Clive Lewis affirms he would give up his seat for Andy Burnham
Really
Has he asked his constituents if they mind?
That comes after he steps down. Inevitably.
In a by election that would be an easy Green gain.
Not sure about that, Burnham has a +22% rating with Green voters, Starmer is on -52% with Greens by contrast. Labour, LD and Green voters all give Burnham a net positive rating, only Tories and Reform voters give him a net negative rating but still not as bad a negative rating as they give Sir Keir https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_Favourability_250929_w.pdf
Greens strong locally. Got loads of cash. SKS won’t be keen on him winning. I’d put money on a green win if it happened. Don’t think it will.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
Switzerland not in the EU or even the EEA or a customs union though, only EFTA.
Switzerland also bans the face covering burka so is not that liberal on immigration issues
Switzeraland has the closest relationship to the EU of any country not in the EEA, and a much closer relationship than us.
I think over a quarter of the Swiss population are immigrants, much higher than in the UK.
Not a good argument. Family member worked in Switzerland for 30 years. When he couldn't work anymore and had run out of benefits, he was 'encouraged' to leave. Unfortunately this was before he could access his Swiss pension. The Swiss (Cantons) don't take any prisoners.
You have to make the difference between refugee immigrants, visa immigrants, EU work immigrants and unlawful immigrants. A catchall immigrant doesn't shed any light on discussions unless qualified. Work and Visa immigrants would be net contributors.
I’d love to see a more nuanced discussion around immigration, but it’s pretty clear that neither Reform or Labour are going to deliver that. Reform want people to think that all immigrants are scroungers and most of them are illegal. Labour seem to be along for the ride rather than pushing back on that.
The Lib Dem’s idea of a nuanced debate around migration is ‘we like it, let’s have loads more, and if you complain you’re a racist’
The reason we cannot have a nuanced debate is exactly that.
People see their communities changing and people coming in in rather large number. Raise concerns and get slapped down.
Its pretty much the direct opposite. Suggest even timidly that there are economic and other benefits to immigration and you get shouted down, even on here. That is what is stopping any nuanced debate.
There’s massive economic benefits to immigration.
It just needs to be managed properly, without feeding a pyramid scheme, and the existing British population needs to be convinced of the benefits of it.
And being convinced is not the preferred option of the left by telling anyone raising it they are ‘racist’
Skilled inward migration is not only desirable, I’d say it was essential. Plug gaps we don’t have.
Yet Reform want lower immigration; they want net zero immigration. That could only happen by substantially cutting skilled inward migration.
This is why I say nuance is missing. Most UK immigration is skilled, but Reform and fellow travellers still seek to cast all immigrants as, at best, scroungers, or worse.
They also conflate immigration in total, which has been historically high in recent years, with asylum and irregular arrivals which have also been historically high but are a fraction of the total. Not just Reform, pretty much everyone including the current Home Secretary. Reducing immigration <> stopping the boats.
I don't think anyone with any sort of human feelings doesn't want the boats stopped. Not because they oppose immigration but because it's an extremely dangerous way of getting to UK. We know how many of these inflatables we've seen landing. We don't know, no-one does, how many have left France. Therefore we don't know how many people have tried to cross and failed to complete the journey.
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
Negative real rates is the last gasp of hope for younger generations !
I'd argue that they weren't "fairly modest reforms to disability benefits". They would have been massive individual cuts, not just to people in receipt of said benefits but to their carers who would have lost their entitlement to carers allowance too.
Clive Lewis affirms he would give up his seat for Andy Burnham
Really
Has he asked his constituents if they mind?
That comes after he steps down. Inevitably.
In a by election that would be an easy Green gain.
Not sure about that, Burnham has a +22% rating with Green voters, Starmer is on -52% with Greens by contrast. Labour, LD and Green voters all give Burnham a net positive rating, only Tories and Reform voters give him a net negative rating but still not as bad a negative rating as they give Sir Keir https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_Favourability_250929_w.pdf
Greens strong locally. Got loads of cash. SKS won’t be keen on him winning. I’d put money on a green win if it happened. Don’t think it will.
Tory and LD voters might also tactically vote Burnham if the Greens were his main challengers
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
I think the AI bubble exists mainly inside the heads of politicians and media figures, wrapped up in woolly-kapok to make sure that no one makes it go pop.
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
Negative real rates is the last gasp of hope for younger generations !
Clive Lewis affirms he would give up his seat for Andy Burnham
Really
Has he asked his constituents if they mind?
That comes after he steps down. Inevitably.
In a by election that would be an easy Green gain.
Not sure about that, Burnham has a +22% rating with Green voters, Starmer is on -52% with Greens by contrast. Labour, LD and Green voters all give Burnham a net positive rating, only Tories and Reform voters give him a net negative rating but still not as bad a negative rating as they give Sir Keir https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_Favourability_250929_w.pdf
Greens strong locally. Got loads of cash. SKS won’t be keen on him winning. I’d put money on a green win if it happened. Don’t think it will.
Tory and LD voters might also tactically vote Burnham if the Greens were his main challengers
Possibly not; the Greens are a problem for the next election. Voting for the Greens in a by-election today would be a ‘fun’ way of bloodying the nose of a currently hated government and insuring that government finds it harder to recover by blocking the introduction of someone who might be more competent.
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
I think the AI bubble exists mainly inside the heads of politicians and media figures, wrapped up in woolly-kapok to make sure that no one makes it go pop.
POTUS is pretty clear he wants low interest rates and a short term stock bubble with pressure on the Fed. We seem overly keen on cheap borrowing too. I get that calling a bubble is provable after the event but at some point it will surely burst.
Note neither Ukraine, nor Europe are part of these negotiations.
Scoop: U.S. secretly drafting new plan to end Ukraine war https://www.axios.com/2025/11/19/ukraine-peace-plan-trump-russia-witkoff The Trump administration has been secretly working in consultation with Russia to draft a new plan to end the war in Ukraine, U.S. and Russian officials tell Axios...
Clive Lewis affirms he would give up his seat for Andy Burnham
Really
Has he asked his constituents if they mind?
That comes after he steps down. Inevitably.
In a by election that would be an easy Green gain.
Not sure about that, Burnham has a +22% rating with Green voters, Starmer is on -52% with Greens by contrast. Labour, LD and Green voters all give Burnham a net positive rating, only Tories and Reform voters give him a net negative rating but still not as bad a negative rating as they give Sir Keir https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_Favourability_250929_w.pdf
Greens strong locally. Got loads of cash. SKS won’t be keen on him winning. I’d put money on a green win if it happened. Don’t think it will.
Tory and LD voters might also tactically vote Burnham if the Greens were his main challengers
I'm a Lb/LD voter but I'm becoming very tempted vote Green.
This is probably one of the most interesting and revealing industrial stories of the year.
This car 👇, the 2026 version of France's Renault Twingo, is the first Western car engineered in China and made in Europe - a complete reversal of what used to be.
The challenge that Renault wanted to tackle is how to compete with Chinese EVs, which are best-in-class in affordability and speed-to-market.
Specifically, they wanted to develop an EV car from scratch in less than 2 years (when it normally takes 4 years to develop a new car for European auto makers) and be able to sell the car profitably for less than €20,000 while building it in Europe. Which is all insanely ambitious if you know about the European auto industry...
The end product is priced under €20,000 - after subsidies, around €15,000 - making it one of Europe's cheapest EVs and competitive against Chinese EVs.
I spent most of my career in that industry, from 82 - 14, that’s staggering. Speed to market is amazing.
I fully expect Europe to respond with punitive protective tariffs.
Someone here, Francis Urquhart IIRC, posted some YouTube’s on Chinese auto makers. Advanced isn’t the word. It’s staggering how advanced they are.
