy wasn't managed optimally by New Labour (and besides they have all gone home now) but nothing like the chaos and bad feeling generated by the Boriswave. Asylum policy by removing all the legitimate routes has been chaotic under your Government too.
This Government's timidity, pandering to the Daily Telegraph (which hates them anyway) over immigration has been a disgrace. Their absurdity in continuing your policy of curtailment of student visas has killed the lucrative University sector. Growth, my arse! But what really gets my goat is you Conservatives present that it was all hunky dory on your watch, and you were only useless because of the ECHR.
At least Jenrick conceded this week that both this government, AND your Government have lost control of immigration. Everyone was and is guilty it would seem, except Robert Jenrick, who was doing something else at the time (maybe too busy saving Desmond a local tax bill of £60m) despite being the Immigration Minister responsible for filling Britannia hotels full of asylum seekers.
Who is saying it was all hunky dory under the Conservatives? They got the mother of all rogerings by the voters.
But if the Tories deserved it then - why don't Labour deserve it now?
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
2/3 of Tory MPs did not vote for Jenrick last year and most MPs who backed Badenoch prefer Cleverly to Jenrick. Even Tory members did not vote for Jenrick.
At the moment Jenrick is more likely to be next Reform leader than next Conservative leader, if Kemi resigned or lost a VONC it would almost certainly be Cleverly who replaced her.
Unless and until Farage loses the next general election and steps down as Reform leader enabling the Tories to reunite the right again, most Tory MPs will not even consider making Jenrick their leader
Again you are wishcasting. The few remaining Tory MPs will vote for whoever sees off Reform and that's Jenrick. Not Stride, not Cleverly, not some other modern faceless version of Michael Ancram, but Jenrick.
Besides, it's not up to the MPs. Jenrick undoubtedly has enough support from MPs to make the final two. And in opposition, there's no excuse to fiddle the process, as was done for the post-Truss election.
Although the swivelliest-eyed of the members have presumably gone of to Reform, goodness knows what the remnant will do.
Do you know anything about Tory Party leadership election rules? It is Tory MPs in the 1922 Cttee who set them. Hence Howard was anointed by coronation in 2003 in opposition when IDS lost a VONC and Davis had to pull out.
Hence Rishi was elected Tory leader after Truss resigned despite having lost the members vote a few months earlier as the 1922 cttee set the threshold for MPs to nominate high enough that only Rishi but not Boris or Mordaunt could meet it.
Not quite, apparently Boris Johnson had signed up enough MPs to mount a challenge to Rishi Sunak for the Conservative leadership, senior Tory Sir Graham Brady has confirmed.
Mr Johnson dramatically pulled out of the race amid speculation he did not have the 100 nominations needed.
But Sir Graham, who runs Tory leadership contests, said Mr Johnson had just decided not to stand.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Patently tax increases are necessary. The various mini-me-Musks waving chainsaws around have nothing.
If the country just does not function because of degradation of basic facilities and maintenance of services - an example being the bush I saw growing out of a pedestrian refuge on one of the major roads in my town yesterday * - then investment in people, process and organisation is necessary.
We also have the bizarre idea that to improve in the private sector you spend money and invest in higher quality people, whilst in the public sector you just wave your chainsaw, cut everything, and make the quality of people lower to improve services. That perverse logic will not hold.
* Take any section of road and compare 2022 with 2009 on Streetview for what has changed since the local Councils were gutted.
This may be true but is not self evident. Public spending (TME or total managed expenditure) stands at 44-45% of GDP. About the same as Spain, lower than France, a bit lower than the EU average. A huge amount of money.
Running stuff competently (not letting prisoners out, police responding properly to crimes, eliminating benefit and tax fraud, teaching small boys to read even if they don't want to, smashing the gangs and stopping the boats, making sure poor kids don't miss school, getting medical stuff done right first time, answering the phone when Leon calls the HMRC) is cheaper than running it badly. Once that is all sorted, then people will be much more open to paying for improving what is already a very excellent service.
I very much agree on "running stuff competently", though that is an emergent property from starting from long-term thinking, planning, investment. So imo we have to start from a philosophy of long-term localism, joined up policy, and careful professionalism from in house staff not consultants, rather than Local Authorities as permanent political footballs. The only glint on the horizon is if the new Unitary Local Authorities follow the pattern of say London or Manchester.
Efficiency gain has to run alongside that, and thought about what level of quality we want in our public realm. That last needs input from national policy.
I can give you several prime examples just from my own beat. Here's one.
The "Reference Wheelchair" is a set of dimensions for a wheelchair which feed into design of things like wheelchair spaces on buses and trains. The current set of dimensions relate to 2 or 3 decades ago. Obviously this is crucial - once a bus is out there, it will last 25 or 30 years, or 30-40 years for a train. More for street infrastructure.
There was a research report about the "Reference Wheelchair" published around 2021 *, which demonstrated that perhaps 20-40% of wheelchair susers do not fit within the standard dimensions.
What's happened since then? There has been a Gadarene rush to roll out Electric Buses. What do the manufacturers do? They design to the absolute legal minimum they can get away with. Given the name "Reference Wheelchair", that is understandable. Were the new required dimensions introduced before hundreds of million were made available for new buses? Of course they bloody weren't.
So we have a big chunk of wheelchair users institutionally excluded from "accessible" (kneeling etc) electric buses until the 2050s.
Oh how terrible. They produced a product in line with the customer specification 🙄
I don't understand that comment.
Your bit I highlighted in bold. Why are you whining that the manufacturers make to the standard laid down. If they are asked to make a product they are going to meet the spec and not add loads of things not asked for which adds to,cost.
If you are in a competive bid process you deliver what is asked for or price yourself out.
I see that the most prolific speed camera in the country is in Ashfield, on a bypass 300m from the biggest school in the County - where 1/3 of the catchment is on the other side.
It raised £2.4m last year (about 70 per day), at a quite notorious junction with multiple serious injuries and deaths over recent years since the rather crappy "bypass" was built about 25 years ago, and now has far more housing being built in the area.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
The US is a right of centre nation, we are more a liberal centrist nation but concerned about immigration like most western nations
It all depends where you pinpoint the "centre". Your " centre" is further to the right than my centre.
I agree about the US. The culture is very much entrepreneurial and supportive of promotion of the wealthy in the expectation that one day they all arrive at that point. The majority of US, predominantly white voters (specifically voters) are either millionaires or expectant millionaires. Despite what Donald Trump says Democrats are more akin to Cameron Tories than Corbyn Labour
Sweden, Finland and Denmark are left of centre nations, France is very statist economically, the US a right of centre nation as you say. Most western nations are liberal centrist countries like us.
Democrats are more a mixture of Cameroon Tories and New Labour and LDs yes too, though Mamdani and AOC and Sanders are more Corbynite.
Only most Reform voters at the last election said they would vote for Trump, even most Tories preferred Harris
I see that the most prolific speed camera in the country is in Ashfield, on a bypass 300m from the biggest school in the County - where 1/3 of the catchment is on the other side.
It raised £2.4m last year (about 70 per day), at a quite notorious junction with multiple serious injuries and deaths over recent years since the rather crappy "bypass" was built about 25 years ago, and now has far more housing being built in the area.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
2/3 of Tory MPs did not vote for Jenrick last year and most MPs who backed Badenoch prefer Cleverly to Jenrick. Even Tory members did not vote for Jenrick.
At the moment Jenrick is more likely to be next Reform leader than next Conservative leader, if Kemi resigned or lost a VONC it would almost certainly be Cleverly who replaced her.
Unless and until Farage loses the next general election and steps down as Reform leader enabling the Tories to reunite the right again, most Tory MPs will not even consider making Jenrick their leader
Again you are wishcasting. The few remaining Tory MPs will vote for whoever sees off Reform and that's Jenrick. Not Stride, not Cleverly, not some other modern faceless version of Michael Ancram, but Jenrick.
Show me one poll where Jenrick wins back most voters the Tories have lost to Farage?
Cleverly is the preferred choice of all voters in polls over Jenrick and Cleverly is more likely to hold the 2024 Tory voters who voted for Sunak and Cleverly is more likely to get tactical votes from Labour and LD voters in Tory seats to beat Farage and Reform than Jenrick too
You are absolutely right on this one. Badenoch is trying to stay relevant by cosying up to the Reform position on most policies. And failing as Reform simply step to the right every time.
Jenrick? He could stand there wearing his turquoise ball gag and still not get close to Reform. You can't out Reform Reform.
What you can do is be there to attract the right leaning voters who inevitably get flung off Reform. Offer sane policies in contrast to the Reform madness. And Cleverly can do that in a way that Jenrick can't.
Although lets be honest here - Cleverly isn't very good. There are better options who your members won't vote for.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
The US is a right of centre nation, we are more a liberal centrist nation but concerned about immigration like most western nations
It all depends where you pinpoint the "centre". Your " centre" is further to the right than my centre.
I agree about the US. The culture is very much entrepreneurial and supportive of promotion of the wealthy in the expectation that one day they all arrive at that point. The majority of US, predominantly white voters (specifically voters) are either millionaires or expectant millionaires. Despite what Donald Trump says Democrats are more akin to Cameron Tories than Corbyn Labour
Sweden, Finland and Denmark are left of centre nations, the US a right of centre nation as you say. Most western nations are liberal centrist countries like us.
Democrats are more a mixture of Cameroon Tories and New Labour and LDs yes too, though Mamdani and AOC and Sanders are more Corbynite.
Only most Reform voters at the last election said they would vote for Trump, even most Tories preferred Harris
Try telling that to some of your colleagues today!
Just received a union ballot for General Secretary. 2 candidates - the incumbent, with a bland statement which basically says nothing, and another candidate with a statement which can be summed up as 'Keir Starmer is bad, Labour is bad, Gaza, Keir Starmer is bad'.
Tough choice ahead.
Go for the pro-Gaza guy. You don't need that pay rise anyway. And the Gazans need your subs more than you do.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
"Tax rise for growth" lol do you have even a basic understanding of how the economy functions?
Yes. Raise x. Invest it. Return xx
Cash needs to flow or the economy contracts. Do YOU understand how the economy works? Rich people aren't letting the cash even trickle down any more - most people feel broke and the economy contracts which makes more people broke.
THis is what happens when you don't invest. Could be a major story next year, to put it mildly, if it doesn't start pishing it down. Edit: NB mooted restrictions affecting businesses.
This is the guardian equivalent of the regular Daily Express winter stories about massive snowfalls due soon.
I wouldn't put it that way. For one thing, DE is about future point events. THis is about an ongoing phenomenon.
Edit: and the state of the water mains is a known issue. Replacing them is (a) investment and (b) saves water, a lot of it.
Isn’t that what most of the punitive water bill increases is supposed to cover.
Building a few more reservoirs would help too. Sadly NIMBYism has nixed that more than once.
I'm inclined to suspect the latter was just an excuse for the water companies to do FA. If they really worried about the water supply rather than stockholder dividends they'd have done more to deal with ageing mains to the same effect.
They've been able to do it in the past - Rutland Water in relatively recent years. Relatively recent admittedly taking a lot of load there, it was 1980s IIRC, but Rutlandshire even then was not your average Welsh valley with about 50 people and a trillion sheep.
And as a bonus they got lots of birds and a giant ichthyosaur. What's not to like?
Certainly your first paragraph is the NIMBY argument for stopping new reservoirs being built.
However they are not mutually exclusive. They could do both.
Now the water companies are getting a large cash injection through front loaded increases, and some have been back to the regulator for a little more and got it, let’s see what happens.
First para is not a Nimby argument in itself - it is something they needed to do anyway (contamination, bursts, damage to roads, stoppage to supplies). And because that really is where a lot of water is wasted. It's only a Nimby argument insofar as the water companies were so badly managed it was an open goal for the Nimbies to ask why they wanted to build reservoirs to pump the equivalent straignt into the ground.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. The first paragraph is a NIMBY argument in the sense I’ve seen it proferred as an excuse not to build reservoirs. If you solve the leaks you don’t need a reservoir.
With a growing poluplation I’d say we need both, especially where the population is growing in the south.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
2/3 of Tory MPs did not vote for Jenrick last year and most MPs who backed Badenoch prefer Cleverly to Jenrick. Even Tory members did not vote for Jenrick.
At the moment Jenrick is more likely to be next Reform leader than next Conservative leader, if Kemi resigned or lost a VONC it would almost certainly be Cleverly who replaced her.
Unless and until Farage loses the next general election and steps down as Reform leader enabling the Tories to reunite the right again, most Tory MPs will not even consider making Jenrick their leader
Again you are wishcasting. The few remaining Tory MPs will vote for whoever sees off Reform and that's Jenrick. Not Stride, not Cleverly, not some other modern faceless version of Michael Ancram, but Jenrick.
Show me one poll where Jenrick wins back most voters the Tories have lost to Farage?
Cleverly is the preferred choice of all voters in polls over Jenrick and Cleverly is more likely to hold the 2024 Tory voters who voted for Sunak and Cleverly is more likely to get tactical votes from Labour and LD voters in Tory seats to beat Farage and Reform than Jenrick too
We have all been told before to be wary of hypothetical polling.
It is normally right, it was right in 1990 Major would beat Kinnock when Thatcher wouldn’t. It was right in 2019 Boris would get a majority v Corbyn that May wouldn’t. It is probably right now Burnham could beat Farage but Starmer can’t
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
"Tax rise for growth" lol do you have even a basic understanding of how the economy functions?
Yes. Raise x. Invest it. Return xx
Cash needs to flow or the economy contracts. Do YOU understand how the economy works? Rich people aren't letting the cash even trickle down any more - most people feel broke and the economy contracts which makes more people broke.
THis is what happens when you don't invest. Could be a major story next year, to put it mildly, if it doesn't start pishing it down. Edit: NB mooted restrictions affecting businesses.
This is the guardian equivalent of the regular Daily Express winter stories about massive snowfalls due soon.
I wouldn't put it that way. For one thing, DE is about future point events. THis is about an ongoing phenomenon.
Edit: and the state of the water mains is a known issue. Replacing them is (a) investment and (b) saves water, a lot of it.
Isn’t that what most of the punitive water bill increases is supposed to cover.
Building a few more reservoirs would help too. Sadly NIMBYism has nixed that more than once.
I'm inclined to suspect the latter was just an excuse for the water companies to do FA. If they really worried about the water supply rather than stockholder dividends they'd have done more to deal with ageing mains to the same effect.
They've been able to do it in the past - Rutland Water in relatively recent years. Relatively recent admittedly taking a lot of load there, it was 1980s IIRC, but Rutlandshire even then was not your average Welsh valley with about 50 people and a trillion sheep.
And as a bonus they got lots of birds and a giant ichthyosaur. What's not to like?
Certainly your first paragraph is the NIMBY argument for stopping new reservoirs being built.
However they are not mutually exclusive. They could do both.
Now the water companies are getting a large cash injection through front loaded increases, and some have been back to the regulator for a little more and got it, let’s see what happens.
First para is not a Nimby argument in itself - it is something they needed to do anyway (contamination, bursts, damage to roads, stoppage to supplies). And because that really is where a lot of water is wasted. It's only a Nimby argument insofar as the water companies were so badly managed it was an open goal for the Nimbies to ask why they wanted to build reservoirs to pump the equivalent straignt into the ground.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. The first paragraph is a NIMBY argument in the sense I’ve seen it proferred as an excuse not to build reservoirs. If you solve the leaks you don’t need a reservoir.
With a growing poluplation I’d say we need both, especially where the population is growing in the south.
Immigration results in the countryside being flooded.
I see that the most prolific speed camera in the country is in Ashfield, on a bypass 300m from the biggest school in the County - where 1/3 of the catchment is on the other side.
