Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
The mistake people make, is thinking that the ‘mini-budget’ was the cause of the bond spike, rather than the massive energy bill subsidies announced a couple of days previously.
Which was awful politics, as the Tories got zero credit for even having had the idea.
They got zero credit because they didn't have the idea.
LDs came up with it. Cons and Labour said it was silly. Then Labour switched and Cons said it was silly. Then Rishi switched and Truss said it was silly. The Cons agreed more with Truss. Then Truss became responsible for doing something and couldn't think of anything better.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Why would Restore even dream of helping Reform here?
They wouldn't. Be a cold day in hell before Lowe helps Reform. However, I do think there will be more than a few Restore supporters who will be secretly praying that Reform don't lose as a direct result of the Restore vote.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
Dysons a tax dodging landlord as well as an amazing inventor. Not a national treasure.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
'millions must go' is a clear sign of how far politics has come along in the last 10 years, or even 5 years - even if is a position only held by Restore voters, that it is on the table signals what a different environment we are in.
David Cameron promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and people repeatedly voted for restrictions on immigration, but instead the government invited millions more into the country. It seems hard to argue that wanting to reverse that shouldn't be a democratically legitimate opinion.
Immigration or net immigration? You can achieve the latter by shifting a lot of the domestic population (pensioners) to Spain - where they have a better climate (very net zero) and a good medical service (saves the NHS)
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
'millions must go' is a clear sign of how far politics has come along in the last 10 years, or even 5 years - even if is a position only held by Restore voters, that it is on the table signals what a different environment we are in.
David Cameron promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and people repeatedly voted for restrictions on immigration, but instead the government invited millions more into the country. It seems hard to argue that wanting to reverse that shouldn't be a democratically legitimate opinion.
Immigration or net immigration? You can achieve the latter by shifting a lot of the domestic population (pensioners) to Spain - where they have a better climate (very net zero) and a good medical service (saves the NHS)
It doesn't save the NHS - we pay for the health services in Spain that British pensioners use and we always have.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
My dad still holds his own at 92. It's not all wisdom but there certainly is some.
Well done your dad.
My dad was very wise too - he rarely talked to my stepmother. I wish he'd been a more confident man in his views. I don't doubt that they'd have been wise, but there it is.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
Put next to our current crop of leaders, my six year old speaks some sense. Will that do?
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
'millions must go' is a clear sign of how far politics has come along in the last 10 years, or even 5 years - even if is a position only held by Restore voters, that it is on the table signals what a different environment we are in.
David Cameron promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and people repeatedly voted for restrictions on immigration, but instead the government invited millions more into the country. It seems hard to argue that wanting to reverse that shouldn't be a democratically legitimate opinion.
Immigration or net immigration? You can achieve the latter by shifting a lot of the domestic population (pensioners) to Spain - where they have a better climate (very net zero) and a good medical service (saves the NHS)
It doesn't save the NHS - we pay for the health services in Spain that British pensioners use and we always have.
Reduces the waiting lists somewhat and the bed blocking though.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Several people I have heard speak in the last few years:
- Richard Dannett - gave a talk just after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, predicted a long drawn-out stalemate, pretty accurate. - Robert Winston - general common sense on fertility and gender etc. - Derek Jacobi - he put his success down in large part to luck - I'm sure there's more to it than that judging by the way he can still deliver some of Shakespeare's great speeches at 88.
(I don't know any of these people, have just heard them give public talks.)
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
Dysons a tax dodging landlord as well as an amazing inventor. Not a national treasure.
Sure. I was wondering about 'old wise men' (and for the avoidance of doubt I don't care if the 'men' are aliens or even women). And perhaps he does count as such.
No doubt of course in past times people like Ed Milliband would have been seen as elder statesman-like. Thank god those times have passed.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
There are quite a few candidates for national treasure as well as DA.
How about:
Judi Dench Stephen Fry Joanna Lumley Helen Mirren Michael Palin Paul McCartney Mary Berry Bob Mortimer
Who would make the best PM? I vote for Bob Mortimer.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
'millions must go' is a clear sign of how far politics has come along in the last 10 years, or even 5 years - even if is a position only held by Restore voters, that it is on the table signals what a different environment we are in.
David Cameron promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and people repeatedly voted for restrictions on immigration, but instead the government invited millions more into the country. It seems hard to argue that wanting to reverse that shouldn't be a democratically legitimate opinion.