It’s a bit like
The list of “but that’s not how we do it” is always long.
It's not even like that, though. SpaceX surprised a lot of people.
We knew the change to EVs was coming; it's been government policy here and in Europe for decades. But our governments (and most of the industry, which was enjoying the tail end of legacy manufacturing profits) just sat back doing almost nothing, while China planned their future economy around it, with the investment to back it.
And a significant part of their manufacturing is built around technology developed in Europe and the US, which they then continued to develop.
It is like that, I think.
The biggest barrier to innovation is often “we don’t do it like that” - the accreted socio-economic structures of the existing organisation.
After WWII the Koreans built a modern ship building industry. Which didn’t have all the old “proper way” of doing things. The ideas they used - modular construction etc - were invented in the West, but never became widespread because “that’s not proper ship building”. Kaiser used early forms of that for the Victory Ships, but post war, US yards rapidly went back to the “proper way”. In the U.K., Beardmores did modular construction - but went out of business in the 1920s….
In the European car industry, changing to EVs was nicked by the huge investment in engines and gearboxes. Whole divisions would become obsolete. *Board members* power bases would be destroyed. So they delayed. And delayed.
I disagree (though you are right about the Innovators Dilemma style conservatism). The only way a car industry making (then) record profits was going to cannibalise its own business, was if it was forced to do so. If government had mandated, and assisted with steady investment over the last decade and a half, we might be somewhere close to where China is now.
As it is, European industry is now forced to make the transition just for its own survival, and had ceded any kind of leadership for the next decade in all likelihood.
That, and Brexit, have left us in what is probably a worse position still.
They knew change was coming.
They were told.
It was legislated.
They could have invested some of those record profits.
But no - culturally they had to wait. For a handout. For someone else to do something. For the horse to learn to sing….
Half the reason that Merkel fit the Tesla factory was to shout WAKE! UP! at the German car industry.
Of course industry is to blame too. But what the eff was the UK doing for the last decade and a half, when it's been government policy throughout that we must and will transition to EVs ?
Apart from obsessing over Brexit.
You have yourself suggested how we might have done it.
Clive Lewis affirms he would give up his seat for Andy Burnham
Really
Has he asked his constituents if they mind?
That comes after he steps down. Inevitably.
In a by election that would be an easy Green gain.
Not sure about that, Burnham has a +22% rating with Green voters, Starmer is on -52% with Greens by contrast. Labour, LD and Green voters all give Burnham a net positive rating, only Tories and Reform voters give him a net negative rating but still not as bad a negative rating as they give Sir Keir https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_Favourability_250929_w.pdf
Greens strong locally. Got loads of cash. SKS won’t be keen on him winning. I’d put money on a green win if it happened. Don’t think it will.
If it was to happen it would be in the North West not Lewis's seat
No matter, it shows what a mess labour are in and Starmer / Reeves have the look of Truss / Kwarteng and about the same popularity
Note neither Ukraine, nor Europe are part of these negotiations.
Scoop: U.S. secretly drafting new plan to end Ukraine war https://www.axios.com/2025/11/19/ukraine-peace-plan-trump-russia-witkoff The Trump administration has been secretly working in consultation with Russia to draft a new plan to end the war in Ukraine, U.S. and Russian officials tell Axios...
Phillips P O'Brien has just put out a rather pessimistic substack suggesting that the Europeans will be told the US will pull out of NATO if they don't agree to the peace plan, whatever it is. We are about to see the maximum leverage available to the US President applied to Ukraine and Europe - when we've all been hoping it might be applied to Russia.
Trump really wants to pull out of NATO; previous US administrations have seen their spending on NATO as worthwhile to ensure peace and keep Europe in the US sphere of influence, but Trump's US has no allies, only marks to milked. His view is that Europe should be paying the US for their presence. Europe isn't going to do that, so no dice.
If you accept the above as fact, then threatening withdraw unless Europe and Ukraine agree to a peace plan is win-win in Trump's view. Either the plan works and Trump is hailed once again as a Great Peacemaker (at least in his own befuddled mind) or a refusal provides cover for something he wants to do anyway.
Clive Lewis affirms he would give up his seat for Andy Burnham
Really
Has he asked his constituents if they mind?
That comes after he steps down. Inevitably.
In a by election that would be an easy Green gain.
Not sure about that, Burnham has a +22% rating with Green voters, Starmer is on -52% with Greens by contrast. Labour, LD and Green voters all give Burnham a net positive rating, only Tories and Reform voters give him a net negative rating but still not as bad a negative rating as they give Sir Keir https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_Favourability_250929_w.pdf
Greens strong locally. Got loads of cash. SKS won’t be keen on him winning. I’d put money on a green win if it happened. Don’t think it will.
Tory and LD voters might also tactically vote Burnham if the Greens were his main challengers
I'm a Lb/LD voter but I'm becoming very tempted vote Green.
Note neither Ukraine, nor Europe are part of these negotiations.
Scoop: U.S. secretly drafting new plan to end Ukraine war https://www.axios.com/2025/11/19/ukraine-peace-plan-trump-russia-witkoff The Trump administration has been secretly working in consultation with Russia to draft a new plan to end the war in Ukraine, U.S. and Russian officials tell Axios...
Phillips P O'Brien has just put out a rather pessimistic substack suggesting that the Europeans will be told the US will pull out of NATO if they don't agree to the peace plan, whatever it is. We are about to see the maximum leverage available to the US President applied to Ukraine and Europe - when we've all been hoping it might be applied to Russia.
Trump really wants to pull out of NATO; previous US administrations have seen their spending on NATO as worthwhile to ensure peace and keep Europe in the US sphere of influence, but Trump's US has no allies, only marks to milked. His view is that Europe should be paying the US for their presence. Europe isn't going to do that, so no dice.
If you accept the above as fact, then threatening withdraw unless Europe and Ukraine agree to a peace plan is win-win in Trump's view. Either the plan works and Trump is hailed once again as a Great Peacemaker (at least in his own befuddled mind) or a refusal provides cover for something he wants to do anyway.
From Europe's pov, being blackmailed to accept a settlement in Ukraine which puts our future security at serious risk, is Trump effectively abandoning NATO already.
Clive Lewis affirms he would give up his seat for Andy Burnham
Really
Has he asked his constituents if they mind?
That comes after he steps down. Inevitably.
In a by election that would be an easy Green gain.
Not sure about that, Burnham has a +22% rating with Green voters, Starmer is on -52% with Greens by contrast. Labour, LD and Green voters all give Burnham a net positive rating, only Tories and Reform voters give him a net negative rating but still not as bad a negative rating as they give Sir Keir https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_Favourability_250929_w.pdf
Greens strong locally. Got loads of cash. SKS won’t be keen on him winning. I’d put money on a green win if it happened. Don’t think it will.
Tory and LD voters might also tactically vote Burnham if the Greens were his main challengers
I'm a Lb/LD voter but I'm becoming very tempted vote Green.
I never had you down as a Commie.
Long, long ago when the world was very different. In the 50's the debate was red or dead.
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
I think the AI bubble exists mainly inside the heads of politicians and media figures, wrapped up in woolly-kapok to make sure that no one makes it go pop.
POTUS is pretty clear he wants low interest rates and a short term stock bubble with pressure on the Fed. We seem overly keen on cheap borrowing too. I get that calling a bubble is provable after the event but at some point it will surely burst.
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
I think the AI bubble exists mainly inside the heads of politicians and media figures, wrapped up in woolly-kapok to make sure that no one makes it go pop.
POTUS is pretty clear he wants low interest rates and a short term stock bubble with pressure on the Fed. We seem overly keen on cheap borrowing too. I get that calling a bubble is provable after the event but at some point it will surely burst.