It raised £2.4m last year (about 70 per day), at a quite notorious junction with multiple serious injuries and deaths over recent years since the rather crappy "bypass" was built about 25 years ago, and now has far more housing being built in the area.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
Politics like nature abhors a vacuum. An election that is Tory v Reform for first place is not at the moment thinkable. The next election is going to be some version of Reformtory v The Not Reform party for first and second place, and for leadership of the next government.
Labour are likely to be the lead player in the Not Reform group, there being no other broad enough candidate in both policy (which excludes Green leadership) and demographics (LDs problem).
Labour are value, if any value is to be had. DYOR.
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Each night before bed I go down the rabbit hole of the anti-Trump YouTube channels, Lincoln Project, Pakman, Bryan Taylor Cohen, Dollemore, Occupy Democrats etc, etc, and the Daily Beast which features Michael Wolf (he regales stories of photos he has seen from Epstein's safe) and he is expecting an imminent explosion of Epstein shit all over Trump. They are all either wishcasting or the shit really is about to hit the fan. Michael Wolf being sued by Melania could be a catalyst.
I see that the most prolific speed camera in the country is in Ashfield, on a bypass 300m from the biggest school in the County - where 1/3 of the catchment is on the other side.
It raised £2.4m last year (about 70 per day), at a quite notorious junction with multiple serious injuries and deaths over recent years since the rather crappy "bypass" was built about 25 years ago, and now has far more housing being built in the area.
I'd support this revenue being fed into local policing or improvement to transport systems.
Isn't that how some american cities basically fund everything they do, though well placed speed traps?
Some abused it in the USA, in the style of Boss Hogg and Sheriff Roscoe P Coltrane. That's mainly a function of the USA still being in part the Wild West imo, and having village level police departments..
No one here could go that far - we already have fairly strong arrangements in place, and it would just be an adjustment. I think we have already put certain funds into local transport (ie hypothecate), though the last Government may have reversed bits of it.
Here the school generates perhaps 7000-8000 trips per day (3000 pupils + all the rest + other things on the campus), and there is a great footbridge and public footpath to within 100m of the campus back gate from the key housing area across the bypass. A claiming of a commonly used but not designated footpath, a few £££ on improving that (maybe 200-400k), and it could remove 500-1000+ trips a day to the school from the local roads, and take much of the school time foot traffic off the dangerous junction.
It's like my earlier comment - joined up thinking. But they prefer to talk about £10m link roads to accommodate the unnecessary traffic.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
Politics like nature abhors a vacuum. An election that is Tory v Reform for first place is not at the moment thinkable. The next election is going to be some version of Reformtory v The Not Reform party for first and second place, and for leadership of the next government.
Labour are likely to be the lead player in the Not Reform group, there being no other broad enough candidate in both policy (which excludes Green leadership) and demographics (LDs problem).
Labour are value, if any value is to be had. DYOR.
I am not convinced that Reform won't implode under the stress of Jenrick Tories.
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Each night before bed I go down the rabbit hole of the anti-Trump YouTube channels, Lincoln Project, Pakman, Bryan Taylor Cohen, Dollemore, Occupy Democrats etc, etc, and the Daily Beast which features Michael Wolf (he regales stories of photos he has seen from Epstein's safe) and he is expecting an imminent explosion of Epstein shit all over Trump. They are all either wishcasting or the shit really is about to hit the fan. Michael Wolf being sued by Melania could be a catalyst.
I think Trump will want to make Melania run away, given that Wolff sued first, and the potential for all of the actors being on deposition under oath.
But given that it is from the Wolff side, that may not be possible.
(I'm not happy with the flashing introduction to the Inside Trump's Head podcast. And you did not mention the Times Radio Trump Report, where Scott Lucas is quite good.
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Maybe but without seeing the photos, I'm sceptical simply because of the timing on the White House calling off the Epstein file release which suggests something was discovered very late, and Trump would have been the very first name they looked for during the months the GOP and MAGA and Trump himself campaigned for the Epstein material to be released.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
Politics like nature abhors a vacuum. An election that is Tory v Reform for first place is not at the moment thinkable. The next election is going to be some version of Reformtory v The Not Reform party for first and second place, and for leadership of the next government.
Labour are likely to be the lead player in the Not Reform group, there being no other broad enough candidate in both policy (which excludes Green leadership) and demographics (LDs problem).
Labour are value, if any value is to be had. DYOR.
I am not convinced that Reform won't implode under the stress of Jenrick Tories.
I agree it's possible. But the general election will be a contest between ReformTory or ToryReform v Not ReformTory. Which places Labour in probable pole position as the main party which isn't Reform or Tory. About 50%+ of voters are going to vote for a party that isn't Tory or Reform. Their votes have to go somewhere. Most will go to Labour.
I see that the most prolific speed camera in the country is in Ashfield, on a bypass 300m from the biggest school in the County - where 1/3 of the catchment is on the other side.
It raised £2.4m last year (about 70 per day), at a quite notorious junction with multiple serious injuries and deaths over recent years since the rather crappy "bypass" was built about 25 years ago, and now has far more housing being built in the area.
I just wonder how much more stuff Reeves can break as we all head off to the abbatoir.
The sighs of a cow.
Halal or regular?
All tastes the same to me.
The Wonderstuff are from Stourbridge.
I did consultancy work for Dudley Council. It was Unbearable.
Thoughts and prayers.
One of my best mates lives in Lower Gornal. The local pubs were interesting.
Duddd-layyyyy, as they pronounce it.
I did it for three years, three days a week. Working at Blowers Green and Netherton. Wonderstuff songs aside it wasn't Unbearable, I loved it.
As I was paying out of my fees I stayed in the Travelodge in Kingswinford, Halesowen or Brierly Hill. I would dine at the food court in Merry Hill. Such was the life of an itinerant peasant.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
Any particular tax can be reduced, but not tax generally. Public spending in the UK is below EU averages. Taxes don't even cover that expenditure. We run a deficit and are grotesquely in debt.
So suggestions of reducing tax without looking at the total picture including where it can best rise is going to be special pleading. The sort of special pleading which tries to justify taxing pensioners (like me) more lightly than workers.
Politicians of all stripes need to start pushing the narrative that the country's broke and unpleasant measures are necessary.
Good morning, everybody.
It won't be soon, can kicking will continue to play better for some time to come, but eventually we will have to wake up, and a politician will find it useful to admit it rather than get punished for doing so as now.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
I don't know if you have any formal training in economics but you are much more economically literate than many who do, starting with the current Chancellor.
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Each night before bed I go down the rabbit hole of the anti-Trump YouTube channels, Lincoln Project, Pakman, Bryan Taylor Cohen, Dollemore, Occupy Democrats etc, etc, and the Daily Beast which features Michael Wolf (he regales stories of photos he has seen from Epstein's safe) and he is expecting an imminent explosion of Epstein shit all over Trump. They are all either wishcasting or the shit really is about to hit the fan. Michael Wolf being sued by Melania could be a catalyst.
Allrise News seems to have good summaries of legal developments.
Politicians of all stripes need to start pushing the narrative that the country's broke and unpleasant measures are necessary.
Good morning, everybody.
That works if all of them do it.
We sort of saw that in 2010- the disagreement was about how to do austerity, not whether to do it.
The temptation to be the one party saying "we don't need to do anything unpleasant- we can recoup what we need from Bad People" will be hard to resist.
(Hell, we see it already. The only difference between the left and the right is who the Bad People are.)
What makes it even harder to solve is that we aren't really broke- it's just that there's a gap between what we want and what we are willing to pay for. And that's been true for ages.
I see that the most prolific speed camera in the country is in Ashfield, on a bypass 300m from the biggest school in the County - where 1/3 of the catchment is on the other side.
It raised £2.4m last year (about 70 per day), at a quite notorious junction with multiple serious injuries and deaths over recent years since the rather crappy "bypass" was built about 25 years ago, and now has far more housing being built in the area.
I'd support this revenue being fed into local policing or improvement to transport systems.
Spend the money on fixing the road, pedestrian bridges for the schoolkids etc.
Absolutely. But currently I think that speed camera money goes strictly to the Treasury.
Ah yes, good point. Traffic enforcement would likely be more popular with the general public if the fines went to actually improving transport infrastructure.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Patently tax increases are necessary. The various mini-me-Musks waving chainsaws around have nothing.
If the country just does not function because of degradation of basic facilities and maintenance of services - an example being the bush I saw growing out of a pedestrian refuge on one of the major roads in my town yesterday * - then investment in people, process and organisation is necessary.
We also have the bizarre idea that to improve in the private sector you spend money and invest in higher quality people, whilst in the public sector you just wave your chainsaw, cut everything, and make the quality of people lower to improve services. That perverse logic will not hold.
* Take any section of road and compare 2022 with 2009 on Streetview for what has changed since the local Councils were gutted.
This may be true but is not self evident. Public spending (TME or total managed expenditure) stands at 44-45% of GDP. About the same as Spain, lower than France, a bit lower than the EU average. A huge amount of money.
Running stuff competently (not letting prisoners out, police responding properly to crimes, eliminating benefit and tax fraud, teaching small boys to read even if they don't want to, smashing the gangs and stopping the boats, making sure poor kids don't miss school, getting medical stuff done right first time, answering the phone when Leon calls the HMRC) is cheaper than running it badly. Once that is all sorted, then people will be much more open to paying for improving what is already a very excellent service.
Empirically, raising the tax/expenditure ratio by 1% of GDP reduces GDP by 0.75%-1% in the medium/long term. Roughly, an increase of 1% of GDP in the state sector reduces the private sector by a little under 2% of GDP, or about 3-4 percentage points in size in total. See the excellent and comprehensive 2011 ECB panel data study on this issue. (That's an average, and it depends a great deal how you do it. Raising taxes on business profits or payroll reduces GDP far more than raising VAT. And guess which this moronic government did last year?)
Meta studies show a consensus of eight or nine to one that higher tax/spending ratios are associated with lower economic growth - a truly extraordinary ratio for a controversial issue in a social science.
This country desperately needs lower taxes and spending, not higher. Basic behavioural economics, not to mention common sense, teaches that the private sector, though not perfect, allocates resources much more efficiently than the public sector on average, for two simple reasons: private sector companies are constrained by a fear of bankruptcy in the way that the public sector, which can always extort more money, isn't, and the public sector is impeded from quick and effective decision making by political accountability constraints. Reducing taxes and serious deregulation are the two things the government could do to spur economic growth the most.
No, private sector companies are not “constrained by a fear of bankruptcy” for two reasons. They are paper entities who don’t have emotions and cannot go bankrupt. Yes, admittedly, there are analogous insolvency procedures for companies, but not bankruptcy, and self evidently, a fiction like a Ltd or an LLP can’t “fear” them.
Basic behavioural economics my arse. Companies exist to protect investors from the fear of bankruptcy by the use of limited liability. So those who could actually feel fear, the shareholders and directors, are shielded from the ultimate impact inefficient allocation of resources has beyond their investment.
Hence the GFC in 2008, when the people allocating resources, in the form of loans to homebuyers who could not possibly pay them back, knew they were shielded from the catastrophic ultimate consequences of their actions by, ironically enough, a the governmental fiction of the incorporated entity. And Grenfell, where the decision makers knew that the companies they ran, not them, would carry the can for allocating dangerous resources to clad blocks of flats.
Markets have their uses but let’s not pretend that we live in a world where directors who fuck up can’t just go and start a new company once they’ve lost the old one. Fear has very little to do with it.
I just wonder how much more stuff Reeves can break as we all head off to the abbatoir.
The sighs of a cow.
Halal or regular?
All tastes the same to me.
The Wonderstuff are from Stourbridge.
I did consultancy work for Dudley Council. It was Unbearable.
Thoughts and prayers.
One of my best mates lives in Lower Gornal. The local pubs were interesting.
Duddd-layyyyy, as they pronounce it.
I did it for three years, three days a week. Working at Blowers Green and Netherton. Wonderstuff songs aside it wasn't Unbearable, I loved it.
As I was paying out of my fees I stayed in the Travelodge in Kingswinford, Halesowen or Brierly Hill. I would dine at the food court in Merry Hill. Such was the life of an itinerant peasant.
Worked in Cradley Heath for five years. I know Wall Heath and Brierley Hill rather well too having friends there.
I used to pop to the Merry Hill centre of a lunchtime for the stuff they put out as free samples. Pizza. Cold meat, cheese and whatever else was on offer.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
I empathise with that, having spent a couple of years to find a unit for a Crossfit Gym some years ago. It was a devil of a job, and we ended up paying 3-4k to a specialist planning consultant - because gyms are a "town centre" use and we had to prove nothing else was available. First rent review is just coming up after 5 years.
We ended up with a very good facility of 7000 sqft in a former medium rise warehouse.
The guy who is majority owner has been representing the UK internationally this year, and came in the Top 10 for the world in a particular Crossfit ("The Sport of Fitness") competition.
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Each night before bed I go down the rabbit hole of the anti-Trump YouTube channels, Lincoln Project, Pakman, Bryan Taylor Cohen, Dollemore, Occupy Democrats etc, etc, and the Daily Beast which features Michael Wolf (he regales stories of photos he has seen from Epstein's safe) and he is expecting an imminent explosion of Epstein shit all over Trump. They are all either wishcasting or the shit really is about to hit the fan. Michael Wolf being sued by Melania could be a catalyst.
Allrise News seems to have good summaries of legal developments.
I do find some of the channels's excitement that they have Trump banged to rights often premature and tiresome, although I feel the end might be closer and when it comes it will be with a bang not a whimper.
I find Rick Wilson and also Joanna Coles and Michael Wolf compelling.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
Politics like nature abhors a vacuum. An election that is Tory v Reform for first place is not at the moment thinkable. The next election is going to be some version of Reformtory v The Not Reform party for first and second place, and for leadership of the next government.
Labour are likely to be the lead player in the Not Reform group, there being no other broad enough candidate in both policy (which excludes Green leadership) and demographics (LDs problem).
Labour are value, if any value is to be had. DYOR.
I am not convinced that Reform won't implode under the stress of Jenrick Tories.
I agree it's possible. But the general election will be a contest between ReformTory or ToryReform v Not ReformTory. Which places Labour in probable pole position as the main party which isn't Reform or Tory. About 50%+ of voters are going to vote for a party that isn't Tory or Reform. Their votes have to go somewhere. Most will go to Labour.
I am still not convinced by this theory.
At the moment the next GE looks to be shaping up as a fight between lots of parties that each have large numbers of opponents. But one of them has got to win.
Tactical voting will play a part, but I don’t buy the idea that there will be a huge Labour-voting alliance as a way to stop Reform. Labour will be battling a strong anti-incumbency feeling and a lot of people who will be voting against them too. To tactically vote, people also have to be aware of who in their constituency is most likely to beat the lead candidate. That might be easy in some places, but it’s going to be far from clear in a lot of the country if this political fragmentation continues.
As it stands, I still see a HP as a far more likely outcome, as this jumble of voting patterns fails to see anyone do enough to win. The jury is out on whether that means a Reform led government or some progressive alliance.
This is all based on the current landscape though. There’s over 3 years to go yet.
I just wonder how much more stuff Reeves can break as we all head off to the abbatoir.
The sighs of a cow.
Halal or regular?
All tastes the same to me.
The Wonderstuff are from Stourbridge.
I did consultancy work for Dudley Council. It was Unbearable.
Thoughts and prayers.
One of my best mates lives in Lower Gornal. The local pubs were interesting.
Duddd-layyyyy, as they pronounce it.
I did it for three years, three days a week. Working at Blowers Green and Netherton. Wonderstuff songs aside it wasn't Unbearable, I loved it.