Immigration or net immigration? You can achieve the latter by shifting a lot of the domestic population (pensioners) to Spain - where they have a better climate (very net zero) and a good medical service (saves the NHS)
It doesn't save the NHS - we pay for the health services in Spain that British pensioners use and we always have.
Reduces the waiting lists somewhat and the bed blocking though.
Given that the money would otherwise be spent on domestic health and social care, you'd think not really.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
'millions must go' is a clear sign of how far politics has come along in the last 10 years, or even 5 years - even if is a position only held by Restore voters, that it is on the table signals what a different environment we are in.
David Cameron promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and people repeatedly voted for restrictions on immigration, but instead the government invited millions more into the country. It seems hard to argue that wanting to reverse that shouldn't be a democratically legitimate opinion.
Immigration or net immigration? You can achieve the latter by shifting a lot of the domestic population (pensioners) to Spain - where they have a better climate (very net zero) and a good medical service (saves the NHS)
It doesn't save the NHS - we pay for the health services in Spain that British pensioners use and we always have.
But what about the policy of sending our pensioners to Spain or even Morocco? I know Rwanda has a poor rap, but it is safe.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
Dysons a tax dodging landlord as well as an amazing inventor. Not a national treasure.
Sure. I was wondering about 'old wise men' (and for the avoidance of doubt I don't care if the 'men' are aliens or even women). And perhaps he does count as such.
No doubt of course in past times people like Ed Milliband would have been seen as elder statesman-like. Thank god those times have passed.
Personally I don't find the likes of Dyson or Musk wise. Amazing in many ways, but wise implies an all round general sense of life that they simply don't have, but Attenborough and Lewis do have.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Several people I have heard speak in the last few years:
- Richard Dannett - gave a talk just after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, predicted a long drawn-out stalemate, pretty accurate. - Robert Winston - general common sense on fertility and gender etc. - Derek Jacobi - he put his success down in large part to luck - I'm sure there's more to it than that judging by the way he can still deliver some of Shakespeare's great speeches at 88.
(I don't know any of these people, have just heard them give public talks.)
Good examples. I have slight reservations about all three, but only slight. And of course in times past the average man may well have had reservations about all sorts of historical greats, and that has been mostly forgotten.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
There are quite a few candidates for national treasure as well as DA.
How about:
Judi Dench Stephen Fry Joanna Lumley Helen Mirren Michael Palin Paul McCartney Mary Berry Bob Mortimer
Who would make the best PM? I vote for Bob Mortimer.
Point of order, these are National Treasures surely? Different, if overlapping, category
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
The mistake people make, is thinking that the ‘mini-budget’ was the cause of the bond spike, rather than the massive energy bill subsidies announced a couple of days previously.
Which was awful politics, as the Tories got zero credit for even having had the idea.
They got zero credit because they didn't have the idea.
LDs came up with it. Cons and Labour said it was silly. Then Labour switched and Cons said it was silly. Then Rishi switched and Truss said it was silly. The Cons agreed more with Truss. Then Truss became responsible for doing something and couldn't think of anything better.
... and it was silly.
... and caused the bond spikes.
Irony is Truss is forever tarnished for being remembered as causing the spikes, which were caused by implementing the policy she was last to support and right in opposing.
Had she stuck to her guns, she would have been unpopular but the bond shenanigans would never have happened.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
There are quite a few candidates for national treasure as well as DA.
How about:
Judi Dench Stephen Fry Joanna Lumley Helen Mirren Michael Palin Paul McCartney Mary Berry Bob Mortimer
Who would make the best PM? I vote for Bob Mortimer.
Point of order, these are National Treasures surely? Different, if overlapping, category
Point taken. Are any of them wise? I know they are not all men.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
My dad still holds his own at 92. It's not all wisdom but there certainly is some.
Well done your dad.
My dad was very wise too - he rarely talked to my stepmother. I wish he'd been a more confident man in his views. I don't doubt that they'd have been wise, but there it is.
Not a problem with mine - confidence in his views. A touch less would have been welcome at times.
Recent experience. I was in our local pub the other day, chatting with a friend, a chap with vaguely similar political views to myself, although he's a lot more committed to Labour, when someone younger, whom we both know joined us. A mutual acquaintance had just died, to whom the younger chap was quite close, so we gave him our condolences, and asked how the widow was doing. So far, so good. My friend bought the young man a drink and he joined us. I can't recall how the subject came up, but we were then told that Islamification was a real problem, there were areas of Britain under Sharia law etc etc. We asked for examples, and told that it was happening in London, although the chap didn't know where, and was 'starting to happen' in Colchester, our nearest large town. I then had to leave; my evening meal would be ready, and my friend rang me later to tell me that our young friend had continued his unsupported assertions, and someone else had joined in to support him. Reform won a recent Council by-election in this ward but I've never before personally seen such evidence of their presence.