There is probably an apocryphal story that Joe Kennedy, JFK's father, sold all his investments in 1929 after getting a stock tip from a shoe shine boy. He regarded this as fairly conclusive evidence that the market was a bubble and the Kennedy family fortune to this day is based upon that insight.
I think we are well into such territory for AI and probably tech stocks generally. I fear that when this bubble does burst the consequences for most other assets will be significant. What I can't work out is whether this is likely to be good for annuity returns or bad if base interest rates are once again cut to zero. Quite a lot turns on this assessment in respect of when I am likely to retire. I want to carry on working for a while but I am concerned about my pension funds.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
In Scotland the home is sold to pay for the care home, so long as it isn't someone else's main home too. It works because council care homes are worse than hell and you wouldn't condemn a loved one to stay in one unless necessary. My feeling about Dementia Tax is, it was a badly managed election campaign that even made Corbyn look acceptable. It is also inevitable. My feeling about Social Care is selling the home isn't enough to stop the whole system crumbling into the sea but maybe it props things up a little.
Homes in Scotland are worth far less than homes in the South of England though and no it isn't inevitable as after the 2017 GE no party would risk losing their majority by proposing a similar dementia tax policy. Even the SNP have said they want to scrap social care charges for non residential care anyway
Note neither Ukraine, nor Europe are part of these negotiations.
Scoop: U.S. secretly drafting new plan to end Ukraine war https://www.axios.com/2025/11/19/ukraine-peace-plan-trump-russia-witkoff The Trump administration has been secretly working in consultation with Russia to draft a new plan to end the war in Ukraine, U.S. and Russian officials tell Axios...
Phillips P O'Brien has just put out a rather pessimistic substack suggesting that the Europeans will be told the US will pull out of NATO if they don't agree to the peace plan, whatever it is. We are about to see the maximum leverage available to the US President applied to Ukraine and Europe - when we've all been hoping it might be applied to Russia.
Trump really wants to pull out of NATO; previous US administrations have seen their spending on NATO as worthwhile to ensure peace and keep Europe in the US sphere of influence, but Trump's US has no allies, only marks to milked. His view is that Europe should be paying the US for their presence. Europe isn't going to do that, so no dice.
If you accept the above as fact, then threatening withdraw unless Europe and Ukraine agree to a peace plan is win-win in Trump's view. Either the plan works and Trump is hailed once again as a Great Peacemaker (at least in his own befuddled mind) or a refusal provides cover for something he wants to do anyway.
I agree with that. Though, of course, one of the geopolitical risks we currently face is that everyone knows Trump isn't committed to NATO, so Russia might convince themselves that the US wouldn't fight to defend Europe, regardless of whether the US has formally withdrawn from NATO or not.
It will be fascinating to see how strong the Green challenge is in Newham next May. They will hold the Stratford Ward they already have but will be against the Newham Independents in the Muslim Wards so we might see them working the other Wards with, for example, more Indian and Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi people.
Within Newham Labour, the re or de selections (depending on your perspective) are continuing. One of the councillors in Little Ilford, having been deselected, has switched to the Newham Independents while it seems anyone too close to the current Mayor, Roksana Fiaz, is also getting the Spanish archer.
I went down to the local corner shop but the man didn’t speak good English so instead of 🍿 I got 🌽 …hope that still counts.
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
I think the AI bubble exists mainly inside the heads of politicians and media figures, wrapped up in woolly-kapok to make sure that no one makes it go pop.
POTUS is pretty clear he wants low interest rates and a short term stock bubble with pressure on the Fed. We seem overly keen on cheap borrowing too. I get that calling a bubble is provable after the event but at some point it will surely burst.
He is going to get low interest rates, but only because the Fed think the US economy is tanking
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
I think the AI bubble exists mainly inside the heads of politicians and media figures, wrapped up in woolly-kapok to make sure that no one makes it go pop.
POTUS is pretty clear he wants low interest rates and a short term stock bubble with pressure on the Fed. We seem overly keen on cheap borrowing too. I get that calling a bubble is provable after the event but at some point it will surely burst.
He is going to get low interest rates, but only because the Fed think the US economy is tanking
Same for the UK then
The Chances of a cut in December have fallen dramatically in the last month to less than 50%
We must be on the cusp of the moment when Trump dispenses with vexatious litigation and just has his political opponents dealt with like the Venezuelan drug dealers/ fisherman*
Putin has always had one big advantage over us when it comes to dealing with Trump. He can pay him.
He could. But can he now?
Putin's personal wealth is reported to be in the hundreds of billions, and, whatever financial difficulties the Russian state might be in due to sanctions and the war, it is still a state with large tax revenues.
Note neither Ukraine, nor Europe are part of these negotiations.
Scoop: U.S. secretly drafting new plan to end Ukraine war https://www.axios.com/2025/11/19/ukraine-peace-plan-trump-russia-witkoff The Trump administration has been secretly working in consultation with Russia to draft a new plan to end the war in Ukraine, U.S. and Russian officials tell Axios...
Phillips P O'Brien has just put out a rather pessimistic substack suggesting that the Europeans will be told the US will pull out of NATO if they don't agree to the peace plan, whatever it is. We are about to see the maximum leverage available to the US President applied to Ukraine and Europe - when we've all been hoping it might be applied to Russia.
Trump really wants to pull out of NATO; previous US administrations have seen their spending on NATO as worthwhile to ensure peace and keep Europe in the US sphere of influence, but Trump's US has no allies, only marks to milked. His view is that Europe should be paying the US for their presence. Europe isn't going to do that, so no dice.
If you accept the above as fact, then threatening withdraw unless Europe and Ukraine agree to a peace plan is win-win in Trump's view. Either the plan works and Trump is hailed once again as a Great Peacemaker (at least in his own befuddled mind) or a refusal provides cover for something he wants to do anyway.
I agree with that. Though, of course, one of the geopolitical risks we currently face is that everyone knows Trump isn't committed to NATO, so Russia might convince themselves that the US wouldn't fight to defend Europe, regardless of whether the US has formally withdrawn from NATO or not.
It also makes an armegeddon type war between superpowers more likely. Protection against it has largely derived from the calculation that America would retaliate if say a NATO country or Taiwan were attacked. If this calculation flips such an attack becomes more thinkable. If it then happens, and contrary to the revised calculation the US does respond, well there we are, winter is here.
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
I think the AI bubble exists mainly inside the heads of politicians and media figures, wrapped up in woolly-kapok to make sure that no one makes it go pop.
POTUS is pretty clear he wants low interest rates and a short term stock bubble with pressure on the Fed. We seem overly keen on cheap borrowing too. I get that calling a bubble is provable after the event but at some point it will surely burst.
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
I think the AI bubble exists mainly inside the heads of politicians and media figures, wrapped up in woolly-kapok to make sure that no one makes it go pop.
POTUS is pretty clear he wants low interest rates and a short term stock bubble with pressure on the Fed. We seem overly keen on cheap borrowing too. I get that calling a bubble is provable after the event but at some point it will surely burst.
There is probably an apocryphal story that Joe Kennedy, JFK's father, sold all his investments in 1929 after getting a stock tip from a shoe shine boy. He regarded this as fairly conclusive evidence that the market was a bubble and the Kennedy family fortune to this day is based upon that insight.
I think we are well into such territory for AI and probably tech stocks generally. I fear that when this bubble does burst the consequences for most other assets will be significant. What I can't work out is whether this is likely to be good for annuity returns or bad if base interest rates are once again cut to zero. Quite a lot turns on this assessment in respect of when I am likely to retire. I want to carry on working for a while but I am concerned about my pension funds.
Putin has always had one big advantage over us when it comes to dealing with Trump. He can pay him.
He could. But can he now?