As I was paying out of my fees I stayed in the Travelodge in Kingswinford, Halesowen or Brierly Hill. I would dine at the food court in Merry Hill. Such was the life of an itinerant peasant.
Worked in Cradley Heath for five years. I know Wall Heath and Brierley Hill rather well too having friends there.
I used to pop to the Merry Hill centre of a lunchtime for the stuff they put out as free samples. Pizza. Cold meat, cheese and whatever else was on offer.
Happy days although the job was shit.
The people I worked with at the council were wonderful. A number of the drivers of refuse vehicles were skilled engineers who had retrained when Longbridge closed after MG Rover was asset stripped by the Phoenix Four.
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Maybe but without seeing the photos, I'm sceptical simply because of the timing on the White House calling off the Epstein file release which suggests something was discovered very late, and Trump would have been the very first name they looked for during the months the GOP and MAGA and Trump himself campaigned for the Epstein material to be released.
Something scary is in there, but what?
It’s a very weird one.
Epstein knew a lot of politicians and business leaders over a period of decades, but one would have thought that anything really bad on Trump specifically would have found itself leaked from Biden’s DOJ to a friendly journalist before the election.
Remember that a single, non-explicit photograph was enough to get Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor disowned by his family.
Clearly everyone who actually looks at what’s there doesn’t want to see it made public, but there’s definitely pressure from a lot of Trump-supporting commentators to release what the authorities know.
The turning point in my mind was when Kash Patel, as incumbent FBI Director, went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to lay the ground for the whole thing being a nothing burger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C81bFx8CSA8
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Each night before bed I go down the rabbit hole of the anti-Trump YouTube channels, Lincoln Project, Pakman, Bryan Taylor Cohen, Dollemore, Occupy Democrats etc, etc, and the Daily Beast which features Michael Wolf (he regales stories of photos he has seen from Epstein's safe) and he is expecting an imminent explosion of Epstein shit all over Trump. They are all either wishcasting or the shit really is about to hit the fan. Michael Wolf being sued by Melania could be a catalyst.
Allrise News seems to have good summaries of legal developments.
I do find some of the channels's excitement that they have Trump banged to rights often premature and tiresome, although I feel the end might be closer and when it comes it will be with a bang not a whimper.
I find Rick Wilson and also Joanna Coles and Michael Wolf compelling.
What I do find interesting is the amount of US major otherwise-perceptive commentators who are still treating the whole Trump thing as a game of Beltway Political Chess, rather than a major threat.
I find Mallen Baker to be far better as a summariser. He does a roundup on Fridays, plus daily focused commentary vids. His background is as a senior Green from the Sara Parkin era, then Lib Dem, then non-partisan from a liberal view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPHmrSDTkfk
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Maybe but without seeing the photos, I'm sceptical simply because of the timing on the White House calling off the Epstein file release which suggests something was discovered very late, and Trump would have been the very first name they looked for during the months the GOP and MAGA and Trump himself campaigned for the Epstein material to be released.
Something scary is in there, but what?
It’s a very weird one.
Epstein knew a lot of politicians and business leaders over a period of decades, but one would have thought that anything really bad on Trump specifically would have found itself leaked from Biden’s DOJ to a friendly journalist before the election.
Remember that a single, non-explicit photograph was enough to get Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor disowned by his family.
Clearly everyone who actually looks at what’s there doesn’t want to see it made public, but there’s definitely pressure from a lot of Trump-supporting commentators to release what the authorities know.
The turning point in my mind was when Kash Patel, as incumbent FBI Director, went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to lay the ground for the whole thing being a nothing burger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C81bFx8CSA8
I quite incline to the view that Jeffrey Epstein was essentially running a massive extortion operation, with photos and film as the backup lever.
The underlying question is where did his money come from.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
Politics like nature abhors a vacuum. An election that is Tory v Reform for first place is not at the moment thinkable. The next election is going to be some version of Reformtory v The Not Reform party for first and second place, and for leadership of the next government.
Labour are likely to be the lead player in the Not Reform group, there being no other broad enough candidate in both policy (which excludes Green leadership) and demographics (LDs problem).
Labour are value, if any value is to be had. DYOR.
I am not convinced that Reform won't implode under the stress of Jenrick Tories.
I agree it's possible. But the general election will be a contest between ReformTory or ToryReform v Not ReformTory. Which places Labour in probable pole position as the main party which isn't Reform or Tory. About 50%+ of voters are going to vote for a party that isn't Tory or Reform. Their votes have to go somewhere. Most will go to Labour.
I am still not convinced by this theory.
At the moment the next GE looks to be shaping up as a fight between lots of parties that each have large numbers of opponents. But one of them has got to win.
Tactical voting will play a part, but I don’t buy the idea that there will be a huge Labour-voting alliance as a way to stop Reform. Labour will be battling a strong anti-incumbency feeling and a lot of people who will be voting against them too. To tactically vote, people also have to be aware of who in their constituency is most likely to beat the lead candidate. That might be easy in some places, but it’s going to be far from clear in a lot of the country if this political fragmentation continues.
As it stands, I still see a HP as a far more likely outcome, as this jumble of voting patterns fails to see anyone do enough to win. The jury is out on whether that means a Reform led government or some progressive alliance.
This is all based on the current landscape though. There’s over 3 years to go yet.
Even if the economy turns around I don't see a hope for Labour. At their very best the will go down to a 1996 style defeat. At worst it is the end of a hundred year plus journey.
I don't believe the white working class feel they need a Labour Party anymore. They believe it is a party for shirkers and foreign ner-well-to-dos.
If Jenrick can position the Tories as performatively cruel to shirkers and foreigners without going full goose-stepping Nazi I can see the Tories home and hosed. Jenrick has already persuaded the voter that the Tory chaos from 2019 had nothing to do with him.
I see that the most prolific speed camera in the country is in Ashfield, on a bypass 300m from the biggest school in the County - where 1/3 of the catchment is on the other side.
It raised £2.4m last year (about 70 per day), at a quite notorious junction with multiple serious injuries and deaths over recent years since the rather crappy "bypass" was built about 25 years ago, and now has far more housing being built in the area.
I'd support this revenue being fed into local policing or improvement to transport systems.
Spend the money on fixing the road, pedestrian bridges for the schoolkids etc.
Absolutely. But currently I think that speed camera money goes strictly to the Treasury.
Ah yes, good point. Traffic enforcement would likely be more popular with the general public if the fines went to actually improving transport infrastructure.
On our bypass this camera (which is a combined red light and speed camera) is taking 70 tickets a day on a 25k AADT road, but I think it is one direction only.
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Each night before bed I go down the rabbit hole of the anti-Trump YouTube channels, Lincoln Project, Pakman, Bryan Taylor Cohen, Dollemore, Occupy Democrats etc, etc, and the Daily Beast which features Michael Wolf (he regales stories of photos he has seen from Epstein's safe) and he is expecting an imminent explosion of Epstein shit all over Trump. They are all either wishcasting or the shit really is about to hit the fan. Michael Wolf being sued by Melania could be a catalyst.
Allrise News seems to have good summaries of legal developments.
I do find some of the channels's excitement that they have Trump banged to rights often premature and tiresome, although I feel the end might be closer and when it comes it will be with a bang not a whimper.
I find Rick Wilson and also Joanna Coles and Michael Wolf compelling.
What I do find interesting is the amount of US major otherwise-perceptive commentators who are still treating the whole Trump thing as a game of Beltway Political Chess, rather than a major threat.
I find Mallen Baker to be far better as a summariser. He does a roundup on Fridays, plus daily focused commentary vids. His background is as a senior Green from the Sara Parkin era, then Lib Dem, then non-partisan from a liberal view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPHmrSDTkfk
I have given up on CNN and MSBN. They try to sane washing the Trump madness.
I occasionally watch Jesse Watters on Fox ask a loaded question about the absurdity of the Dems and the sanity of Trump. I find an odd, uncomfortable dark comedy to his performance.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
Politics like nature abhors a vacuum. An election that is Tory v Reform for first place is not at the moment thinkable. The next election is going to be some version of Reformtory v The Not Reform party for first and second place, and for leadership of the next government.
Labour are likely to be the lead player in the Not Reform group, there being no other broad enough candidate in both policy (which excludes Green leadership) and demographics (LDs problem).
Labour are value, if any value is to be had. DYOR.
I am not convinced that Reform won't implode under the stress of Jenrick Tories.
I agree it's possible. But the general election will be a contest between ReformTory or ToryReform v Not ReformTory. Which places Labour in probable pole position as the main party which isn't Reform or Tory. About 50%+ of voters are going to vote for a party that isn't Tory or Reform. Their votes have to go somewhere. Most will go to Labour.
I am still not convinced by this theory.
At the moment the next GE looks to be shaping up as a fight between lots of parties that each have large numbers of opponents. But one of them has got to win.
Tactical voting will play a part, but I don’t buy the idea that there will be a huge Labour-voting alliance as a way to stop Reform. Labour will be battling a strong anti-incumbency feeling and a lot of people who will be voting against them too. To tactically vote, people also have to be aware of who in their constituency is most likely to beat the lead candidate. That might be easy in some places, but it’s going to be far from clear in a lot of the country if this political fragmentation continues.
As it stands, I still see a HP as a far more likely outcome, as this jumble of voting patterns fails to see anyone do enough to win. The jury is out on whether that means a Reform led government or some progressive alliance.
This is all based on the current landscape though. There’s over 3 years to go yet.
I very much agree with this analysis of the problem in general. In trying to read the next election - impossible but PB is about predicting that which can't be predicted and assessing probabilities well before it is rational to do so - we are dealing with irresistible forces and immovable objects.
Tactical voting - which I guess will be large, meets two immovable objects: in 400+ seats Labour is the tactical anti Reform vote because they are the incumbent. But in 400+ seats Labour being the incumbent is unpopular and execrated.
My seat (Penrith and Solway) is a lovely example. New boundaries. Clearly Tory leaning in the ancient era up to 2019. Labour in 2024. Projected to be clearly Reform in 2029. LDs never figure. Who do you vote for in 2029 if you want to vote against Reform? Labour are the only choice. Many seats are like that.
This is going to become fascinating in both political and betting terms. I still say that great forces will be in play to keep the Labour vote much higher than it currently appears.
Full disclosure: I am a dinosaur One Nation Tory. My MP was Rory. I therefore don't have a party. Voted Labour in 2024. Through gritted teeth would do so again as things stand.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
"Tax rise for growth" lol do you have even a basic understanding of how the economy functions?
Yes. Raise x. Invest it. Return xx
Cash needs to flow or the economy contracts. Do YOU understand how the economy works? Rich people aren't letting the cash even trickle down any more - most people feel broke and the economy contracts which makes more people broke.
THis is what happens when you don't invest. Could be a major story next year, to put it mildly, if it doesn't start pishing it down. Edit: NB mooted restrictions affecting businesses.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
Politics like nature abhors a vacuum. An election that is Tory v Reform for first place is not at the moment thinkable. The next election is going to be some version of Reformtory v The Not Reform party for first and second place, and for leadership of the next government.
Labour are likely to be the lead player in the Not Reform group, there being no other broad enough candidate in both policy (which excludes Green leadership) and demographics (LDs problem).
Labour are value, if any value is to be had. DYOR.
I am not convinced that Reform won't implode under the stress of Jenrick Tories.
I agree it's possible. But the general election will be a contest between ReformTory or ToryReform v Not ReformTory. Which places Labour in probable pole position as the main party which isn't Reform or Tory. About 50%+ of voters are going to vote for a party that isn't Tory or Reform. Their votes have to go somewhere. Most will go to Labour.
I am still not convinced by this theory.
At the moment the next GE looks to be shaping up as a fight between lots of parties that each have large numbers of opponents. But one of them has got to win.
Tactical voting will play a part, but I don’t buy the idea that there will be a huge Labour-voting alliance as a way to stop Reform. Labour will be battling a strong anti-incumbency feeling and a lot of people who will be voting against them too. To tactically vote, people also have to be aware of who in their constituency is most likely to beat the lead candidate. That might be easy in some places, but it’s going to be far from clear in a lot of the country if this political fragmentation continues.
As it stands, I still see a HP as a far more likely outcome, as this jumble of voting patterns fails to see anyone do enough to win. The jury is out on whether that means a Reform led government or some progressive alliance.
This is all based on the current landscape though. There’s over 3 years to go yet.
Even if the economy turns around I don't see a hope for Labour. At their very best the will go down to a 1996 style defeat. At worst it is the end of a hundred year plus journey.
I don't believe the white working class feel they need a Labour Party anymore. They believe it is a party for shirkers and foreign ner-well-to-dos.
If Jenrick can position the Tories as performatively cruel to shirkers and foreigners without going full goose-stepping Nazi I can see the Tories home and hosed. Jenrick has already persuaded the voter that the Tory chaos from 2019 had nothing to do with him.
You may be right, but either huge numbers of people are going to shift towards Tory/Reform OR an account has to be given of where the approx 50% of votes which currently go to Not Reform/Tory parties will go - the votes which historically mostly go to Labour and to the LDs where Labour doesn't figure (100 seats max).
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Patently tax increases are necessary. The various mini-me-Musks waving chainsaws around have nothing.
If the country just does not function because of degradation of basic facilities and maintenance of services - an example being the bush I saw growing out of a pedestrian refuge on one of the major roads in my town yesterday * - then investment in people, process and organisation is necessary.
We also have the bizarre idea that to improve in the private sector you spend money and invest in higher quality people, whilst in the public sector you just wave your chainsaw, cut everything, and make the quality of people lower to improve services. That perverse logic will not hold.
* Take any section of road and compare 2022 with 2009 on Streetview for what has changed since the local Councils were gutted.
This may be true but is not self evident. Public spending (TME or total managed expenditure) stands at 44-45% of GDP. About the same as Spain, lower than France, a bit lower than the EU average. A huge amount of money.
Running stuff competently (not letting prisoners out, police responding properly to crimes, eliminating benefit and tax fraud, teaching small boys to read even if they don't want to, smashing the gangs and stopping the boats, making sure poor kids don't miss school, getting medical stuff done right first time, answering the phone when Leon calls the HMRC) is cheaper than running it badly. Once that is all sorted, then people will be much more open to paying for improving what is already a very excellent service.
Empirically, raising the tax/expenditure ratio by 1% of GDP reduces GDP by 0.75%-1% in the medium/long term. Roughly, an increase of 1% of GDP in the state sector reduces the private sector by a little under 2% of GDP, or about 3-4 percentage points in size in total. See the excellent and comprehensive 2011 ECB panel data study on this issue. (That's an average, and it depends a great deal how you do it. Raising taxes on business profits or payroll reduces GDP far more than raising VAT. And guess which this moronic government did last year?)
Meta studies show a consensus of eight or nine to one that higher tax/spending ratios are associated with lower economic growth - a truly extraordinary ratio for a controversial issue in a social science.
This country desperately needs lower taxes and spending, not higher. Basic behavioural economics, not to mention common sense, teaches that the private sector, though not perfect, allocates resources much more efficiently than the public sector on average, for two simple reasons: private sector companies are constrained by a fear of bankruptcy in the way that the public sector, which can always extort more money, isn't, and the public sector is impeded from quick and effective decision making by political accountability constraints. Reducing taxes and serious deregulation are the two things the government could do to spur economic growth the most.
No, private sector companies are not “constrained by a fear of bankruptcy” for two reasons. They are paper entities who don’t have emotions and cannot go bankrupt. Yes, admittedly, there are analogous insolvency procedures for companies, but not bankruptcy, and self evidently, a fiction like a Ltd or an LLP can’t “fear” them.