I see Restore had 1000 activists in Makerfield today - I'm not quite sure what having 1000 activists achieves, the videos I've seen show most of them standing round chatting in a park.
Labour have worked this seat properly and will, I suspect, get the needed result and Reform will learn some lessons how to campaign in seats when facing determined opponents.
As for Restore, you only have to look at the Yarmouth results on Norfolk County Council in May to see the potential for such a party - they annihilated Labour and the Conservatives completely and utterly.
There is clearly a constituency for the nonsense Rupert Lowe is peddling - Nigel Farage may be anti-immigrant but he's no ethno-nationalist. The economic and social consequences of the implementation of Lowe's ethno-nationalism would be catastrophic - in my part of the world, I imagine half to two thirds of the population would be deported.
Unfortunately, I fear there is a significant minority in the population who, while they wouldn't say it openly, would support wholesale mass deportation of the non-white population.
IF we tried to implement such a policy, we would be the Gilead de nos jours but the mood currently is so set against "immigrants", the debate has moved on from boats via remigration to mass deportation of British citizens - presumably once a Restore Government has passed its own version of the Nuremburg Laws and redefined what being "British" means - there seems no ability or willingness to defend or support even a limited points-based immigration system which was where I thought we were going after we voted to leave the EU.
I see Restore had 1000 activists in Makerfield today - I'm not quite sure what having 1000 activists achieves, the videos I've seen show most of them standing round chatting in a park.
Labour have worked this seat properly and will, I suspect, get the needed result and Reform will learn some lessons how to campaign in seats when facing determined opponents.
As for Restore, you only have to look at the Yarmouth results on Norfolk County Council in May to see the potential for such a party - they annihilated Labour and the Conservatives completely and utterly.
There is clearly a constituency for the nonsense Rupert Lowe is peddling - Nigel Farage may be anti-immigrant but he's no ethno-nationalist. The economic and social consequences of the implementation of Lowe's ethno-nationalism would be catastrophic - in my part of the world, I imagine half to two thirds of the population would be deported.
Unfortunately, I fear there is a significant minority in the population who, while they wouldn't say it openly, would support wholesale mass deportation of the non-white population.
IF we tried to implement such a policy, we would be the Gilead de nos jours but the mood currently is so set against "immigrants", the debate has moved on from boats via remigration to mass deportation of British citizens - presumably once a Restore Government has passed its own version of the Nuremburg Laws and redefined what being "British" means - there seems no ability or willingness to defend or support even a limited points-based immigration system which was where I thought we were going after we voted to leave the EU.
The debate has moved to mass deporatation for a tiny, vocal minority who would otherwise be voting BNP. I am no fan of Farage but if the balance of opinion on the Right is anywhere it is somewhere between he and Badenoch. Lowe is an outlier and one that is, in the end, going to garner very little support.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
Dysons a tax dodging landlord as well as an amazing inventor. Not a national treasure.
Sure. I was wondering about 'old wise men' (and for the avoidance of doubt I don't care if the 'men' are aliens or even women). And perhaps he does count as such.
No doubt of course in past times people like Ed Milliband would have been seen as elder statesman-like. Thank god those times have passed.
Personally I don't find the likes of Dyson or Musk wise. Amazing in many ways, but wise implies an all round general sense of life that they simply don't have, but Attenborough and Lewis do have.
The important thing about Musk, he's a horrible human being. In the bottom one percent. This matters much more for Musk than for almost anyone else as his egregious wealth and power allows him to impose his horribleness on the rest of us more than other horrible human beings are capable of.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
There are quite a few candidates for national treasure as well as DA.
How about:
Judi Dench Stephen Fry Joanna Lumley Helen Mirren Michael Palin Paul McCartney Mary Berry Bob Mortimer
Who would make the best PM? I vote for Bob Mortimer.
Point of order, these are National Treasures surely? Different, if overlapping, category
There's one name on that list that has no tight to be there.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
There are quite a few candidates for national treasure as well as DA.