Putin's personal wealth is reported to be in the hundreds of billions, and, whatever financial difficulties the Russian state might be in due to sanctions and the war, it is still a state with large tax revenues.
Putin has always had one big advantage over us when it comes to dealing with Trump. He can pay him.
He could. But can he now?
Putin's personal wealth is reported to be in the hundreds of billions, and, whatever financial difficulties the Russian state might be in due to sanctions and the war, it is still a state with large tax revenues.
Hundreds of millions now, surely!
Apparently not. In the year to April 2024, Russia's richest people were reported to have added $72bn to their fortunes. War would have been a great opportunity for someone like Putin to steal more money from the state.
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
I think the AI bubble exists mainly inside the heads of politicians and media figures, wrapped up in woolly-kapok to make sure that no one makes it go pop.
POTUS is pretty clear he wants low interest rates and a short term stock bubble with pressure on the Fed. We seem overly keen on cheap borrowing too. I get that calling a bubble is provable after the event but at some point it will surely burst.
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
I think the AI bubble exists mainly inside the heads of politicians and media figures, wrapped up in woolly-kapok to make sure that no one makes it go pop.
POTUS is pretty clear he wants low interest rates and a short term stock bubble with pressure on the Fed. We seem overly keen on cheap borrowing too. I get that calling a bubble is provable after the event but at some point it will surely burst.
There is probably an apocryphal story that Joe Kennedy, JFK's father, sold all his investments in 1929 after getting a stock tip from a shoe shine boy. He regarded this as fairly conclusive evidence that the market was a bubble and the Kennedy family fortune to this day is based upon that insight.
I think we are well into such territory for AI and probably tech stocks generally. I fear that when this bubble does burst the consequences for most other assets will be significant. What I can't work out is whether this is likely to be good for annuity returns or bad if base interest rates are once again cut to zero. Quite a lot turns on this assessment in respect of when I am likely to retire. I want to carry on working for a while but I am concerned about my pension funds.
Are you not switching it mainly to bonds as retirement approaches?
Note neither Ukraine, nor Europe are part of these negotiations.
Scoop: U.S. secretly drafting new plan to end Ukraine war https://www.axios.com/2025/11/19/ukraine-peace-plan-trump-russia-witkoff The Trump administration has been secretly working in consultation with Russia to draft a new plan to end the war in Ukraine, U.S. and Russian officials tell Axios...
Phillips P O'Brien has just put out a rather pessimistic substack suggesting that the Europeans will be told the US will pull out of NATO if they don't agree to the peace plan, whatever it is. We are about to see the maximum leverage available to the US President applied to Ukraine and Europe - when we've all been hoping it might be applied to Russia.
Trump really wants to pull out of NATO; previous US administrations have seen their spending on NATO as worthwhile to ensure peace and keep Europe in the US sphere of influence, but Trump's US has no allies, only marks to milked. His view is that Europe should be paying the US for their presence. Europe isn't going to do that, so no dice.
If you accept the above as fact, then threatening withdraw unless Europe and Ukraine agree to a peace plan is win-win in Trump's view. Either the plan works and Trump is hailed once again as a Great Peacemaker (at least in his own befuddled mind) or a refusal provides cover for something he wants to do anyway.
From Europe's pov, being blackmailed to accept a settlement in Ukraine which puts our future security at serious risk, is Trump effectively abandoning NATO already.
Indeed. And we have had plenty of warning that this is coming. We should call his bluff and refuse to accept his plan.
Note neither Ukraine, nor Europe are part of these negotiations.
Scoop: U.S. secretly drafting new plan to end Ukraine war https://www.axios.com/2025/11/19/ukraine-peace-plan-trump-russia-witkoff The Trump administration has been secretly working in consultation with Russia to draft a new plan to end the war in Ukraine, U.S. and Russian officials tell Axios...
Phillips P O'Brien has just put out a rather pessimistic substack suggesting that the Europeans will be told the US will pull out of NATO if they don't agree to the peace plan, whatever it is. We are about to see the maximum leverage available to the US President applied to Ukraine and Europe - when we've all been hoping it might be applied to Russia.
Trump really wants to pull out of NATO; previous US administrations have seen their spending on NATO as worthwhile to ensure peace and keep Europe in the US sphere of influence, but Trump's US has no allies, only marks to milked. His view is that Europe should be paying the US for their presence. Europe isn't going to do that, so no dice.
If you accept the above as fact, then threatening withdraw unless Europe and Ukraine agree to a peace plan is win-win in Trump's view. Either the plan works and Trump is hailed once again as a Great Peacemaker (at least in his own befuddled mind) or a refusal provides cover for something he wants to do anyway.
From Europe's pov, being blackmailed to accept a settlement in Ukraine which puts our future security at serious risk, is Trump effectively abandoning NATO already.
Indeed. And we have had plenty of warning that this is coming. We should call his bluff and refuse to accept his plan.
Ultimately it’s up to Ukraine to decide. That Trump and Putin are doing great power politics behind its back is not ideal. But I suppose if the “deal” on offer is reasonable they should consider it.
But honestly, Trump has played the game of leverage terribly with Russia. Someone perfectly happy to blackmail his supposed allies yet shits himself in the face of an enemy.
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
I think the AI bubble exists mainly inside the heads of politicians and media figures, wrapped up in woolly-kapok to make sure that no one makes it go pop.
POTUS is pretty clear he wants low interest rates and a short term stock bubble with pressure on the Fed. We seem overly keen on cheap borrowing too. I get that calling a bubble is provable after the event but at some point it will surely burst.
So with inflation a whopping 0.4% below the Bank of England base rate there is already talk of lowering interest rates. Has it not occurred to people that inflation is usually below the official bank rate? What we see it that inflation is persistently higher than elsewhere. Cutting rates at such a moment feels like a gift for speculators. Feeding the AI bubble?
I think the AI bubble exists mainly inside the heads of politicians and media figures, wrapped up in woolly-kapok to make sure that no one makes it go pop.
POTUS is pretty clear he wants low interest rates and a short term stock bubble with pressure on the Fed. We seem overly keen on cheap borrowing too. I get that calling a bubble is provable after the event but at some point it will surely burst.
There is probably an apocryphal story that Joe Kennedy, JFK's father, sold all his investments in 1929 after getting a stock tip from a shoe shine boy. He regarded this as fairly conclusive evidence that the market was a bubble and the Kennedy family fortune to this day is based upon that insight.
I think we are well into such territory for AI and probably tech stocks generally. I fear that when this bubble does burst the consequences for most other assets will be significant. What I can't work out is whether this is likely to be good for annuity returns or bad if base interest rates are once again cut to zero. Quite a lot turns on this assessment in respect of when I am likely to retire. I want to carry on working for a while but I am concerned about my pension funds.
Are you not switching it mainly to bonds as retirement approaches?
Its in general funds with Standard Life and BoS. I probably should be moving more into defensive investments. I'll have a look this weekend.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
Switzerland not in the EU or even the EEA or a customs union though, only EFTA.
Switzerland also bans the face covering burka so is not that liberal on immigration issues
Switzeraland has the closest relationship to the EU of any country not in the EEA, and a much closer relationship than us.
I think over a quarter of the Swiss population are immigrants, much higher than in the UK.
Not a good argument. Family member worked in Switzerland for 30 years. When he couldn't work anymore and had run out of benefits, he was 'encouraged' to leave. Unfortunately this was before he could access his Swiss pension. The Swiss (Cantons) don't take any prisoners.
You have to make the difference between refugee immigrants, visa immigrants, EU work immigrants and unlawful immigrants. A catchall immigrant doesn't shed any light on discussions unless qualified. Work and Visa immigrants would be net contributors.
I’d love to see a more nuanced discussion around immigration, but it’s pretty clear that neither Reform or Labour are going to deliver that. Reform want people to think that all immigrants are scroungers and most of them are illegal. Labour seem to be along for the ride rather than pushing back on that.