Basic behavioural economics my arse. Companies exist to protect investors from the fear of bankruptcy by the use of limited liability. So those who could actually feel fear, the shareholders and directors, are shielded from the ultimate impact inefficient allocation of resources has beyond their investment.
Hence the GFC in 2008, when the people allocating resources, in the form of loans to homebuyers who could not possibly pay them back, knew they were shielded from the catastrophic ultimate consequences of their actions by, ironically enough, a the governmental fiction of the incorporated entity. And Grenfell, where the decision makers knew that the companies they ran, not them, would carry the can for allocating dangerous resources to clad blocks of flats.
Markets have their uses but let’s not pretend that we live in a world where directors who fuck up can’t just go and start a new company once they’ve lost the old one. Fear has very little to do with it.
Businesses themselves may not have feelings, but those who run them definitely do. Fear of bankruptcy constraints quite a lot of of my business spending, because I'm a rational actor who doesn't want my equity (most of my worldly wealth) wiped out.
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Each night before bed I go down the rabbit hole of the anti-Trump YouTube channels, Lincoln Project, Pakman, Bryan Taylor Cohen, Dollemore, Occupy Democrats etc, etc, and the Daily Beast which features Michael Wolf (he regales stories of photos he has seen from Epstein's safe) and he is expecting an imminent explosion of Epstein shit all over Trump. They are all either wishcasting or the shit really is about to hit the fan. Michael Wolf being sued by Melania could be a catalyst.
Allrise News seems to have good summaries of legal developments.
I do find some of the channels's excitement that they have Trump banged to rights often premature and tiresome, although I feel the end might be closer and when it comes it will be with a bang not a whimper.
I find Rick Wilson and also Joanna Coles and Michael Wolf compelling.
What I do find interesting is the amount of US major otherwise-perceptive commentators who are still treating the whole Trump thing as a game of Beltway Political Chess, rather than a major threat.
I find Mallen Baker to be far better as a summariser. He does a roundup on Fridays, plus daily focused commentary vids. His background is as a senior Green from the Sara Parkin era, then Lib Dem, then non-partisan from a liberal view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPHmrSDTkfk
I have given up on CNN and MSBN. They try to sane washing the Trump madness.
I occasionally watch Jesse Watters on Fox ask a loaded question about the absurdity of the Dems and the sanity of Trump. I find an odd, uncomfortable dark comedy to his performance.
Yes. The media generally, both USA and UK seems to me to have psychologically come to terms with the way Trumpism is turning authoritarian/fascist and are covering it as if dictatorship and abolition of the rule of law is the new normal to be discussed in the old usual way.
I see that the most prolific speed camera in the country is in Ashfield, on a bypass 300m from the biggest school in the County - where 1/3 of the catchment is on the other side.
It raised £2.4m last year (about 70 per day), at a quite notorious junction with multiple serious injuries and deaths over recent years since the rather crappy "bypass" was built about 25 years ago, and now has far more housing being built in the area.
I'd support this revenue being fed into local policing or improvement to transport systems.
Spend the money on fixing the road, pedestrian bridges for the schoolkids etc.
Absolutely. But currently I think that speed camera money goes strictly to the Treasury.
Ah yes, good point. Traffic enforcement would likely be more popular with the general public if the fines went to actually improving transport infrastructure.
My wife, when on a Speed Awareness course, was told that said courses, plus the (local, anyway) voluntary Refreshers for Elderly Drivers (which she's also been on) wee funded from speeding fines. The Refresher, she said, was very good; took it subsequent to the SA course, and her instructor, who said he was an ex-Police driver and now an examiner for the Institute of Advanced Motorists, plus other bits, said her driving was very good.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
The idea that a high tax burden destroys growth just doesn't reconcile with the experience of the rest of Europe, where we see both economic growth and significantly higher standards of living in countries with higher tax burdens.
You might be right that the correct route for the UK is lower taxes, lower regulations. But it does come across as dogmatic when you assert in this way. You can make a strong argument that the 40% burden in Germany and the Netherlands, 45% in France has delivered more for their populations than the 33% in the UK.
I just wonder how much more stuff Reeves can break as we all head off to the abbatoir.
The sighs of a cow.
Halal or regular?
All tastes the same to me.
The Wonderstuff are from Stourbridge.
I did consultancy work for Dudley Council. It was Unbearable.
Thoughts and prayers.
One of my best mates lives in Lower Gornal. The local pubs were interesting.
Duddd-layyyyy, as they pronounce it.
I did it for three years, three days a week. Working at Blowers Green and Netherton. Wonderstuff songs aside it wasn't Unbearable, I loved it.
As I was paying out of my fees I stayed in the Travelodge in Kingswinford, Halesowen or Brierly Hill. I would dine at the food court in Merry Hill. Such was the life of an itinerant peasant.
Worked in Cradley Heath for five years. I know Wall Heath and Brierley Hill rather well too having friends there.
I used to pop to the Merry Hill centre of a lunchtime for the stuff they put out as free samples. Pizza. Cold meat, cheese and whatever else was on offer.
Happy days although the job was shit.
The people I worked with at the council were wonderful. A number of the drivers of refuse vehicles were skilled engineers who had retrained when Longbridge closed after MG Rover was asset stripped by the Phoenix Four.
I worked at a trade moulder. Family firm. Should have left a couple of years before when I had the chance to go to Collins and Aikman. Still you live and learn and when I left my career took off.
I used to deal with buyers at MG Rover. Absolute pricks. We were asked to bid for parts on the Phoenix 4 new vehicle, RDX600, all tooling amortised not funded. No thanks. Fuck that.
Quite how the Phoenix four got away with what they did.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
"Tax rise for growth" lol do you have even a basic understanding of how the economy functions?
Yes. Raise x. Invest it. Return xx
Cash needs to flow or the economy contracts. Do YOU understand how the economy works? Rich people aren't letting the cash even trickle down any more - most people feel broke and the economy contracts which makes more people broke.
THis is what happens when you don't invest. Could be a major story next year, to put it mildly, if it doesn't start pishing it down. Edit: NB mooted restrictions affecting businesses.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Patently tax increases are necessary. The various mini-me-Musks waving chainsaws around have nothing.
If the country just does not function because of degradation of basic facilities and maintenance of services - an example being the bush I saw growing out of a pedestrian refuge on one of the major roads in my town yesterday * - then investment in people, process and organisation is necessary.
We also have the bizarre idea that to improve in the private sector you spend money and invest in higher quality people, whilst in the public sector you just wave your chainsaw, cut everything, and make the quality of people lower to improve services. That perverse logic will not hold.
* Take any section of road and compare 2022 with 2009 on Streetview for what has changed since the local Councils were gutted.
This may be true but is not self evident. Public spending (TME or total managed expenditure) stands at 44-45% of GDP. About the same as Spain, lower than France, a bit lower than the EU average. A huge amount of money.
Running stuff competently (not letting prisoners out, police responding properly to crimes, eliminating benefit and tax fraud, teaching small boys to read even if they don't want to, smashing the gangs and stopping the boats, making sure poor kids don't miss school, getting medical stuff done right first time, answering the phone when Leon calls the HMRC) is cheaper than running it badly. Once that is all sorted, then people will be much more open to paying for improving what is already a very excellent service.
Empirically, raising the tax/expenditure ratio by 1% of GDP reduces GDP by 0.75%-1% in the medium/long term. Roughly, an increase of 1% of GDP in the state sector reduces the private sector by a little under 2% of GDP, or about 3-4 percentage points in size in total. See the excellent and comprehensive 2011 ECB panel data study on this issue. (That's an average, and it depends a great deal how you do it. Raising taxes on business profits or payroll reduces GDP far more than raising VAT. And guess which this moronic government did last year?)
Meta studies show a consensus of eight or nine to one that higher tax/spending ratios are associated with lower economic growth - a truly extraordinary ratio for a controversial issue in a social science.
This country desperately needs lower taxes and spending, not higher. Basic behavioural economics, not to mention common sense, teaches that the private sector, though not perfect, allocates resources much more efficiently than the public sector on average, for two simple reasons: private sector companies are constrained by a fear of bankruptcy in the way that the public sector, which can always extort more money, isn't, and the public sector is impeded from quick and effective decision making by political accountability constraints. Reducing taxes and serious deregulation are the two things the government could do to spur economic growth the most.
No, private sector companies are not “constrained by a fear of bankruptcy” for two reasons. They are paper entities who don’t have emotions and cannot go bankrupt. Yes, admittedly, there are analogous insolvency procedures for companies, but not bankruptcy, and self evidently, a fiction like a Ltd or an LLP can’t “fear” them.
Basic behavioural economics my arse. Companies exist to protect investors from the fear of bankruptcy by the use of limited liability. So those who could actually feel fear, the shareholders and directors, are shielded from the ultimate impact inefficient allocation of resources has beyond their investment.
Hence the GFC in 2008, when the people allocating resources, in the form of loans to homebuyers who could not possibly pay them back, knew they were shielded from the catastrophic ultimate consequences of their actions by, ironically enough, a the governmental fiction of the incorporated entity. And Grenfell, where the decision makers knew that the companies they ran, not them, would carry the can for allocating dangerous resources to clad blocks of flats.
Markets have their uses but let’s not pretend that we live in a world where directors who fuck up can’t just go and start a new company once they’ve lost the old one. Fear has very little to do with it.
Businesses themselves may not have feelings, but those who run them definitely do. Fear of bankruptcy constraints quite a lot of of my business spending, because I'm a rational actor who doesn't want my equity (most of my worldly wealth) wiped out.
That is admirable. But there are also examples of those who run their businesses in such a way that they extract their worldly wealth just before they crash, leaving only the liabilities behind.
And, to a large degree, that's a price we have to pay as a society. Limited liability gives businesses the confidence to take more risks, knowing that only some of them will pay off, and they are the ones that make us a richer society. But the same mechanism can be abused, whether by a dodgy builder or a secretive squillionaire. Where to balance the costs and benefits is the difficult bit.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Patently tax increases are necessary. The various mini-me-Musks waving chainsaws around have nothing.
If the country just does not function because of degradation of basic facilities and maintenance of services - an example being the bush I saw growing out of a pedestrian refuge on one of the major roads in my town yesterday * - then investment in people, process and organisation is necessary.
We also have the bizarre idea that to improve in the private sector you spend money and invest in higher quality people, whilst in the public sector you just wave your chainsaw, cut everything, and make the quality of people lower to improve services. That perverse logic will not hold.
* Take any section of road and compare 2022 with 2009 on Streetview for what has changed since the local Councils were gutted.
This may be true but is not self evident. Public spending (TME or total managed expenditure) stands at 44-45% of GDP. About the same as Spain, lower than France, a bit lower than the EU average. A huge amount of money.
Running stuff competently (not letting prisoners out, police responding properly to crimes, eliminating benefit and tax fraud, teaching small boys to read even if they don't want to, smashing the gangs and stopping the boats, making sure poor kids don't miss school, getting medical stuff done right first time, answering the phone when Leon calls the HMRC) is cheaper than running it badly. Once that is all sorted, then people will be much more open to paying for improving what is already a very excellent service.
Empirically, raising the tax/expenditure ratio by 1% of GDP reduces GDP by 0.75%-1% in the medium/long term. Roughly, an increase of 1% of GDP in the state sector reduces the private sector by a little under 2% of GDP, or about 3-4 percentage points in size in total. See the excellent and comprehensive 2011 ECB panel data study on this issue. (That's an average, and it depends a great deal how you do it. Raising taxes on business profits or payroll reduces GDP far more than raising VAT. And guess which this moronic government did last year?)
Meta studies show a consensus of eight or nine to one that higher tax/spending ratios are associated with lower economic growth - a truly extraordinary ratio for a controversial issue in a social science.
This country desperately needs lower taxes and spending, not higher. Basic behavioural economics, not to mention common sense, teaches that the private sector, though not perfect, allocates resources much more efficiently than the public sector on average, for two simple reasons: private sector companies are constrained by a fear of bankruptcy in the way that the public sector, which can always extort more money, isn't, and the public sector is impeded from quick and effective decision making by political accountability constraints. Reducing taxes and serious deregulation are the two things the government could do to spur economic growth the most.
No, private sector companies are not “constrained by a fear of bankruptcy” for two reasons. They are paper entities who don’t have emotions and cannot go bankrupt. Yes, admittedly, there are analogous insolvency procedures for companies, but not bankruptcy, and self evidently, a fiction like a Ltd or an LLP can’t “fear” them.
Basic behavioural economics my arse. Companies exist to protect investors from the fear of bankruptcy by the use of limited liability. So those who could actually feel fear, the shareholders and directors, are shielded from the ultimate impact inefficient allocation of resources has beyond their investment.
Hence the GFC in 2008, when the people allocating resources, in the form of loans to homebuyers who could not possibly pay them back, knew they were shielded from the catastrophic ultimate consequences of their actions by, ironically enough, a the governmental fiction of the incorporated entity. And Grenfell, where the decision makers knew that the companies they ran, not them, would carry the can for allocating dangerous resources to clad blocks of flats.
Markets have their uses but let’s not pretend that we live in a world where directors who fuck up can’t just go and start a new company once they’ve lost the old one. Fear has very little to do with it.
Businesses themselves may not have feelings, but those who run them definitely do. Fear of bankruptcy constraints quite a lot of of my business spending, because I'm a rational actor who doesn't want my equity (most of my worldly wealth) wiped out.
Those that hold the equity often don’t run the business. Directors so often capture upside personally but contain downside within the corporate shell. The “deterrent” effect is diluted when the worst case is "I lost other people's money and have to get another job."
This doesn't mean markets are useles but posited model of "fear of bankruptcy disciplines efficient allocation" is carrying far too much weight in a world of limited liability. The actual discipline often comes too late after the harm, applies to shareholders who had no operational control rather than reckless executives (and then only to the value of their shareholding) or doesn't come at all (e.g bailouts).
The honest position is that limited liability enables capital formation but also enables decision-makers to take risks they don't personally bear.
I see that the most prolific speed camera in the country is in Ashfield, on a bypass 300m from the biggest school in the County - where 1/3 of the catchment is on the other side.
It raised £2.4m last year (about 70 per day), at a quite notorious junction with multiple serious injuries and deaths over recent years since the rather crappy "bypass" was built about 25 years ago, and now has far more housing being built in the area.
I'd support this revenue being fed into local policing or improvement to transport systems.
Spend the money on fixing the road, pedestrian bridges for the schoolkids etc.
Absolutely. But currently I think that speed camera money goes strictly to the Treasury.
Ah yes, good point. Traffic enforcement would likely be more popular with the general public if the fines went to actually improving transport infrastructure.
My wife, when on a Speed Awareness course, was told that said courses, plus the (local, anyway) voluntary Refreshers for Elderly Drivers (which she's also been on) wee funded from speeding fines. The Refresher, she said, was very good; took it subsequent to the SA course, and her instructor, who said he was an ex-Police driver and now an examiner for the Institute of Advanced Motorists, plus other bits, said her driving was very good.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Patently tax increases are necessary. The various mini-me-Musks waving chainsaws around have nothing.
If the country just does not function because of degradation of basic facilities and maintenance of services - an example being the bush I saw growing out of a pedestrian refuge on one of the major roads in my town yesterday * - then investment in people, process and organisation is necessary.
We also have the bizarre idea that to improve in the private sector you spend money and invest in higher quality people, whilst in the public sector you just wave your chainsaw, cut everything, and make the quality of people lower to improve services. That perverse logic will not hold.
* Take any section of road and compare 2022 with 2009 on Streetview for what has changed since the local Councils were gutted.
This may be true but is not self evident. Public spending (TME or total managed expenditure) stands at 44-45% of GDP. About the same as Spain, lower than France, a bit lower than the EU average. A huge amount of money.