How about:
Judi Dench Stephen Fry Joanna Lumley Helen Mirren Michael Palin Paul McCartney Mary Berry Bob Mortimer
Who would make the best PM? I vote for Bob Mortimer.
Point of order, these are National Treasures surely? Different, if overlapping, category
What we're looking for is a Council of the Wise- a collective of people who we could submit questions to and implicitly trust whatever answer they give us.
Obviously David Attenborough is on the list, but who else should be? I suspect that our gotcha media culture makes it hard for people to stay on the membership path for long enough to qualify. And maybe the really wise people are the ones who stay far enough under the radar to avoid ever being invited.
I see Restore had 1000 activists in Makerfield today - I'm not quite sure what having 1000 activists achieves, the videos I've seen show most of them standing round chatting in a park.
Labour have worked this seat properly and will, I suspect, get the needed result and Reform will learn some lessons how to campaign in seats when facing determined opponents.
As for Restore, you only have to look at the Yarmouth results on Norfolk County Council in May to see the potential for such a party - they annihilated Labour and the Conservatives completely and utterly.
There is clearly a constituency for the nonsense Rupert Lowe is peddling - Nigel Farage may be anti-immigrant but he's no ethno-nationalist. The economic and social consequences of the implementation of Lowe's ethno-nationalism would be catastrophic - in my part of the world, I imagine half to two thirds of the population would be deported.
Unfortunately, I fear there is a significant minority in the population who, while they wouldn't say it openly, would support wholesale mass deportation of the non-white population.
IF we tried to implement such a policy, we would be the Gilead de nos jours but the mood currently is so set against "immigrants", the debate has moved on from boats via remigration to mass deportation of British citizens - presumably once a Restore Government has passed its own version of the Nuremburg Laws and redefined what being "British" means - there seems no ability or willingness to defend or support even a limited points-based immigration system which was where I thought we were going after we voted to leave the EU.
The debate has moved to mass deporatation for a tiny, vocal minority who would otherwise be voting BNP. I am no fan of Farage but if the balance of opinion on the Right is anywhere it is somewhere between he and Badenoch. Lowe is an outlier and one that is, in the end, going to garner very little support.
I really hope you are right, my friend. The Yarmouth results do make me wonder how strong the message might be and how much it might resonate.
I do agree on "the Right", the line seems to be more about dealing with those here illegally and preventing further unauthorised arrivals while tightening the rules on who can come in and for how long. Such a broad view is probably sensible enough though I'm still to be convinced how getting rid of for example via over-stayers is going to be accomplished without considerable cost and bureaucracy.
It remains to be seen how much "the boats" will dominate the summer political discourse - scenes of dinghies coming ashore at Eastbourne, Brighton and elsewhere don't look good.
The Devil is, as ever, in the detail and I do think both the Conservatives and Reform have plenty of thinking to do to come up with an effective cost-beneficial solution.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
There are quite a few candidates for national treasure as well as DA.
How about:
Judi Dench Stephen Fry Joanna Lumley Helen Mirren Michael Palin Paul McCartney Mary Berry Bob Mortimer
Who would make the best PM? I vote for Bob Mortimer.
Point of order, these are National Treasures surely? Different, if overlapping, category
Point taken. Are any of them wise? I know they are not all men.
Of all of them I have often thought Stephen Fry is the natural successor in the Wide Old Men stakes. He always seems to me to have the ability to find the middle ground in most things and, even where he is most strident - such as on the subject of religion - he lacks the strident offensiveness that prevents the seeking of mutual ground. He is almost unfailingly polite even when telling you you are utterly wrong.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
Oh agreed. I would like to see us do far more targeted support for Ukraine but we should also be spending far more on our own defence.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
There are quite a few candidates for national treasure as well as DA.
How about:
Judi Dench Stephen Fry Joanna Lumley Helen Mirren Michael Palin Paul McCartney Mary Berry Bob Mortimer
Who would make the best PM? I vote for Bob Mortimer.
Point of order, these are National Treasures surely? Different, if overlapping, category
What we're looking for is a Council of the Wise- a collective of people who we could submit questions to and implicitly trust whatever answer they give us.
Obviously David Attenborough is on the list, but who else should be? I suspect that our gotcha media culture makes it hard for people to stay on the membership path for long enough to qualify. And maybe the really wise people are the ones who stay far enough under the radar to avoid ever being invited.
All of these points are copyright from my previous posts - it'll be a big bill!