The Lib Dem’s idea of a nuanced debate around migration is ‘we like it, let’s have loads more, and if you complain you’re a racist’
The reason we cannot have a nuanced debate is exactly that.
People see their communities changing and people coming in in rather large number. Raise concerns and get slapped down.
You missed a bit.
The Lib Dem’s idea of a nuanced debate around migration is ‘we like it, let’s have loads more, and if you complain you’re a racist, and if you want more houses built then you’re destroying the countryside, and if you can’t afford a house then work harder’
Sandpit, you are an immigrant, living in a country that is 88% immigrants. Why are you complaining about immigration?
He hasn't found the 'dark side' of Dubai yet. Still some time yet to get the wrong side of some of the pirates, thieves and criminals that call it home.
Luckily these are the good guys and no hostile nation states would have conceived a plan as intricate as making up a phone number and searching on it thousands of times a second to reveal details of more than 100 million accounts per hour.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
Switzerland not in the EU or even the EEA or a customs union though, only EFTA.
Switzerland also bans the face covering burka so is not that liberal on immigration issues
Switzeraland has the closest relationship to the EU of any country not in the EEA, and a much closer relationship than us.
I think over a quarter of the Swiss population are immigrants, much higher than in the UK.
Not a good argument. Family member worked in Switzerland for 30 years. When he couldn't work anymore and had run out of benefits, he was 'encouraged' to leave. Unfortunately this was before he could access his Swiss pension. The Swiss (Cantons) don't take any prisoners.
You have to make the difference between refugee immigrants, visa immigrants, EU work immigrants and unlawful immigrants. A catchall immigrant doesn't shed any light on discussions unless qualified. Work and Visa immigrants would be net contributors.
I’d love to see a more nuanced discussion around immigration, but it’s pretty clear that neither Reform or Labour are going to deliver that. Reform want people to think that all immigrants are scroungers and most of them are illegal. Labour seem to be along for the ride rather than pushing back on that.
The Lib Dem’s idea of a nuanced debate around migration is ‘we like it, let’s have loads more, and if you complain you’re a racist’
The reason we cannot have a nuanced debate is exactly that.
People see their communities changing and people coming in in rather large number. Raise concerns and get slapped down.
You missed a bit.
The Lib Dem’s idea of a nuanced debate around migration is ‘we like it, let’s have loads more, and if you complain you’re a racist, and if you want more houses built then you’re destroying the countryside, and if you can’t afford a house then work harder’
Sandpit, you are an immigrant, living in a country that is 88% immigrants. Why are you complaining about immigration?
He hasn't found the 'dark side' of Dubai yet. Still some time yet to get the wrong side of some of the pirates, thieves and criminals that call it home.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
Switzerland not in the EU or even the EEA or a customs union though, only EFTA.
Switzerland also bans the face covering burka so is not that liberal on immigration issues
Switzeraland has the closest relationship to the EU of any country not in the EEA, and a much closer relationship than us.
I think over a quarter of the Swiss population are immigrants, much higher than in the UK.
Not a good argument. Family member worked in Switzerland for 30 years. When he couldn't work anymore and had run out of benefits, he was 'encouraged' to leave. Unfortunately this was before he could access his Swiss pension. The Swiss (Cantons) don't take any prisoners.
You have to make the difference between refugee immigrants, visa immigrants, EU work immigrants and unlawful immigrants. A catchall immigrant doesn't shed any light on discussions unless qualified. Work and Visa immigrants would be net contributors.
I’d love to see a more nuanced discussion around immigration, but it’s pretty clear that neither Reform or Labour are going to deliver that. Reform want people to think that all immigrants are scroungers and most of them are illegal. Labour seem to be along for the ride rather than pushing back on that.
The Lib Dem’s idea of a nuanced debate around migration is ‘we like it, let’s have loads more, and if you complain you’re a racist’
The reason we cannot have a nuanced debate is exactly that.
People see their communities changing and people coming in in rather large number. Raise concerns and get slapped down.
You missed a bit.
The Lib Dem’s idea of a nuanced debate around migration is ‘we like it, let’s have loads more, and if you complain you’re a racist, and if you want more houses built then you’re destroying the countryside, and if you can’t afford a house then work harder’
Sandpit, you are an immigrant, living in a country that is 88% immigrants. Why are you complaining about immigration?
He hasn't found the 'dark side' of Dubai yet. Still some time yet to get the wrong side of some of the pirates, thieves and criminals that call it home.
Note neither Ukraine, nor Europe are part of these negotiations.
Scoop: U.S. secretly drafting new plan to end Ukraine war https://www.axios.com/2025/11/19/ukraine-peace-plan-trump-russia-witkoff The Trump administration has been secretly working in consultation with Russia to draft a new plan to end the war in Ukraine, U.S. and Russian officials tell Axios...
Phillips P O'Brien has just put out a rather pessimistic substack suggesting that the Europeans will be told the US will pull out of NATO if they don't agree to the peace plan, whatever it is. We are about to see the maximum leverage available to the US President applied to Ukraine and Europe - when we've all been hoping it might be applied to Russia.
Trump really wants to pull out of NATO; previous US administrations have seen their spending on NATO as worthwhile to ensure peace and keep Europe in the US sphere of influence, but Trump's US has no allies, only marks to milked. His view is that Europe should be paying the US for their presence. Europe isn't going to do that, so no dice.
If you accept the above as fact, then threatening withdraw unless Europe and Ukraine agree to a peace plan is win-win in Trump's view. Either the plan works and Trump is hailed once again as a Great Peacemaker (at least in his own befuddled mind) or a refusal provides cover for something he wants to do anyway.
From Europe's pov, being blackmailed to accept a settlement in Ukraine which puts our future security at serious risk, is Trump effectively abandoning NATO already.
Indeed. And we have had plenty of warning that this is coming. We should call his bluff and refuse to accept his plan.
This is for Ukraine to decide, not us, they have to live with the consequences. But if they choose to resist we must really go all out to help them as must the rest of Europe.
Wow, that will have some considerable impact on net migration and current population. Its really remarkable we don't keep a closer eye on this. To put this into context we seem to have misplaced the entire population of Edinburgh.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
Switzerland not in the EU or even the EEA or a customs union though, only EFTA.
Switzerland also bans the face covering burka so is not that liberal on immigration issues
Switzeraland has the closest relationship to the EU of any country not in the EEA, and a much closer relationship than us.
I think over a quarter of the Swiss population are immigrants, much higher than in the UK.
Not a good argument. Family member worked in Switzerland for 30 years. When he couldn't work anymore and had run out of benefits, he was 'encouraged' to leave. Unfortunately this was before he could access his Swiss pension. The Swiss (Cantons) don't take any prisoners.
You have to make the difference between refugee immigrants, visa immigrants, EU work immigrants and unlawful immigrants. A catchall immigrant doesn't shed any light on discussions unless qualified. Work and Visa immigrants would be net contributors.
I’d love to see a more nuanced discussion around immigration, but it’s pretty clear that neither Reform or Labour are going to deliver that. Reform want people to think that all immigrants are scroungers and most of them are illegal. Labour seem to be along for the ride rather than pushing back on that.
The Lib Dem’s idea of a nuanced debate around migration is ‘we like it, let’s have loads more, and if you complain you’re a racist’
The reason we cannot have a nuanced debate is exactly that.
People see their communities changing and people coming in in rather large number. Raise concerns and get slapped down.
You missed a bit.
The Lib Dem’s idea of a nuanced debate around migration is ‘we like it, let’s have loads more, and if you complain you’re a racist, and if you want more houses built then you’re destroying the countryside, and if you can’t afford a house then work harder’
Sandpit, you are an immigrant, living in a country that is 88% immigrants. Why are you complaining about immigration?