Running stuff competently (not letting prisoners out, police responding properly to crimes, eliminating benefit and tax fraud, teaching small boys to read even if they don't want to, smashing the gangs and stopping the boats, making sure poor kids don't miss school, getting medical stuff done right first time, answering the phone when Leon calls the HMRC) is cheaper than running it badly. Once that is all sorted, then people will be much more open to paying for improving what is already a very excellent service.
I very much agree on "running stuff competently", though that is an emergent property from starting from long-term thinking, planning, investment. So imo we have to start from a philosophy of long-term localism, joined up policy, and careful professionalism from in house staff not consultants, rather than Local Authorities as permanent political footballs. The only glint on the horizon is if the new Unitary Local Authorities follow the pattern of say London or Manchester.
Efficiency gain has to run alongside that, and thought about what level of quality we want in our public realm. That last needs input from national policy.
I can give you several prime examples just from my own beat. Here's one.
The "Reference Wheelchair" is a set of dimensions for a wheelchair which feed into design of things like wheelchair spaces on buses and trains. The current set of dimensions relate to 2 or 3 decades ago. Obviously this is crucial - once a bus is out there, it will last 25 or 30 years, or 30-40 years for a train. More for street infrastructure.
There was a research report about the "Reference Wheelchair" published around 2021 *, which demonstrated that perhaps 20-40% of wheelchair susers do not fit within the standard dimensions.
What's happened since then? There has been a Gadarene rush to roll out Electric Buses. What do the manufacturers do? They design to the absolute legal minimum they can get away with. Given the name "Reference Wheelchair", that is understandable. Were the new required dimensions introduced before hundreds of million were made available for new buses? Of course they bloody weren't.
So we have a big chunk of wheelchair users institutionally excluded from "accessible" (kneeling etc) electric buses until the 2050s.
Oh how terrible. They produced a product in line with the customer specification 🙄
I don't understand that comment.
Your bit I highlighted in bold. Why are you whining that the manufacturers make to the standard laid down. If they are asked to make a product they are going to meet the spec and not add loads of things not asked for which adds to,cost.
If you are in a competive bid process you deliver what is asked for or price yourself out.
I think the criticism is that the government didn’t update the standards before pushing out the tender and spending hundreds of millions on buses that didn’t work for a lot of people
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
The idea that a high tax burden destroys growth just doesn't reconcile with the experience of the rest of Europe, where we see both economic growth and significantly higher standards of living in countries with higher tax burdens.
You might be right that the correct route for the UK is lower taxes, lower regulations. But it does come across as dogmatic when you assert in this way. You can make a strong argument that the 40% burden in Germany and the Netherlands, 45% in France has delivered more for their populations than the 33% in the UK.
Firstly, it is the opposite of dogma when a member takes time to relate his actual experience.
Secondly, Europe's growth has been stagnant vs. the USA over the last 20 years. Few countries have done quite as badly as the UK, with its toxic mix of high tax and regulation with an oddly laissez faire attitude to the family silver being sold off, but the overall trend is clearly shown in the relative growth figures. That absolutely reconciles with the theory that a high tax, high regulation environment kills growth, and it's absurd denialism to say otherwise.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Patently tax increases are necessary. The various mini-me-Musks waving chainsaws around have nothing.
If the country just does not function because of degradation of basic facilities and maintenance of services - an example being the bush I saw growing out of a pedestrian refuge on one of the major roads in my town yesterday * - then investment in people, process and organisation is necessary.
We also have the bizarre idea that to improve in the private sector you spend money and invest in higher quality people, whilst in the public sector you just wave your chainsaw, cut everything, and make the quality of people lower to improve services. That perverse logic will not hold.
* Take any section of road and compare 2022 with 2009 on Streetview for what has changed since the local Councils were gutted.
This may be true but is not self evident. Public spending (TME or total managed expenditure) stands at 44-45% of GDP. About the same as Spain, lower than France, a bit lower than the EU average. A huge amount of money.
Running stuff competently (not letting prisoners out, police responding properly to crimes, eliminating benefit and tax fraud, teaching small boys to read even if they don't want to, smashing the gangs and stopping the boats, making sure poor kids don't miss school, getting medical stuff done right first time, answering the phone when Leon calls the HMRC) is cheaper than running it badly. Once that is all sorted, then people will be much more open to paying for improving what is already a very excellent service.
I very much agree on "running stuff competently", though that is an emergent property from starting from long-term thinking, planning, investment. So imo we have to start from a philosophy of long-term localism, joined up policy, and careful professionalism from in house staff not consultants, rather than Local Authorities as permanent political footballs. The only glint on the horizon is if the new Unitary Local Authorities follow the pattern of say London or Manchester.
Efficiency gain has to run alongside that, and thought about what level of quality we want in our public realm. That last needs input from national policy.
I can give you several prime examples just from my own beat. Here's one.
The "Reference Wheelchair" is a set of dimensions for a wheelchair which feed into design of things like wheelchair spaces on buses and trains. The current set of dimensions relate to 2 or 3 decades ago. Obviously this is crucial - once a bus is out there, it will last 25 or 30 years, or 30-40 years for a train. More for street infrastructure.
There was a research report about the "Reference Wheelchair" published around 2021 *, which demonstrated that perhaps 20-40% of wheelchair susers do not fit within the standard dimensions.
What's happened since then? There has been a Gadarene rush to roll out Electric Buses. What do the manufacturers do? They design to the absolute legal minimum they can get away with. Given the name "Reference Wheelchair", that is understandable. Were the new required dimensions introduced before hundreds of million were made available for new buses? Of course they bloody weren't.
So we have a big chunk of wheelchair users institutionally excluded from "accessible" (kneeling etc) electric buses until the 2050s.
Oh how terrible. They produced a product in line with the customer specification 🙄
I don't understand that comment.
Your bit I highlighted in bold. Why are you whining that the manufacturers make to the standard laid down. If they are asked to make a product they are going to meet the spec and not add loads of things not asked for which adds to,cost.
If you are in a competive bid process you deliver what is asked for or price yourself out.
I think the criticism is that the government didn’t update the standards before pushing out the tender and spending hundreds of millions on buses that didn’t work for a lot of people
Which may 9r may not be fair but moaning about private companies delivering to,the spec their given doesn’t achieve that.
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Maybe but without seeing the photos, I'm sceptical simply because of the timing on the White House calling off the Epstein file release which suggests something was discovered very late, and Trump would have been the very first name they looked for during the months the GOP and MAGA and Trump himself campaigned for the Epstein material to be released.
Something scary is in there, but what?
It’s a very weird one.
Epstein knew a lot of politicians and business leaders over a period of decades, but one would have thought that anything really bad on Trump specifically would have found itself leaked from Biden’s DOJ to a friendly journalist before the election.
Remember that a single, non-explicit photograph was enough to get Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor disowned by his family.
Clearly everyone who actually looks at what’s there doesn’t want to see it made public, but there’s definitely pressure from a lot of Trump-supporting commentators to release what the authorities know.
The turning point in my mind was when Kash Patel, as incumbent FBI Director, went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to lay the ground for the whole thing being a nothing burger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C81bFx8CSA8
‘ Remember that a single, non-explicit photograph was enough to get Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor disowned by his family.’
But it didn’t. Various ‘sources close to’ tried to suggest it was a fake, mumsie paid out £12m to make the person in the fake photo eff off and Andrew carried on his merry way until quite recently. It’s only his repeated lies being exposed and the accretion of damage to The Firm that made them take action.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
The idea that a high tax burden destroys growth just doesn't reconcile with the experience of the rest of Europe, where we see both economic growth and significantly higher standards of living in countries with higher tax burdens.
You might be right that the correct route for the UK is lower taxes, lower regulations. But it does come across as dogmatic when you assert in this way. You can make a strong argument that the 40% burden in Germany and the Netherlands, 45% in France has delivered more for their populations than the 33% in the UK.
Firstly, it is the opposite of dogma when a member takes time to relate his actual experience.
Secondly, Europe's growth has been stagnant vs. the USA over the last 20 years. Few countries have done quite as badly as the UK, with its toxic mix of high tax and regulation with an oddly laissez faire attitude to the family silver being sold off, but the overall trend is clearly shown in the relative growth figures. That absolutely reconciles with the theory that a high tax, high regulation environment kills growth, and it's absurd denialism to say otherwise.
Compared with the United States in the past 20 years or so, we have had Osborne's failed austerity but more subtle is the Covid response where Britain subsidised companies while America subsidised workers. It also of course has had a shedload of government investment which our faux free marketeers decry as ‘picking winners’.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
“tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better”
How can you always have the wrong answer to every question everyday, Rochdale! 🙄
Going into the last election, the tax take was highest since fighting World War Two (or period after when we had to pay back friends and allies for what they kindly loaned us to see us through). As a household {metaphor} the UK under this Labour government is spending beyond its means - committed to spending more than it’s getting in. The bottom line is, any further tax rises, progressive or stealth and sneaky, is simply to pay off the mounting debts and borrowing to stop creditors pulling the plug and plunging us into bankruptcy.
The whole of the media narrative around the coming budget is wrong and BS. The more relevant and electorally important manifesto promise that’s being put in the bin at this budget is “Growth, Growth, and more Growth.”
The only thing this coming budget should do is reform spending commitments, reduce costs [so that the country is living within its means] the only way to put public services on a sure footing is not fund them from both borrowing and an escalating tax burden.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
Politics like nature abhors a vacuum. An election that is Tory v Reform for first place is not at the moment thinkable. The next election is going to be some version of Reformtory v The Not Reform party for first and second place, and for leadership of the next government.
Labour are likely to be the lead player in the Not Reform group, there being no other broad enough candidate in both policy (which excludes Green leadership) and demographics (LDs problem).
Labour are value, if any value is to be had. DYOR.
I am not convinced that Reform won't implode under the stress of Jenrick Tories.
I agree it's possible. But the general election will be a contest between ReformTory or ToryReform v Not ReformTory. Which places Labour in probable pole position as the main party which isn't Reform or Tory. About 50%+ of voters are going to vote for a party that isn't Tory or Reform. Their votes have to go somewhere. Most will go to Labour.
I am still not convinced by this theory.
At the moment the next GE looks to be shaping up as a fight between lots of parties that each have large numbers of opponents. But one of them has got to win.
Tactical voting will play a part, but I don’t buy the idea that there will be a huge Labour-voting alliance as a way to stop Reform. Labour will be battling a strong anti-incumbency feeling and a lot of people who will be voting against them too. To tactically vote, people also have to be aware of who in their constituency is most likely to beat the lead candidate. That might be easy in some places, but it’s going to be far from clear in a lot of the country if this political fragmentation continues.
As it stands, I still see a HP as a far more likely outcome, as this jumble of voting patterns fails to see anyone do enough to win. The jury is out on whether that means a Reform led government or some progressive alliance.
This is all based on the current landscape though. There’s over 3 years to go yet.
I very much agree with this analysis of the problem in general. In trying to read the next election - impossible but PB is about predicting that which can't be predicted and assessing probabilities well before it is rational to do so - we are dealing with irresistible forces and immovable objects.
Tactical voting - which I guess will be large, meets two immovable objects: in 400+ seats Labour is the tactical anti Reform vote because they are the incumbent. But in 400+ seats Labour being the incumbent is unpopular and execrated.
My seat (Penrith and Solway) is a lovely example. New boundaries. Clearly Tory leaning in the ancient era up to 2019. Labour in 2024. Projected to be clearly Reform in 2029. LDs never figure. Who do you vote for in 2029 if you want to vote against Reform? Labour are the only choice. Many seats are like that.
This is going to become fascinating in both political and betting terms. I still say that great forces will be in play to keep the Labour vote much higher than it currently appears.
Full disclosure: I am a dinosaur One Nation Tory. My MP was Rory. I therefore don't have a party. Voted Labour in 2024. Through gritted teeth would do so again as things stand.
I have some tales to tell about that MP, who was also mine. But isnt "one nation" just something Conservative supporters say when they are trying to hide away from the tough fiscal decisions that all governments make? "dont blame me, im a different kind of Tory".
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
The idea that a high tax burden destroys growth just doesn't reconcile with the experience of the rest of Europe, where we see both economic growth and significantly higher standards of living in countries with higher tax burdens.
You might be right that the correct route for the UK is lower taxes, lower regulations. But it does come across as dogmatic when you assert in this way. You can make a strong argument that the 40% burden in Germany and the Netherlands, 45% in France has delivered more for their populations than the 33% in the UK.
Firstly, it is the opposite of dogma when a member takes time to relate his actual experience.
Secondly, Europe's growth has been stagnant vs. the USA over the last 20 years. Few countries have done quite as badly as the UK, with its toxic mix of high tax and regulation with an oddly laissez faire attitude to the family silver being sold off, but the overall trend is clearly shown in the relative growth figures. That absolutely reconciles with the theory that a high tax, high regulation environment kills growth, and it's absurd denialism to say otherwise.
Compared with the United States in the past 20 years or so, we have had Osborne's failed austerity but more subtle is the Covid response where Britain subsidised companies while America subsidised workers. It also of course has had a shedload of government investment which our faux free marketeers decry as ‘picking winners’.
We did not have 'failed austerity', we had an extremely modest attempt to rein in spending which led to a couple of years when Government spending didn't rise - it certainly didn't fall by much, and it soon continued its upward trajectory. There was no serious attempt to reduce the size of the state.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
Politics like nature abhors a vacuum. An election that is Tory v Reform for first place is not at the moment thinkable. The next election is going to be some version of Reformtory v The Not Reform party for first and second place, and for leadership of the next government.
Labour are likely to be the lead player in the Not Reform group, there being no other broad enough candidate in both policy (which excludes Green leadership) and demographics (LDs problem).
Labour are value, if any value is to be had. DYOR.
I am not convinced that Reform won't implode under the stress of Jenrick Tories.
I agree it's possible. But the general election will be a contest between ReformTory or ToryReform v Not ReformTory. Which places Labour in probable pole position as the main party which isn't Reform or Tory. About 50%+ of voters are going to vote for a party that isn't Tory or Reform. Their votes have to go somewhere. Most will go to Labour.
I am still not convinced by this theory.
At the moment the next GE looks to be shaping up as a fight between lots of parties that each have large numbers of opponents. But one of them has got to win.
Tactical voting will play a part, but I don’t buy the idea that there will be a huge Labour-voting alliance as a way to stop Reform. Labour will be battling a strong anti-incumbency feeling and a lot of people who will be voting against them too. To tactically vote, people also have to be aware of who in their constituency is most likely to beat the lead candidate. That might be easy in some places, but it’s going to be far from clear in a lot of the country if this political fragmentation continues.
As it stands, I still see a HP as a far more likely outcome, as this jumble of voting patterns fails to see anyone do enough to win. The jury is out on whether that means a Reform led government or some progressive alliance.
This is all based on the current landscape though. There’s over 3 years to go yet.
I very much agree with this analysis of the problem in general. In trying to read the next election - impossible but PB is about predicting that which can't be predicted and assessing probabilities well before it is rational to do so - we are dealing with irresistible forces and immovable objects.
Tactical voting - which I guess will be large, meets two immovable objects: in 400+ seats Labour is the tactical anti Reform vote because they are the incumbent. But in 400+ seats Labour being the incumbent is unpopular and execrated.
My seat (Penrith and Solway) is a lovely example. New boundaries. Clearly Tory leaning in the ancient era up to 2019. Labour in 2024. Projected to be clearly Reform in 2029. LDs never figure. Who do you vote for in 2029 if you want to vote against Reform? Labour are the only choice. Many seats are like that.
This is going to become fascinating in both political and betting terms. I still say that great forces will be in play to keep the Labour vote much higher than it currently appears.
Full disclosure: I am a dinosaur One Nation Tory. My MP was Rory. I therefore don't have a party. Voted Labour in 2024. Through gritted teeth would do so again as things stand.
I have some tales to tell about that MP, who was also mine. But isnt "one nation" just something Conservative supporters say when they are trying to hide away from the tough fiscal decisions that all governments make? "dont blame me, im a different kind of Tory".
There are more PBers in my neck of the woods than I realised.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
“tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better”
How can you always have the wrong answer to every question everyday, Rochdale! 🙄
Going into the last election, the tax take was highest since fighting World War Two (or period after when we had to pay back friends and allies for what they kindly loaned us to see us through). As a household {metaphor} the UK under this Labour government is spending beyond its means - committed to spending more than it’s getting in. The bottom line is, any further tax rises, progressive or stealth and sneaky, is simply to pay off the mounting debts and borrowing to stop creditors pulling the plug and plunging us into bankruptcy.
The whole of the media narrative around the coming budget is wrong and BS. The more relevant and electorally important manifesto promise that’s being put in the bin at this budget is “Growth, Growth, and more Growth.”
The only thing this coming budget should do is reform spending commitments, reduce costs [so that the country is living within its means] the only way to put public services on a sure footing is not fund them from both borrowing and an escalating tax burden.
A Moonrabbit post I agree with 100%!
"Tax rise for growth" - if there was ever an attempt to say some shit and hope that someone somewhere has written a blog post that proves it's all true.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
I don't know if you have any formal training in economics but you are much more economically literate than many who do, starting with the current Chancellor.
No one near the decisions on tax will have ever been in the situation of personally looking at business rates on a small industrial premises with an internal crane.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Patently tax increases are necessary. The various mini-me-Musks waving chainsaws around have nothing.
If the country just does not function because of degradation of basic facilities and maintenance of services - an example being the bush I saw growing out of a pedestrian refuge on one of the major roads in my town yesterday * - then investment in people, process and organisation is necessary.
We also have the bizarre idea that to improve in the private sector you spend money and invest in higher quality people, whilst in the public sector you just wave your chainsaw, cut everything, and make the quality of people lower to improve services. That perverse logic will not hold.
* Take any section of road and compare 2022 with 2009 on Streetview for what has changed since the local Councils were gutted.
This may be true but is not self evident. Public spending (TME or total managed expenditure) stands at 44-45% of GDP. About the same as Spain, lower than France, a bit lower than the EU average. A huge amount of money.
Running stuff competently (not letting prisoners out, police responding properly to crimes, eliminating benefit and tax fraud, teaching small boys to read even if they don't want to, smashing the gangs and stopping the boats, making sure poor kids don't miss school, getting medical stuff done right first time, answering the phone when Leon calls the HMRC) is cheaper than running it badly. Once that is all sorted, then people will be much more open to paying for improving what is already a very excellent service.
Empirically, raising the tax/expenditure ratio by 1% of GDP reduces GDP by 0.75%-1% in the medium/long term. Roughly, an increase of 1% of GDP in the state sector reduces the private sector by a little under 2% of GDP, or about 3-4 percentage points in size in total. See the excellent and comprehensive 2011 ECB panel data study on this issue. (That's an average, and it depends a great deal how you do it. Raising taxes on business profits or payroll reduces GDP far more than raising VAT. And guess which this moronic government did last year?)
Meta studies show a consensus of eight or nine to one that higher tax/spending ratios are associated with lower economic growth - a truly extraordinary ratio for a controversial issue in a social science.
This country desperately needs lower taxes and spending, not higher. Basic behavioural economics, not to mention common sense, teaches that the private sector, though not perfect, allocates resources much more efficiently than the public sector on average, for two simple reasons: private sector companies are constrained by a fear of bankruptcy in the way that the public sector, which can always extort more money, isn't, and the public sector is impeded from quick and effective decision making by political accountability constraints. Reducing taxes and serious deregulation are the two things the government could do to spur economic growth the most.
No, private sector companies are not “constrained by a fear of bankruptcy” for two reasons. They are paper entities who don’t have emotions and cannot go bankrupt. Yes, admittedly, there are analogous insolvency procedures for companies, but not bankruptcy, and self evidently, a fiction like a Ltd or an LLP can’t “fear” them.
Basic behavioural economics my arse. Companies exist to protect investors from the fear of bankruptcy by the use of limited liability. So those who could actually feel fear, the shareholders and directors, are shielded from the ultimate impact inefficient allocation of resources has beyond their investment.
Hence the GFC in 2008, when the people allocating resources, in the form of loans to homebuyers who could not possibly pay them back, knew they were shielded from the catastrophic ultimate consequences of their actions by, ironically enough, a the governmental fiction of the incorporated entity. And Grenfell, where the decision makers knew that the companies they ran, not them, would carry the can for allocating dangerous resources to clad blocks of flats.
Markets have their uses but let’s not pretend that we live in a world where directors who fuck up can’t just go and start a new company once they’ve lost the old one. Fear has very little to do with it.
Businesses themselves may not have feelings, but those who run them definitely do. Fear of bankruptcy constraints quite a lot of of my business spending, because I'm a rational actor who doesn't want my equity (most of my worldly wealth) wiped out.
Those that hold the equity often don’t run the business. Directors so often capture upside personally but contain downside within the corporate shell. The “deterrent” effect is diluted when the worst case is "I lost other people's money and have to get another job."
This doesn't mean markets are useles but posited model of "fear of bankruptcy disciplines efficient allocation" is carrying far too much weight in a world of limited liability. The actual discipline often comes too late after the harm, applies to shareholders who had no operational control rather than reckless executives (and then only to the value of their shareholding) or doesn't come at all (e.g bailouts).
The honest position is that limited liability enables capital formation but also enables decision-makers to take risks they don't personally bear.
I don't particularly disagree with any of that. However your original assertion was an attempt to refute the claim that businesses generally spend money more efficiently than government, because, unlike the government, their finances are constrained by fear of bankruptcy.
You may have a case that some businesses are not as constrained as they should be (this is particularly true of big businesses, or ones with various forms of monopoly, eg privatised utilities) - but on average they are vastly better at obtaining value for money than the government.
It's worth remembering that most of the UK's businesses (by total number, total turnover or total headcount) are small, owner run outfits employing less than 10 people - which are also generally the most efficient sort.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
Politics like nature abhors a vacuum. An election that is Tory v Reform for first place is not at the moment thinkable. The next election is going to be some version of Reformtory v The Not Reform party for first and second place, and for leadership of the next government.
Labour are likely to be the lead player in the Not Reform group, there being no other broad enough candidate in both policy (which excludes Green leadership) and demographics (LDs problem).
Labour are value, if any value is to be had. DYOR.
I am not convinced that Reform won't implode under the stress of Jenrick Tories.
I agree it's possible. But the general election will be a contest between ReformTory or ToryReform v Not ReformTory. Which places Labour in probable pole position as the main party which isn't Reform or Tory. About 50%+ of voters are going to vote for a party that isn't Tory or Reform. Their votes have to go somewhere. Most will go to Labour.
I am still not convinced by this theory.
At the moment the next GE looks to be shaping up as a fight between lots of parties that each have large numbers of opponents. But one of them has got to win.
Tactical voting will play a part, but I don’t buy the idea that there will be a huge Labour-voting alliance as a way to stop Reform. Labour will be battling a strong anti-incumbency feeling and a lot of people who will be voting against them too. To tactically vote, people also have to be aware of who in their constituency is most likely to beat the lead candidate. That might be easy in some places, but it’s going to be far from clear in a lot of the country if this political fragmentation continues.
As it stands, I still see a HP as a far more likely outcome, as this jumble of voting patterns fails to see anyone do enough to win. The jury is out on whether that means a Reform led government or some progressive alliance.
This is all based on the current landscape though. There’s over 3 years to go yet.
I very much agree with this analysis of the problem in general. In trying to read the next election - impossible but PB is about predicting that which can't be predicted and assessing probabilities well before it is rational to do so - we are dealing with irresistible forces and immovable objects.
Tactical voting - which I guess will be large, meets two immovable objects: in 400+ seats Labour is the tactical anti Reform vote because they are the incumbent. But in 400+ seats Labour being the incumbent is unpopular and execrated.
My seat (Penrith and Solway) is a lovely example. New boundaries. Clearly Tory leaning in the ancient era up to 2019. Labour in 2024. Projected to be clearly Reform in 2029. LDs never figure. Who do you vote for in 2029 if you want to vote against Reform? Labour are the only choice. Many seats are like that.
This is going to become fascinating in both political and betting terms. I still say that great forces will be in play to keep the Labour vote much higher than it currently appears.
Full disclosure: I am a dinosaur One Nation Tory. My MP was Rory. I therefore don't have a party. Voted Labour in 2024. Through gritted teeth would do so again as things stand.
I get your point. But this is all going to depend how much people are motivated to vote against Reform and whether they are willing to vote for Labour to do so (rather than sitting on their hands, or voting for who they want rather than the Labour Party). And whether they can even assess who is best placed to beat Reform in their seat (yes, where Labour are the incumbents that might give a steer, such as the example you give, but it's not entirely clear).
Those questions, to me, have yet to be fully answered.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
The idea that a high tax burden destroys growth just doesn't reconcile with the experience of the rest of Europe, where we see both economic growth and significantly higher standards of living in countries with higher tax burdens.
You might be right that the correct route for the UK is lower taxes, lower regulations. But it does come across as dogmatic when you assert in this way. You can make a strong argument that the 40% burden in Germany and the Netherlands, 45% in France has delivered more for their populations than the 33% in the UK.
Firstly, it is the opposite of dogma when a member takes time to relate his actual experience.
Secondly, Europe's growth has been stagnant vs. the USA over the last 20 years. Few countries have done quite as badly as the UK, with its toxic mix of high tax and regulation with an oddly laissez faire attitude to the family silver being sold off, but the overall trend is clearly shown in the relative growth figures. That absolutely reconciles with the theory that a high tax, high regulation environment kills growth, and it's absurd denialism to say otherwise.
Compared with the United States in the past 20 years or so, we have had Osborne's failed austerity but more subtle is the Covid response where Britain subsidised companies while America subsidised workers. It also of course has had a shedload of government investment which our faux free marketeers decry as ‘picking winners’.
We did not have 'failed austerity', we had an extremely modest attempt to rein in spending which led to a couple of years when Government spending didn't rise - it certainly didn't fall by much, and it soon continued its upward trajectory. There was no serious attempt to reduce the size of the state.
A tip for you, don’t say size of state, say cost. When you say size, people’s minds think you will be taking something from them - pip payments now that they are ill, swapping out NHS for US style system etc. taking their job! instead say it as cost, like do you need that mayonnaise,or that pot cream, or that coffee brand, when for half the price or less you can get something that performs just as well. At the same time, reform processes. Digital and AI is not releasing bad criminals early by mistake, eighteenth century systems based on pen and paper and fax machines is actually the more expensive way of governing a country.
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Maybe but without seeing the photos, I'm sceptical simply because of the timing on the White House calling off the Epstein file release which suggests something was discovered very late, and Trump would have been the very first name they looked for during the months the GOP and MAGA and Trump himself campaigned for the Epstein material to be released.
Something scary is in there, but what?
It’s a very weird one.
Epstein knew a lot of politicians and business leaders over a period of decades, but one would have thought that anything really bad on Trump specifically would have found itself leaked from Biden’s DOJ to a friendly journalist before the election.
Remember that a single, non-explicit photograph was enough to get Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor disowned by his family.
Clearly everyone who actually looks at what’s there doesn’t want to see it made public, but there’s definitely pressure from a lot of Trump-supporting commentators to release what the authorities know.
The turning point in my mind was when Kash Patel, as incumbent FBI Director, went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to lay the ground for the whole thing being a nothing burger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C81bFx8CSA8
‘ Remember that a single, non-explicit photograph was enough to get Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor disowned by his family.’
But it didn’t. Various ‘sources close to’ tried to suggest it was a fake, mumsie paid out £12m to make the person in the fake photo eff off and Andrew carried on his merry way until quite recently. It’s only his repeated lies being exposed and the accretion of damage to The Firm that made them take action.
There’s far more evidence, that’s been exposed, about various individuals.
The entire American political scene, at the very top is really disinterested in pursuing this.
My guess is that they fear it could lead to an Italian style wipe out across the parties.
When you look at the politicians who are pushing for release & investigations, they are the ones who don’t have the power.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
Politics like nature abhors a vacuum. An election that is Tory v Reform for first place is not at the moment thinkable. The next election is going to be some version of Reformtory v The Not Reform party for first and second place, and for leadership of the next government.
Labour are likely to be the lead player in the Not Reform group, there being no other broad enough candidate in both policy (which excludes Green leadership) and demographics (LDs problem).
Labour are value, if any value is to be had. DYOR.
I am not convinced that Reform won't implode under the stress of Jenrick Tories.
I agree it's possible. But the general election will be a contest between ReformTory or ToryReform v Not ReformTory. Which places Labour in probable pole position as the main party which isn't Reform or Tory. About 50%+ of voters are going to vote for a party that isn't Tory or Reform. Their votes have to go somewhere. Most will go to Labour.
I am still not convinced by this theory.
At the moment the next GE looks to be shaping up as a fight between lots of parties that each have large numbers of opponents. But one of them has got to win.
Tactical voting will play a part, but I don’t buy the idea that there will be a huge Labour-voting alliance as a way to stop Reform. Labour will be battling a strong anti-incumbency feeling and a lot of people who will be voting against them too. To tactically vote, people also have to be aware of who in their constituency is most likely to beat the lead candidate. That might be easy in some places, but it’s going to be far from clear in a lot of the country if this political fragmentation continues.
As it stands, I still see a HP as a far more likely outcome, as this jumble of voting patterns fails to see anyone do enough to win. The jury is out on whether that means a Reform led government or some progressive alliance.
This is all based on the current landscape though. There’s over 3 years to go yet.
I very much agree with this analysis of the problem in general. In trying to read the next election - impossible but PB is about predicting that which can't be predicted and assessing probabilities well before it is rational to do so - we are dealing with irresistible forces and immovable objects.
Tactical voting - which I guess will be large, meets two immovable objects: in 400+ seats Labour is the tactical anti Reform vote because they are the incumbent. But in 400+ seats Labour being the incumbent is unpopular and execrated.
My seat (Penrith and Solway) is a lovely example. New boundaries. Clearly Tory leaning in the ancient era up to 2019. Labour in 2024. Projected to be clearly Reform in 2029. LDs never figure. Who do you vote for in 2029 if you want to vote against Reform? Labour are the only choice. Many seats are like that.
This is going to become fascinating in both political and betting terms. I still say that great forces will be in play to keep the Labour vote much higher than it currently appears.
Full disclosure: I am a dinosaur One Nation Tory. My MP was Rory. I therefore don't have a party. Voted Labour in 2024. Through gritted teeth would do so again as things stand.
I have some tales to tell about that MP, who was also mine. But isnt "one nation" just something Conservative supporters say when they are trying to hide away from the tough fiscal decisions that all governments make? "dont blame me, im a different kind of Tory".
There are more PBers in my neck of the woods than I realised.
Rory Stewart might have been a good man but he was not a good MP. His predecessor David Maclean might not have been a good man according to some people, but he was an excellent MP. In the next election Penrith and Solway will be Reform or Tory 1, Tory or Reform 2, Lab or LD 3, LD or Lab 4. So to keep Reform out in P and S vote Tory. It is the only answer.