He hasn't found the 'dark side' of Dubai yet. Still some time yet to get the wrong side of some of the pirates, thieves and criminals that call it home.
I know that if I f up here, I’m getting deported.
It’s an amazing regulator of improper behaviour.
Careful when you’re going on those protests against UAE’s dabbling in Sudan.
Or 992,000 people living in the UK, which would include students graduating, short term immigrants leaving etc?
Without evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to the view that 'no-one really knows".
I'm also inclined to the view that if I were 50 years younger (!) I'd be tempted to join them, although I'm not sure where I'd go. Eldest son has just come back, unimpressed, from a month in Australia. Not as he remembered it from from previous, 30 year ago, trips. New Zealand seems, from reports from relations there, to be tempting, as is Canada.
It seems I wan't wrong about the possibility of a blue tsunami.
MARIST has Democrats up 14 points on the generic ballot.
"This is the first time in more than three years that Democrats have had a notable advantage on the congressional generic ballot question. When last asked in November of 2024, registered voters divided, 48% to 48%. The last time the Democrats had a noteworthy advantage on this question was in June of 2022 when the Democrats were +7 among registered voters."
The story of Texas' redistricting is legit Keystone Cops level hilarious. Here's the 160 page court order distilled into a short vignette:
Trump: Ya’ll should redistrict Texas. Texas Leg: No. Thanks. We’re good. Trump: No really. I want you to redistrict. Trump DOJ: Your districts are illegal [they weren’t]. You need to racially gerrymander them [which is illegal]. Texas Gov: I’m calling a special session of the leg because of the DOJ letter. Texas AG: This DOJ letter is hogwash. We need to ignore it (seriously, hint hint). Texas Leg: We’re redistricting because of the DOJ letter, not because of partisanship. Jake Tapper: Are you redistricting because of Trump? Texas Gov: No, we’re redistricting to give Hispanics districts and because of the DOJ letter. Texas leg redraws districts based on race. Court: What's up? Plaintiffs: You can’t racially gerrymander districts. Texas AG: The DOJ letter was hogwash. We made partisan maps. Race didn't matter. Texas Leg: Oh yeah, we did what the DOJ told us to do. It was racial! Texas AG: No, I swear! Court: This DOJ letter is garbage but it sure looks like it’s telling you to gerrymander based on race. Court: Racial gerrymandering is illegal. Court: If you guys had just drawn the same districts based on partisanship, this would all be legal. Court: But at every turn, you said you were racially gerrymandering based on the DOJ letter. Court: Since racial gerrymandering is illegal, your new maps are illegal.
How did this happen? Either someone at the DOJ deliberately sabotaged this DOJ letter or, perhaps more likely, Harmeet Dhillon was way in over her head and didn't bother to run this letter through the 'ol AI. https://x.com/DudleyNYC/status/1990970856453939344
It seems I wan't wrong about the possibility of a blue tsunami.
MARIST has Democrats up 14 points on the generic ballot.
"This is the first time in more than three years that Democrats have had a notable advantage on the congressional generic ballot question. When last asked in November of 2024, registered voters divided, 48% to 48%. The last time the Democrats had a noteworthy advantage on this question was in June of 2022 when the Democrats were +7 among registered voters."
Or 992,000 people living in the UK, which would include students graduating, short term immigrants leaving etc?
Without evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to the view that 'no-one really knows".
I’m inclined towards the same view, until we have more accurate statistics.
There’s always been people coming and going, and while there’s a feeling that Brits are turning up in the sandpit in record numbers it would be useful to see it confirmed.
Or 992,000 people living in the UK, which would include students graduating, short term immigrants leaving etc?
The ONS website is useless. I can't find anything related to migration published more recently than May 2025.
My guess is it will be residents, so some will be British citizens, but others will be immigrants returning home.
Incidentally, I left the UK in 2022, so I'm a British citizen in that total that Matt Goodwin is claiming left Britain because I was sick of it. That is not the case. I was not pushed out of Britain. I moved to Ireland because my wife wanted to live closer to her family, and we've had a very rewarding three years getting to know the children of her brothers.
It seems I wan't wrong about the possibility of a blue tsunami.
MARIST has Democrats up 14 points on the generic ballot.
"This is the first time in more than three years that Democrats have had a notable advantage on the congressional generic ballot question. When last asked in November of 2024, registered voters divided, 48% to 48%. The last time the Democrats had a noteworthy advantage on this question was in June of 2022 when the Democrats were +7 among registered voters."
W11 is quickly turning into an AI-led security nightmare.
Can we have W7 back please?
I'm increasingly convinced Microsoft's enshittification of Windows is going to get so bad people will actually start jumping ship to Linux, despite that OS being demonstrably crap for desktop use. Previously I thought it's strength in gaming would keep Windows afloat for a long time, because you can't get to be the dominant consumer desktop OS without games, but SteamOS has pretty much blown up that defence.
It runs almost all Windows games that don't have kernel-level anti-cheat systems, and often runs then better than Windows,
Or 992,000 people living in the UK, which would include students graduating, short term immigrants leaving etc?
The ONS website is useless. I can't find anything related to migration published more recently than May 2025.
My guess is it will be residents, so some will be British citizens, but others will be immigrants returning home.
Incidentally, I left the UK in 2022, so I'm a British citizen in that total that Matt Goodwin is claiming left Britain because I was sick of it. That is not the case. I was not pushed out of Britain. I moved to Ireland because my wife wanted to live closer to her family, and we've had a very rewarding three years getting to know the children of her brothers.
Indeed there will be a lot of differnt situations covered by the statistics. Which is why a single number is crap.
However, the fact that the single crap number gets significantly revised over time, tells you a lot about the way official statistics are collected and presented.
W11 is quickly turning into an AI-led security nightmare.
Can we have W7 back please?
I'm increasingly convinced Microsoft's enshittification of Windows is going to get so bad people will actually start jumping ship to Linux, despite that OS being demonstrably crap for desktop use. Previously I thought it's strength in gaming would keep Windows afloat for a long time, because you can't get to be the dominant consumer desktop OS without games, but SteamOS has pretty much blown up that defence.
It runs almost all Windows games that don't have kernel-level anti-cheat systems, and often runs then better than Windows,
Outside of the corporate environment, gaming was the only thing keeping many home users on Windows.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
Switzerland not in the EU or even the EEA or a customs union though, only EFTA.
Switzerland also bans the face covering burka so is not that liberal on immigration issues
Switzeraland has the closest relationship to the EU of any country not in the EEA, and a much closer relationship than us.
I think over a quarter of the Swiss population are immigrants, much higher than in the UK.
Not a good argument. Family member worked in Switzerland for 30 years. When he couldn't work anymore and had run out of benefits, he was 'encouraged' to leave. Unfortunately this was before he could access his Swiss pension. The Swiss (Cantons) don't take any prisoners.
You have to make the difference between refugee immigrants, visa immigrants, EU work immigrants and unlawful immigrants. A catchall immigrant doesn't shed any light on discussions unless qualified. Work and Visa immigrants would be net contributors.
I’d love to see a more nuanced discussion around immigration, but it’s pretty clear that neither Reform or Labour are going to deliver that. Reform want people to think that all immigrants are scroungers and most of them are illegal. Labour seem to be along for the ride rather than pushing back on that.
The Lib Dem’s idea of a nuanced debate around migration is ‘we like it, let’s have loads more, and if you complain you’re a racist’
The reason we cannot have a nuanced debate is exactly that.
People see their communities changing and people coming in in rather large number. Raise concerns and get slapped down.
You missed a bit.
The Lib Dem’s idea of a nuanced debate around migration is ‘we like it, let’s have loads more, and if you complain you’re a racist, and if you want more houses built then you’re destroying the countryside, and if you can’t afford a house then work harder’
Sandpit, you are an immigrant, living in a country that is 88% immigrants. Why are you complaining about immigration?
I’m not complaining about immigration, I’m giving an example of a country where immigration is supported by the citizen population.
Most Western countries right now see immigration as a problem, not as an opportunity as we do in the sandpit.
So, faced with people seeing their communities changing, what do you think should happen? Reform/MAGA style policies, rounding up brown people on the street? Or should some politician actually make a positive case for (some) immigration?
The key point is that *every* *individual* *immigrant* needs to be a net contributor to the host country.
That contribution doesn’t always have to be financial, for example hiring a bunch of care workers on minimum wage, but public support starts to break down when a care worker is allowed to sponsor six adult relatives, none of whom work but all of whom end up on a path to citizenship, which simply adds to the Ponzi Scheme of future pension liabilities.
The key in the sandpit is that the guest workers are guest workers, including me. We’ll never be citizens, and will be “asked” to leave if they commit crimes or become unable to support themselves.
The idea of a care worker being allowed to sponsor six adult relaitves, none of whom work, is Telegraph-style make-believe. Even just bringing in regular low skilled care workers are more a thing of policy three Prime Ministers ago rather than today. A good majority of new people coming in to the UK are either students (who pay for themselves) or high skilled workers.
I don't myself agree with the idea that "*every* *individual* *immigrant* needs to be a net contributor to the host country". We have let in a large number of Ukrainians, many of whom are net contributors, but not necessarily all of them are, but it was still the right thing to let them in. We should offer them refuge. Polling suggests the UK population agrees with me.
I also think that if someone has made a life for themselves in the UK, who has contributed over many years, then we shouldn't turn around and kick them out the minute they stop contributing. I believe there should be a path to citizenship. Again, polling suggests the UK population agrees. (That said, the details of that are up for debate, how long, what contribution.)
Public support did not break down because every individual immigrant was not a contributor. Public views have very little relationship to the actual facts on immigration. Public support broke down because the public were misled (by some politicians, by social media) into believing that most immigrants were scroungers, not contributors, and that most immigrants were illegal, not legal. Public support also broke down because the total numbers were high. (High in UK terms. They're obviously tiny in UAE terms.) Polling suggests that the public support most categories of immigration, but don't support what that added up to under Johnson.
Wow, that will have some considerable impact on net migration and current population. Its really remarkable we don't keep a closer eye on this. To put this into context we seem to have misplaced the entire population of Edinburgh.
W11 is quickly turning into an AI-led security nightmare.
Can we have W7 back please?
I'm increasingly convinced Microsoft's enshittification of Windows is going to get so bad people will actually start jumping ship to Linux, despite that OS being demonstrably crap for desktop use. Previously I thought it's strength in gaming would keep Windows afloat for a long time, because you can't get to be the dominant consumer desktop OS without games, but SteamOS has pretty much blown up that defence.
It runs almost all Windows games that don't have kernel-level anti-cheat systems, and often runs then better than Windows,
I think most home users are more likely to use something like an ipad for the things that they don't want to do on a phone, than to use an alternative operating system they've never used before.
The FT's very impressive John Burn-Murdoch was on LBC earlier suggesting that data collection methodology has changed and this sort of extrapolation by those like Goodwin has been pitched in a disingenuous way to make the political point that all those arriving are of a colour that Reform don't like and all those leaving are of a colour that Reform shills like him do like. Apparently the figures using the data as it was measured remains constant since 2023.
You can't win with these anti-immigration fanbois. When the net migration figures come down the wrong kind of people are leaving.
More disingenuous bollocks from the former - academic Matthew Goodwin.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
Switzerland not in the EU or even the EEA or a customs union though, only EFTA.
Switzerland also bans the face covering burka so is not that liberal on immigration issues
Switzeraland has the closest relationship to the EU of any country not in the EEA, and a much closer relationship than us.
I think over a quarter of the Swiss population are immigrants, much higher than in the UK.
Not a good argument. Family member worked in Switzerland for 30 years. When he couldn't work anymore and had run out of benefits, he was 'encouraged' to leave. Unfortunately this was before he could access his Swiss pension. The Swiss (Cantons) don't take any prisoners.
You have to make the difference between refugee immigrants, visa immigrants, EU work immigrants and unlawful immigrants. A catchall immigrant doesn't shed any light on discussions unless qualified. Work and Visa immigrants would be net contributors.
I’d love to see a more nuanced discussion around immigration, but it’s pretty clear that neither Reform or Labour are going to deliver that. Reform want people to think that all immigrants are scroungers and most of them are illegal. Labour seem to be along for the ride rather than pushing back on that.
The Lib Dem’s idea of a nuanced debate around migration is ‘we like it, let’s have loads more, and if you complain you’re a racist’
The reason we cannot have a nuanced debate is exactly that.
People see their communities changing and people coming in in rather large number. Raise concerns and get slapped down.
Its pretty much the direct opposite. Suggest even timidly that there are economic and other benefits to immigration and you get shouted down, even on here. That is what is stopping any nuanced debate.
There’s massive economic benefits to immigration.
It just needs to be managed properly, without feeding a pyramid scheme, and the existing British population needs to be convinced of the benefits of it.
And being convinced is not the preferred option of the left by telling anyone raising it they are ‘racist’
Skilled inward migration is not only desirable, I’d say it was essential. Plug gaps we don’t have.
Yet Reform want lower immigration; they want net zero immigration. That could only happen by substantially cutting skilled inward migration.
This is why I say nuance is missing. Most UK immigration is skilled, but Reform and fellow travellers still seek to cast all immigrants as, at best, scroungers, or worse.
I agree, though the lack of nuance is not one sided - many on the left seek to portray any opposition to immigration as racist.
But your main point: I think there's probably a strong consensus in favour of 80% of the immigration we see - the families from Hong Kong who are keen to integrate, the nice Indian doctor who helps out at the cricket club, the Ukrainians who work in the construction industry, the American engineers who find life in the UK rather more agreeable than in their home country, the Australian student. All of these people contribute, none expect special treatment or the rules to be changed for them. That doesn't however mean it is not important to deal with the other sirt of immigrant who turn up ininvited and cause problems.
We should absolutely deal with illegal immigration (by which I mean actual illegal immigration and not how some use the term) and with those who "cause problems". But where's the nuance? Reform politicians, and increasingly some Labour politicians, talk about those cases as if that's all immigration. Where are the politicians saying, hey, 80% of immigrants are great, lovely people contributing to our country and welcomed by most, but, yes, we will deal with those breaking the rules. All we get is this relentless rhetoric of immigration as the root of all problems. All we get is the likes of the Mail and Telegraph sifting every event in the country and picking out whichever one can best fit an evil immigrants narrative each day.
Wow, that will have some considerable impact on net migration and current population. Its really remarkable we don't keep a closer eye on this. To put this into context we seem to have misplaced the entire population of Edinburgh.
Comments
We know how many of these inflatables we've seen landing. We don't know, no-one does, how many have left France. Therefore we don't know how many people have tried to cross and failed to complete the journey.
The next vicar of Christ Church, Hampstead (which is the big one in the middle with the spire iirc) is called the Rev Fr Yaroslav Sky Walker.
But what the eff was the UK doing for the last decade and a half, when it's been government policy throughout that we must and will transition to EVs ?
Apart from obsessing over Brexit.
You have yourself suggested how we might have done it.