I guess there will be many seats like this where it will be too complex to guess the votes, or most guessing electors will get it wrong. You could see a confused parliament with a government which falls quickly like 1923 and then the two factions group together having learnt from the election and then another election where there is one Right candidate against one left candidate in each seat.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
I don't know if you have any formal training in economics but you are much more economically literate than many who do, starting with the current Chancellor.
No one near the decisions on tax will have ever been in the situation of personally looking at business rates on a small industrial premises with an internal crane.
Nor will they know someone who is.
Political or permanent government.
Of course not. It's the blind leading the blind.
Trouble is, the overlap between the people best qualified (by real world experience) to run the country and the people who want to waste their lives on the vacuous stupidity that is modern politics is pretty much nil.
As the old saying has it: If you can, you do. If you can't, you teach. And if you can't even manage that, you become a politician.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
The idea that a high tax burden destroys growth just doesn't reconcile with the experience of the rest of Europe, where we see both economic growth and significantly higher standards of living in countries with higher tax burdens.
You might be right that the correct route for the UK is lower taxes, lower regulations. But it does come across as dogmatic when you assert in this way. You can make a strong argument that the 40% burden in Germany and the Netherlands, 45% in France has delivered more for their populations than the 33% in the UK.
Firstly, it is the opposite of dogma when a member takes time to relate his actual experience.
Secondly, Europe's growth has been stagnant vs. the USA over the last 20 years. Few countries have done quite as badly as the UK, with its toxic mix of high tax and regulation with an oddly laissez faire attitude to the family silver being sold off, but the overall trend is clearly shown in the relative growth figures. That absolutely reconciles with the theory that a high tax, high regulation environment kills growth, and it's absurd denialism to say otherwise.
Compared with the United States in the past 20 years or so, we have had Osborne's failed austerity but more subtle is the Covid response where Britain subsidised companies while America subsidised workers. It also of course has had a shedload of government investment which our faux free marketeers decry as ‘picking winners’.
We did not have 'failed austerity', we had an extremely modest attempt to rein in spending which led to a couple of years when Government spending didn't rise - it certainly didn't fall by much, and it soon continued its upward trajectory. There was no serious attempt to reduce the size of the state.
A tip for you, don’t say size of state, say cost. When you say size, people’s minds think you will be taking something from them - pip payments now that they are ill, swapping out NHS for US style system etc. instead say it as cost, like do you need that mayonnaise,or that pot cream, or that coffee brand, when for half the price or less you can get something that performs just as well. At the same time, reform processes. Digital and AI is not releasing bad criminals early by mistake, eighteenth century systems based on pen and paper and fax machines is actually the more expensive way of governing a country.
I see what you're saying, but as I think that most PBers are fairly decided folk politically, I'm not campaigning, I'm saying what I think should happen.
I really do mean the size of the state, or perhaps more accurately the scope of the state. It needs to get out of many areas it's stepped into, and become cheaper as a result of that process, not just 'skimp' on what it does for a while and then turn the taps back on when the public inevitably complains.
A microcosm of this would be Labour's botched welfare cuts. They didn't cut the welfare budget by removing the anxious and the acne sufferers from PIP eligibility and reserving it for those with serious issues - they top-sliced it for everyone, meaning those with more serious conditions would have felt the cuts, and even if successfully implemented, inevitably the cuts would soon have been reversed when a few sob stories had come out.
This is the precise wording of the tax promise from the Labour Manifesto in 2024:
We will ensure taxes on working people are kept as low as possible. Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.
There's wriggle room, but not much.
Just extend NIC to unearned income then. That is definitely 'not an increase in taxes on working people'
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
The idea that a high tax burden destroys growth just doesn't reconcile with the experience of the rest of Europe, where we see both economic growth and significantly higher standards of living in countries with higher tax burdens.
You might be right that the correct route for the UK is lower taxes, lower regulations. But it does come across as dogmatic when you assert in this way. You can make a strong argument that the 40% burden in Germany and the Netherlands, 45% in France has delivered more for their populations than the 33% in the UK.
Firstly, it is the opposite of dogma when a member takes time to relate his actual experience.
Secondly, Europe's growth has been stagnant vs. the USA over the last 20 years. Few countries have done quite as badly as the UK, with its toxic mix of high tax and regulation with an oddly laissez faire attitude to the family silver being sold off, but the overall trend is clearly shown in the relative growth figures. That absolutely reconciles with the theory that a high tax, high regulation environment kills growth, and it's absurd denialism to say otherwise.
Compared with the United States in the past 20 years or so, we have had Osborne's failed austerity but more subtle is the Covid response where Britain subsidised companies while America subsidised workers. It also of course has had a shedload of government investment which our faux free marketeers decry as ‘picking winners’.
We did not have 'failed austerity', we had an extremely modest attempt to rein in spending which led to a couple of years when Government spending didn't rise - it certainly didn't fall by much, and it soon continued its upward trajectory. There was no serious attempt to reduce the size of the state.
A tip for you, don’t say size of state, say cost. When you say size, people’s minds think you will be taking something from them - pip payments now that they are ill, swapping out NHS for US style system etc. taking their job! instead say it as cost, like do you need that mayonnaise,or that pot cream, or that coffee brand, when for half the price or less you can get something that performs just as well. At the same time, reform processes. Digital and AI is not releasing bad criminals early by mistake, eighteenth century systems based on pen and paper and fax machines is actually the more expensive way of governing a country.
Up to a point, Lady Moon, to up to a point.
Proper systems should be cheaper to run and ought to give better service. The catch is that they take money and time to set up.
One of the British diseases has been to repeatedly confuse capital and revenue spending. The idea of spending upfront to save down the line is anathema to many businesses, politicians and voters. Similarly, a lot of the savings booked in the 2010 austerity programme were always likely to come back as bigger expenses a decade down the line. See also the chuntering about the upfront costs of the energy transition.
This is the precise wording of the tax promise from the Labour Manifesto in 2024:
We will ensure taxes on working people are kept as low as possible. Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.
There's wriggle room, but not much.
Just extend NIC to unearned income then. That is definitely 'not an increase in taxes on working people'
Pension contributions are paid after national insurance has been deducted (unless salary sacrifice is used) so extending national insurance to income from pensions will mean it is imposed twice and nobody will then voluntarily contribute to pensions.
This is the precise wording of the tax promise from the Labour Manifesto in 2024:
We will ensure taxes on working people are kept as low as possible. Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.
There's wriggle room, but not much.
Just extend NIC to unearned income then. That is definitely 'not an increase in taxes on working people'
Pension contributions are paid after national insurance has been deducted (unless salary sacrifice is used) so extending national insurance to income from pensions will mean it is imposed twice and nobody will then voluntarily contribute to pensions.
Which means that they only viable way of extending the scope of national insurance is to get rid of it and simultaneously increase income tax by the same amount.
This is the precise wording of the tax promise from the Labour Manifesto in 2024:
We will ensure taxes on working people are kept as low as possible. Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.
There's wriggle room, but not much.
Just extend NIC to unearned income then. That is definitely 'not an increase in taxes on working people'
Pension contributions are paid after national insurance has been deducted (unless salary sacrifice is used) so extending national insurance to income from pensions will mean it is imposed twice and nobody will then voluntarily contribute to pensions.
Which means that they only viable way of extending the scope of national insurance is to get rid of it and simultaneously increase income tax by the same amount.
Which is what plenty of people have been saying for years - abolish NI, roll it into income tax, job done.
This is the precise wording of the tax promise from the Labour Manifesto in 2024:
We will ensure taxes on working people are kept as low as possible. Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.
There's wriggle room, but not much.
Just extend NIC to unearned income then. That is definitely 'not an increase in taxes on working people'
Pension contributions are paid after national insurance has been deducted (unless salary sacrifice is used) so extending national insurance to income from pensions will mean it is imposed twice and nobody will then voluntarily contribute to pensions.
Which means that they only viable way of extending the scope of national insurance is to get rid of it and simultaneously increase income tax by the same amount.
Well maybe. But if I save my net of ICT income outside of an ISA I will be paying ICT on the interest, so I don't see your objection as cast iron, or even gilt-edged.
This is the precise wording of the tax promise from the Labour Manifesto in 2024:
We will ensure taxes on working people are kept as low as possible. Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.
There's wriggle room, but not much.
Just extend NIC to unearned income then. That is definitely 'not an increase in taxes on working people'
Pension contributions are paid after national insurance has been deducted (unless salary sacrifice is used) so extending national insurance to income from pensions will mean it is imposed twice and nobody will then voluntarily contribute to pensions.
Which means that they only viable way of extending the scope of national insurance is to get rid of it and simultaneously increase income tax by the same amount.
Well maybe. But if I save my net of ICT income outside of an ISA I will be paying ICT on the interest, so I don't see your objection as cast iron, or even gilt-edged.
You will be paying income tax on the interest gained not on any capital withdrawals.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
The idea that a high tax burden destroys growth just doesn't reconcile with the experience of the rest of Europe, where we see both economic growth and significantly higher standards of living in countries with higher tax burdens.
You might be right that the correct route for the UK is lower taxes, lower regulations. But it does come across as dogmatic when you assert in this way. You can make a strong argument that the 40% burden in Germany and the Netherlands, 45% in France has delivered more for their populations than the 33% in the UK.
Firstly, it is the opposite of dogma when a member takes time to relate his actual experience.
Secondly, Europe's growth has been stagnant vs. the USA over the last 20 years. Few countries have done quite as badly as the UK, with its toxic mix of high tax and regulation with an oddly laissez faire attitude to the family silver being sold off, but the overall trend is clearly shown in the relative growth figures. That absolutely reconciles with the theory that a high tax, high regulation environment kills growth, and it's absurd denialism to say otherwise.
Compared with the United States in the past 20 years or so, we have had Osborne's failed austerity but more subtle is the Covid response where Britain subsidised companies while America subsidised workers. It also of course has had a shedload of government investment which our faux free marketeers decry as ‘picking winners’.
We did not have 'failed austerity', we had an extremely modest attempt to rein in spending which led to a couple of years when Government spending didn't rise - it certainly didn't fall by much, and it soon continued its upward trajectory. There was no serious attempt to reduce the size of the state.
A tip for you, don’t say size of state, say cost. When you say size, people’s minds think you will be taking something from them - pip payments now that they are ill, swapping out NHS for US style system etc. taking their job! instead say it as cost, like do you need that mayonnaise,or that pot cream, or that coffee brand, when for half the price or less you can get something that performs just as well. At the same time, reform processes. Digital and AI is not releasing bad criminals early by mistake, eighteenth century systems based on pen and paper and fax machines is actually the more expensive way of governing a country.
Up to a point, Lady Moon, to up to a point.
Proper systems should be cheaper to run and ought to give better service. The catch is that they take money and time to set up.
One of the British diseases has been to repeatedly confuse capital and revenue spending. The idea of spending upfront to save down the line is anathema to many businesses, politicians and voters. Similarly, a lot of the savings booked in the 2010 austerity programme were always likely to come back as bigger expenses a decade down the line. See also the chuntering about the upfront costs of the energy transition.
Blame Gordon the moron for that. He kept talking about investing when what he meant was spunking cash up the wall on revenue spend. Since then, whenever a politician has talked about investment it's been as likely to mean "pay rises for existing staff" as "building new insfastrucre".
Also, there is a valid view that all government spending should be treated as revenue spend, because there is no depreciation calculation. On a macro scale, most government "investment" is actually just replacing worn out stuff. Build a new bridge to replace one that's falling down, and the politicians will call it investment - but when all is said and done, there was one bridge before, and one bridge afterwards. Most government "investment" is actually maintainance spending, not CapEx.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
The idea that a high tax burden destroys growth just doesn't reconcile with the experience of the rest of Europe, where we see both economic growth and significantly higher standards of living in countries with higher tax burdens.
You might be right that the correct route for the UK is lower taxes, lower regulations. But it does come across as dogmatic when you assert in this way. You can make a strong argument that the 40% burden in Germany and the Netherlands, 45% in France has delivered more for their populations than the 33% in the UK.
Firstly, it is the opposite of dogma when a member takes time to relate his actual experience.
Secondly, Europe's growth has been stagnant vs. the USA over the last 20 years. Few countries have done quite as badly as the UK, with its toxic mix of high tax and regulation with an oddly laissez faire attitude to the family silver being sold off, but the overall trend is clearly shown in the relative growth figures. That absolutely reconciles with the theory that a high tax, high regulation environment kills growth, and it's absurd denialism to say otherwise.
Compared with the United States in the past 20 years or so, we have had Osborne's failed austerity but more subtle is the Covid response where Britain subsidised companies while America subsidised workers. It also of course has had a shedload of government investment which our faux free marketeers decry as ‘picking winners’.
We did not have 'failed austerity', we had an extremely modest attempt to rein in spending which led to a couple of years when Government spending didn't rise - it certainly didn't fall by much, and it soon continued its upward trajectory. There was no serious attempt to reduce the size of the state.
A tip for you, don’t say size of state, say cost. When you say size, people’s minds think you will be taking something from them - pip payments now that they are ill, swapping out NHS for US style system etc. taking their job! instead say it as cost, like do you need that mayonnaise,or that pot cream, or that coffee brand, when for half the price or less you can get something that performs just as well. At the same time, reform processes. Digital and AI is not releasing bad criminals early by mistake, eighteenth century systems based on pen and paper and fax machines is actually the more expensive way of governing a country.
Up to a point, Lady Moon, to up to a point.
Proper systems should be cheaper to run and ought to give better service. The catch is that they take money and time to set up.
One of the British diseases has been to repeatedly confuse capital and revenue spending. The idea of spending upfront to save down the line is anathema to many businesses, politicians and voters. Similarly, a lot of the savings booked in the 2010 austerity programme were always likely to come back as bigger expenses a decade down the line. See also the chuntering about the upfront costs of the energy transition.
There is also a religious belief that no savings are possible without cuts to services.
Which is patently not true. It seems to be a rare case, when the Government - local, regional or national - gets a good deal on buying anything.
This is the precise wording of the tax promise from the Labour Manifesto in 2024:
We will ensure taxes on working people are kept as low as possible. Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.
There's wriggle room, but not much.
Just extend NIC to unearned income then. That is definitely 'not an increase in taxes on working people'
Pension contributions are paid after national insurance has been deducted (unless salary sacrifice is used) so extending national insurance to income from pensions will mean it is imposed twice and nobody will then voluntarily contribute to pensions.
Which means that they only viable way of extending the scope of national insurance is to get rid of it and simultaneously increase income tax by the same amount.
Well maybe. But if I save my net of ICT income outside of an ISA I will be paying ICT on the interest, so I don't see your objection as cast iron, or even gilt-edged.
You will be paying income tax on the interest gained not on any capital withdrawals.
Sure but what's the logic for not paying NIC on that interest?
Interesting discussion on what is going on in the background of the Republicans - and their fear that there is something REALLY bad from Epstein that could emerge. A "jailbreak" of 100 of the 220 Republican Congressmen if it goes to a vote on whether it should be released.
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
Maybe but without seeing the photos, I'm sceptical simply because of the timing on the White House calling off the Epstein file release which suggests something was discovered very late, and Trump would have been the very first name they looked for during the months the GOP and MAGA and Trump himself campaigned for the Epstein material to be released.
Something scary is in there, but what?
It’s a very weird one.
Epstein knew a lot of politicians and business leaders over a period of decades, but one would have thought that anything really bad on Trump specifically would have found itself leaked from Biden’s DOJ to a friendly journalist before the election.
Remember that a single, non-explicit photograph was enough to get Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor disowned by his family.
Clearly everyone who actually looks at what’s there doesn’t want to see it made public, but there’s definitely pressure from a lot of Trump-supporting commentators to release what the authorities know.
The turning point in my mind was when Kash Patel, as incumbent FBI Director, went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to lay the ground for the whole thing being a nothing burger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C81bFx8CSA8
‘ Remember that a single, non-explicit photograph was enough to get Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor disowned by his family.’
But it didn’t. Various ‘sources close to’ tried to suggest it was a fake, mumsie paid out £12m to make the person in the fake photo eff off and Andrew carried on his merry way until quite recently. It’s only his repeated lies being exposed and the accretion of damage to The Firm that made them take action.
There’s far more evidence, that’s been exposed, about various individuals.
The entire American political scene, at the very top is really disinterested in pursuing this.
My guess is that they fear it could lead to an Italian style wipe out across the parties.
When you look at the politicians who are pushing for release & investigations, they are the ones who don’t have the power.
I assume you mean uninterested. Disinterested would mean they are pursuing it with rigorous fairness. Which doesn't strike me as likely.
This is the precise wording of the tax promise from the Labour Manifesto in 2024:
We will ensure taxes on working people are kept as low as possible. Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.
There's wriggle room, but not much.
Just extend NIC to unearned income then. That is definitely 'not an increase in taxes on working people'
Yes it is. Lots of people who receive interest and dividends work.
It's a terrible idea anyway - the country needs to incentivise saving and investment, not penalise it.
Comments
Tough choice ahead.
Also, I think VAT is going to be rolled into the Making Tax Digital nonsense anyway, which would cut the threshold to £20,000 by 2028.
That does not alter the fact that it's a stupid tax that tends to hit the poorest hardest.
But if the Tories deserved it then - why don't Labour deserve it now?
Boris Johnson had signed up enough MPs to mount a challenge to Rishi Sunak for the Conservative leadership, senior Tory Sir Graham Brady has confirmed.
Mr Johnson dramatically pulled out of the race amid speculation he did not have the 100 nominations needed.
But Sir Graham, who runs Tory leadership contests, said Mr Johnson had just decided not to stand.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63503932
I think Boris knew he would win with Members if he got the nominations, but felt it would be a bad time to be the Leader again.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ytke_STxv18
If you are in a competive bid process you deliver what is asked for or price yourself out.
It raised £2.4m last year (about 70 per day), at a quite notorious junction with multiple serious injuries and deaths over recent years since the rather crappy "bypass" was built about 25 years ago, and now has far more housing being built in the area.
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/uk-world-news/nottinghamshire-home-uks-most-active-10626539?int_source=nba
Interesting comments on both sides on the Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/nottinghamshirelive/posts/nottinghamshire-is-home-to-the-uks-most-prolific-speed-cameralocated-on-the-a38-/1228103592675970/
I'd support this revenue being fed into local policing or improvement to transport systems.
Democrats are more a mixture of Cameroon Tories and New Labour and LDs yes too, though Mamdani and AOC and Sanders are more Corbynite.
Only most Reform voters at the last election said they would vote for Trump, even most Tories preferred Harris
Jenrick? He could stand there wearing his turquoise ball gag and still not get close to Reform. You can't out Reform Reform.
What you can do is be there to attract the right leaning voters who inevitably get flung off Reform. Offer sane policies in contrast to the Reform madness. And Cleverly can do that in a way that Jenrick can't.
Although lets be honest here - Cleverly isn't very good. There are better options who your members won't vote for.
With a growing poluplation I’d say we need both, especially where the population is growing in the south.
The Wonderstuff are from Stourbridge.
could beat Farage but Starmer can’t
And also discussion on what MTG is doing - and her future ambitions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjOTuQhQb8E
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
Labour are likely to be the lead player in the Not Reform group, there being no other broad enough candidate in both policy (which excludes Green leadership) and demographics (LDs problem).
Labour are value, if any value is to be had. DYOR.
No one here could go that far - we already have fairly strong arrangements in place, and it would just be an adjustment. I think we have already put certain funds into local transport (ie hypothecate), though the last Government may have reversed bits of it.
Here the school generates perhaps 7000-8000 trips per day (3000 pupils + all the rest + other things on the campus), and there is a great footbridge and public footpath to within 100m of the campus back gate from the key housing area across the bypass. A claiming of a commonly used but not designated footpath, a few £££ on improving that (maybe 200-400k), and it could remove 500-1000+ trips a day to the school from the local roads, and take much of the school time foot traffic off the dangerous junction.
It's like my earlier comment - joined up thinking. But they prefer to talk about £10m link roads to accommodate the unnecessary traffic.
One of my best mates lives in Lower Gornal. The local pubs were interesting.
Duddd-layyyyy, as they pronounce it.
But given that it is from the Wolff side, that may not be possible.
(I'm not happy with the flashing introduction to the Inside Trump's Head podcast. And you did not mention the Times Radio Trump Report, where Scott Lucas is quite good.
Something scary is in there, but what?
Good morning, everybody.
As I was paying out of my fees I stayed in the Travelodge in Kingswinford, Halesowen or Brierly Hill. I would dine at the food court in Merry Hill. Such was the life of an itinerant peasant.
So suggestions of reducing tax without looking at the total picture including where it can best rise is going to be special pleading. The sort of special pleading which tries to justify taxing pensioners (like me) more lightly than workers.
https://www.allrisenews.com/
We sort of saw that in 2010- the disagreement was about how to do austerity, not whether to do it.
The temptation to be the one party saying "we don't need to do anything unpleasant- we can recoup what we need from Bad People" will be hard to resist.
(Hell, we see it already. The only difference between the left and the right is who the Bad People are.)
What makes it even harder to solve is that we aren't really broke- it's just that there's a gap between what we want and what we are willing to pay for. And that's been true for ages.
Basic behavioural economics my arse. Companies exist to protect investors from the fear of bankruptcy by the use of limited liability. So those who could actually feel fear, the shareholders and directors, are shielded from the ultimate impact inefficient allocation of resources has beyond their investment.
Hence the GFC in 2008, when the people allocating resources, in the form of loans to homebuyers who could not possibly pay them back, knew they were shielded from the catastrophic ultimate consequences of their actions by, ironically enough, a the governmental fiction of the incorporated entity. And Grenfell, where the decision makers knew that the companies they ran, not them, would carry the can for allocating dangerous resources to clad blocks of flats.
Markets have their uses but let’s not pretend that we live in a world where directors who fuck up can’t just go and start a new company once they’ve lost the old one. Fear has very little to do with it.
I used to pop to the Merry Hill centre of a lunchtime for the stuff they put out as free samples. Pizza. Cold meat, cheese and whatever else was on offer.
Happy days although the job was shit.
We ended up with a very good facility of 7000 sqft in a former medium rise warehouse.
The guy who is majority owner has been representing the UK internationally this year, and came in the Top 10 for the world in a particular Crossfit ("The Sport of Fitness") competition.
I do find some of the channels's excitement that they have Trump banged to rights often premature and tiresome, although I feel the end might be closer and when it comes it will be with a bang not a whimper.
I find Rick Wilson and also Joanna Coles and Michael Wolf compelling.
At the moment the next GE looks to be shaping up as a fight between lots of parties that each have large numbers of opponents. But one of them has got to win.
Tactical voting will play a part, but I don’t buy the idea that there will be a huge Labour-voting alliance as a way to stop Reform. Labour will be battling a strong anti-incumbency feeling and a lot of people who will be voting against them too. To tactically vote, people also have to be aware of who in their constituency is most likely to beat the lead candidate. That might be easy in some places, but it’s going to be far from clear in a lot of the country if this political fragmentation continues.
As it stands, I still see a HP as a far more likely outcome, as this jumble of voting patterns fails to see anyone do enough to win. The jury is out on whether that means a Reform led government or some progressive alliance.
This is all based on the current landscape though. There’s over 3 years to go yet.
Epstein knew a lot of politicians and business leaders over a period of decades, but one would have thought that anything really bad on Trump specifically would have found itself leaked from Biden’s DOJ to a friendly journalist before the election.
Remember that a single, non-explicit photograph was enough to get Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor disowned by his family.
Clearly everyone who actually looks at what’s there doesn’t want to see it made public, but there’s definitely pressure from a lot of Trump-supporting commentators to release what the authorities know.
The turning point in my mind was when Kash Patel, as incumbent FBI Director, went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to lay the ground for the whole thing being a nothing burger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C81bFx8CSA8
Even PBS's Washington Week (Geoffrey Goldberg + talking heads) yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0a83VBpIN4
I find Mallen Baker to be far better as a summariser. He does a roundup on Fridays, plus daily focused commentary vids. His background is as a senior Green from the Sara Parkin era, then Lib Dem, then non-partisan from a liberal view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPHmrSDTkfk
The underlying question is where did his money come from.
I don't believe the white working class feel they need a Labour Party anymore. They believe it is a party for shirkers and foreign ner-well-to-dos.
If Jenrick can position the Tories as performatively cruel to shirkers and foreigners without going full goose-stepping Nazi I can see the Tories home and hosed. Jenrick has already persuaded the voter that the Tory chaos from 2019 had nothing to do with him.
I occasionally watch Jesse Watters on Fox ask a loaded question about the absurdity of the Dems and the sanity of Trump. I find an odd, uncomfortable dark comedy to his performance.
Tactical voting - which I guess will be large, meets two immovable objects: in 400+ seats Labour is the tactical anti Reform vote because they are the incumbent. But in 400+ seats Labour being the incumbent is unpopular and execrated.
My seat (Penrith and Solway) is a lovely example. New boundaries. Clearly Tory leaning in the ancient era up to 2019. Labour in 2024. Projected to be clearly Reform in 2029. LDs never figure. Who do you vote for in 2029 if you want to vote against Reform? Labour are the only choice. Many seats are like that.
This is going to become fascinating in both political and betting terms. I still say that great forces will be in play to keep the Labour vote much higher than it currently appears.
Full disclosure: I am a dinosaur One Nation Tory. My MP was Rory. I therefore don't have a party. Voted Labour in 2024. Through gritted teeth would do so again as things stand.
The Refresher, she said, was very good; took it subsequent to the SA course, and her instructor, who said he was an ex-Police driver and now an examiner for the Institute of Advanced Motorists, plus other bits, said her driving was very good.
You might be right that the correct route for the UK is lower taxes, lower regulations. But it does come across as dogmatic when you assert in this way. You can make a strong argument that the 40% burden in Germany and the Netherlands, 45% in France has delivered more for their populations than the 33% in the UK.
I used to deal with buyers at MG Rover. Absolute pricks. We were asked to bid for parts on the Phoenix 4 new vehicle, RDX600, all tooling amortised not funded. No thanks. Fuck that.
Quite how the Phoenix four got away with what they did.
And, to a large degree, that's a price we have to pay as a society. Limited liability gives businesses the confidence to take more risks, knowing that only some of them will pay off, and they are the ones that make us a richer society. But the same mechanism can be abused, whether by a dodgy builder or a secretive squillionaire. Where to balance the costs and benefits is the difficult bit.
This doesn't mean markets are useles but posited model of "fear of bankruptcy disciplines efficient allocation" is carrying far too much weight in a world of limited liability. The actual discipline often comes too late after the harm, applies to shareholders who had no operational control rather than reckless executives (and then only to the value of their shareholding) or doesn't come at all (e.g bailouts).
The honest position is that limited liability enables capital formation but also enables decision-makers to take risks they don't personally bear.
Secondly, Europe's growth has been stagnant vs. the USA over the last 20 years. Few countries have done quite as badly as the UK, with its toxic mix of high tax and regulation with an oddly laissez faire attitude to the family silver being sold off, but the overall trend is clearly shown in the relative growth figures. That absolutely reconciles with the theory that a high tax, high regulation environment kills growth, and it's absurd denialism to say otherwise.
But it didn’t. Various ‘sources close to’ tried to suggest it was a fake, mumsie paid out £12m to make the person in the fake photo eff off and Andrew carried on his merry way until quite recently. It’s only his repeated lies being exposed and the accretion of damage to The Firm that made them take action.
How can you always have the wrong answer to every question everyday, Rochdale! 🙄
Going into the last election, the tax take was highest since fighting World War Two (or period after when we had to pay back friends and allies for what they kindly loaned us to see us through). As a household {metaphor} the UK under this Labour government is spending beyond its means - committed to spending more than it’s getting in. The bottom line is, any further tax rises, progressive or stealth and sneaky, is simply to pay off the mounting debts and borrowing to stop creditors pulling the plug and plunging us into bankruptcy.
The whole of the media narrative around the coming budget is wrong and BS. The more relevant and electorally important manifesto promise that’s being put in the bin at this budget is “Growth, Growth, and more Growth.”
The only thing this coming budget should do is reform spending commitments, reduce costs [so that the country is living within its means] the only way to put public services on a sure footing is not fund them from both borrowing and an escalating tax burden.
"dont blame me, im a different kind of Tory".
"Tax rise for growth"
Nor will they know someone who is.
Political or permanent government.
You may have a case that some businesses are not as constrained as they should be (this is particularly true of big businesses, or ones with various forms of monopoly, eg privatised utilities) - but on average they are vastly better at obtaining value for money than the government.
It's worth remembering that most of the UK's businesses (by total number, total turnover or total headcount) are small, owner run outfits employing less than 10 people - which are also generally the most efficient sort.
Those questions, to me, have yet to be fully answered.
The entire American political scene, at the very top is really disinterested in pursuing this.
My guess is that they fear it could lead to an Italian style wipe out across the parties.
When you look at the politicians who are pushing for release & investigations, they are the ones who don’t have the power.
His predecessor David Maclean might not have been a good man according to some people, but he was an excellent MP.
In the next election Penrith and Solway will be Reform or Tory 1, Tory or Reform 2, Lab or LD 3, LD or Lab 4. So to keep Reform out in P and S vote Tory. It is the only answer.
I guess there will be many seats like this where it will be too complex to guess the votes, or most guessing electors will get it wrong. You could see a confused parliament with a government which falls quickly like 1923 and then the two factions group together having learnt from the election and then another election where there is one Right candidate against one left candidate in each seat.
Trouble is, the overlap between the people best qualified (by real world experience) to run the country and the people who want to waste their lives on the vacuous stupidity that is modern politics is pretty much nil.
As the old saying has it:
If you can, you do.
If you can't, you teach.
And if you can't even manage that, you become a politician.
I really do mean the size of the state, or perhaps more accurately the scope of the state. It needs to get out of many areas it's stepped into, and become cheaper as a result of that process, not just 'skimp' on what it does for a while and then turn the taps back on when the public inevitably complains.
A microcosm of this would be Labour's botched welfare cuts. They didn't cut the welfare budget by removing the anxious and the acne sufferers from PIP eligibility and reserving it for those with serious issues - they top-sliced it for everyone, meaning those with more serious conditions would have felt the cuts, and even if successfully implemented, inevitably the cuts would soon have been reversed when a few sob stories had come out.
Proper systems should be cheaper to run and ought to give better service. The catch is that they take money and time to set up.
One of the British diseases has been to repeatedly confuse capital and revenue spending. The idea of spending upfront to save down the line is anathema to many businesses, politicians and voters. Similarly, a lot of the savings booked in the 2010 austerity programme were always likely to come back as bigger expenses a decade down the line. See also the chuntering about the upfront costs of the energy transition.
Also, there is a valid view that all government spending should be treated as revenue spend, because there is no depreciation calculation. On a macro scale, most government "investment" is actually just replacing worn out stuff. Build a new bridge to replace one that's falling down, and the politicians will call it investment - but when all is said and done, there was one bridge before, and one bridge afterwards. Most government "investment" is actually maintainance spending, not CapEx.
Which is patently not true. It seems to be a rare case, when the Government - local, regional or national - gets a good deal on buying anything.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/08/uk-to-announce-plans-to-emulate-stringent-danish-immigration-system
It's a terrible idea anyway - the country needs to incentivise saving and investment, not penalise it.