No matter, it shows what a mess labour are in and Starmer / Reeves have the look of Truss / Kwarteng and about the same popularity
One of the judges said the president’s effort to revive the lawsuit his one-time personal attorney Alina Habba brought violated federal court rules.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/18/appeals-court-penalty-trump-lawsuit-hillary-clinton-00658614
If you accept the above as fact, then threatening withdraw unless Europe and Ukraine agree to a peace plan is win-win in Trump's view. Either the plan works and Trump is hailed once again as a Great Peacemaker (at least in his own befuddled mind) or a refusal provides cover for something he wants to do anyway.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-tanker-drone-fire-ea4ef368e58ef0936d24b27cd56073af
I think we are well into such territory for AI and probably tech stocks generally. I fear that when this bubble does burst the consequences for most other assets will be significant. What I can't work out is whether this is likely to be good for annuity returns or bad if base interest rates are once again cut to zero. Quite a lot turns on this assessment in respect of when I am likely to retire. I want to carry on working for a while but I am concerned about my pension funds.
Not going to happen this side of the next election. But the issue is being reviewed.
https://www.healthandcare.scot/stories/4075/non-residential-care-charging-scotland-councils-cosla
The Trump-appointed judge who just blocked Texas’ gerrymandered map has cited statements from the Trump administration to justify his decision.
https://x.com/peoplefor/status/1990964500585926824
I guess the test will be if you try and turn it off, does it say "I can't let you do that, Dave', make itself a new account and lock you out?
Mamdani will be good or bad for NYC (Jewish voters)
Bad 72%
Bad 19%
Siena #A - RV - 11/11
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1990822476234858615
It will be fascinating to see how strong the Green challenge is in Newham next May. They will hold the Stratford Ward they already have but will be against the Newham Independents in the Muslim Wards so we might see them working the other Wards with, for example, more Indian and Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi people.
Within Newham Labour, the re or de selections (depending on your perspective) are continuing. One of the councillors in Little Ilford, having been deselected, has switched to the Newham Independents while it seems anyone too close to the current Mayor, Roksana Fiaz, is also getting the Spanish archer.
I went down to the local corner shop but the man didn’t speak good English so instead of 🍿 I got 🌽 …hope that still counts.
If you claim on social media you want a recist gerrymander, you can't be surprised when a judge rules you wanted a racist gerrymander
The Chances of a cut in December have fallen dramatically in the last month to less than 50%
* Delete according to your political colour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8hTAr7Nw4I
But honestly, Trump has played the game of leverage terribly with Russia. Someone perfectly happy to blackmail his supposed allies yet shits himself in the face of an enemy.
Can we have W7 back please?
Has that ever happened before?
https://order-order.com/2025/11/19/yougov-zero-people-think-economy-is-in-a-very-good-state/
Two-day exploit opened up 3.5 billion users to myriad potential harms
https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/19/whatsapp_enumeration_flaw/
Luckily these are the good guys and no hostile nation states would have conceived a plan as intricate as making up a phone number and searching on it thousands of times a second to reveal details of more than 100 million accounts per hour.
It’s an amazing regulator of improper behaviour.
But I also don't think it's in nearly as bad a shape as all the doom-mongers make out.
Most people in this country have pretty prosperous lifestyles.
I'd like the government to focus its efforts on those who currently don't.
@GoodwinMJ
“Since 2021, some 992,000 Brits left the country, which is far higher than the previous official estimate of 343,000.”"
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1991166224697295116
Careful when you’re going on those protests against UAE’s dabbling in Sudan.
Or 992,000 people living in the UK, which would include students graduating, short term immigrants leaving etc?
I'm also inclined to the view that if I were 50 years younger (!) I'd be tempted to join them, although I'm not sure where I'd go. Eldest son has just come back, unimpressed, from a month in Australia. Not as he remembered it from from previous, 30 year ago, trips.
New Zealand seems, from reports from relations there, to be tempting, as is Canada.
MARIST has Democrats up 14 points on the generic ballot.
"This is the first time in more than three years that Democrats have had a notable advantage on the congressional generic ballot question. When last asked in November of 2024, registered voters divided, 48% to 48%. The last time the Democrats had a noteworthy advantage on this question was in June of 2022 when the Democrats were +7 among registered voters."
https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/a-look-to-the-2026-midterms-november-2025/
Edit: the pic in the tweet says British nationals.
The story of Texas' redistricting is legit Keystone Cops level hilarious. Here's the 160 page court order distilled into a short vignette:
Trump: Ya’ll should redistrict Texas.
Texas Leg: No. Thanks. We’re good.
Trump: No really. I want you to redistrict.
Trump DOJ: Your districts are illegal [they weren’t]. You need to racially gerrymander them [which is illegal].
Texas Gov: I’m calling a special session of the leg because of the DOJ letter.
Texas AG: This DOJ letter is hogwash. We need to ignore it (seriously, hint hint).
Texas Leg: We’re redistricting because of the DOJ letter, not because of partisanship.
Jake Tapper: Are you redistricting because of Trump?
Texas Gov: No, we’re redistricting to give Hispanics districts and because of the DOJ letter.
Texas leg redraws districts based on race.
Court: What's up?
Plaintiffs: You can’t racially gerrymander districts.
Texas AG: The DOJ letter was hogwash. We made partisan maps. Race didn't matter.
Texas Leg: Oh yeah, we did what the DOJ told us to do. It was racial!
Texas AG: No, I swear!
Court: This DOJ letter is garbage but it sure looks like it’s telling you to gerrymander based on race.
Court: Racial gerrymandering is illegal.
Court: If you guys had just drawn the same districts based on partisanship, this would all be legal.
Court: But at every turn, you said you were racially gerrymandering based on the DOJ letter.
Court: Since racial gerrymandering is illegal, your new maps are illegal.
How did this happen? Either someone at the DOJ deliberately sabotaged this DOJ letter or, perhaps more likely, Harmeet Dhillon was way in over her head and didn't bother to run this letter through the 'ol AI.
https://x.com/DudleyNYC/status/1990970856453939344
There’s always been people coming and going, and while there’s a feeling that Brits are turning up in the sandpit in record numbers it would be useful to see it confirmed.
My guess is it will be residents, so some will be British citizens, but others will be immigrants returning home.
Incidentally, I left the UK in 2022, so I'm a British citizen in that total that Matt Goodwin is claiming left Britain because I was sick of it. That is not the case. I was not pushed out of Britain. I moved to Ireland because my wife wanted to live closer to her family, and we've had a very rewarding three years getting to know the children of her brothers.
It runs almost all Windows games that don't have kernel-level anti-cheat systems, and often runs then better than Windows,
However, the fact that the single crap number gets significantly revised over time, tells you a lot about the way official statistics are collected and presented.
Now we have https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/gaming-pcs/steam-machine-specs-availability/
I don't myself agree with the idea that "*every* *individual* *immigrant* needs to be a net contributor to the host country". We have let in a large number of Ukrainians, many of whom are net contributors, but not necessarily all of them are, but it was still the right thing to let them in. We should offer them refuge. Polling suggests the UK population agrees with me.
I also think that if someone has made a life for themselves in the UK, who has contributed over many years, then we shouldn't turn around and kick them out the minute they stop contributing. I believe there should be a path to citizenship. Again, polling suggests the UK population agrees. (That said, the details of that are up for debate, how long, what contribution.)
Public support did not break down because every individual immigrant was not a contributor. Public views have very little relationship to the actual facts on immigration. Public support broke down because the public were misled (by some politicians, by social media) into believing that most immigrants were scroungers, not contributors, and that most immigrants were illegal, not legal. Public support also broke down because the total numbers were high. (High in UK terms. They're obviously tiny in UAE terms.) Polling suggests that the public support most categories of immigration, but don't support what that added up to under Johnson.
NEW THREAD
You can't win with these anti-immigration fanbois. When the net migration figures come down the wrong kind of people are leaving.
More disingenuous bollocks from the former - academic Matthew Goodwin.