The oddness is that there simply no candidates. (Very reassuring that the obvious celebrity clownshow wasn't suggested)
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
'millions must go' is a clear sign of how far politics has come along in the last 10 years, or even 5 years - even if is a position only held by Restore voters, that it is on the table signals what a different environment we are in.
David Cameron promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and people repeatedly voted for restrictions on immigration, but instead the government invited millions more into the country. It seems hard to argue that wanting to reverse that shouldn't be a democratically legitimate opinion.
Should the trend of the last 2 years continue much longer, Cameron's target of reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands will be met by the end of 2026.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
'millions must go' is a clear sign of how far politics has come along in the last 10 years, or even 5 years - even if is a position only held by Restore voters, that it is on the table signals what a different environment we are in.
David Cameron promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and people repeatedly voted for restrictions on immigration, but instead the government invited millions more into the country. It seems hard to argue that wanting to reverse that shouldn't be a democratically legitimate opinion.
Should the trend of the last 2 years continue much longer, Cameron's target of reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands will be met by the end of 2026.
And we may well find it was a very silly idea in the first place.
I see Restore had 1000 activists in Makerfield today - I'm not quite sure what having 1000 activists achieves, the videos I've seen show most of them standing round chatting in a park.
Labour have worked this seat properly and will, I suspect, get the needed result and Reform will learn some lessons how to campaign in seats when facing determined opponents.
As for Restore, you only have to look at the Yarmouth results on Norfolk County Council in May to see the potential for such a party - they annihilated Labour and the Conservatives completely and utterly.
There is clearly a constituency for the nonsense Rupert Lowe is peddling - Nigel Farage may be anti-immigrant but he's no ethno-nationalist. The economic and social consequences of the implementation of Lowe's ethno-nationalism would be catastrophic - in my part of the world, I imagine half to two thirds of the population would be deported.
Unfortunately, I fear there is a significant minority in the population who, while they wouldn't say it openly, would support wholesale mass deportation of the non-white population.
IF we tried to implement such a policy, we would be the Gilead de nos jours but the mood currently is so set against "immigrants", the debate has moved on from boats via remigration to mass deportation of British citizens - presumably once a Restore Government has passed its own version of the Nuremburg Laws and redefined what being "British" means - there seems no ability or willingness to defend or support even a limited points-based immigration system which was where I thought we were going after we voted to leave the EU.
The debate has moved to mass deporatation for a tiny, vocal minority who would otherwise be voting BNP. I am no fan of Farage but if the balance of opinion on the Right is anywhere it is somewhere between he and Badenoch. Lowe is an outlier and one that is, in the end, going to garner very little support.
SNIP
I do agree on "the Right", the line seems to be more about dealing with those here illegally and preventing further unauthorised arrivals while tightening the rules on who can come in and for how long.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
There are quite a few candidates for national treasure as well as DA.
How about:
Judi Dench Stephen Fry Joanna Lumley Helen Mirren Michael Palin Paul McCartney Mary Berry Bob Mortimer
Who would make the best PM? I vote for Bob Mortimer.
Best PM and not even on the National Treasure List:
I see Restore had 1000 activists in Makerfield today - I'm not quite sure what having 1000 activists achieves, the videos I've seen show most of them standing round chatting in a park.
Labour have worked this seat properly and will, I suspect, get the needed result and Reform will learn some lessons how to campaign in seats when facing determined opponents.
As for Restore, you only have to look at the Yarmouth results on Norfolk County Council in May to see the potential for such a party - they annihilated Labour and the Conservatives completely and utterly.
There is clearly a constituency for the nonsense Rupert Lowe is peddling - Nigel Farage may be anti-immigrant but he's no ethno-nationalist. The economic and social consequences of the implementation of Lowe's ethno-nationalism would be catastrophic - in my part of the world, I imagine half to two thirds of the population would be deported.
Unfortunately, I fear there is a significant minority in the population who, while they wouldn't say it openly, would support wholesale mass deportation of the non-white population.
IF we tried to implement such a policy, we would be the Gilead de nos jours but the mood currently is so set against "immigrants", the debate has moved on from boats via remigration to mass deportation of British citizens - presumably once a Restore Government has passed its own version of the Nuremburg Laws and redefined what being "British" means - there seems no ability or willingness to defend or support even a limited points-based immigration system which was where I thought we were going after we voted to leave the EU.
I agree with much of what you say, where we possibly disagree is that we can go on with the status quo. Britain is circling the plughole, the social contract is breaking down (if not broken) and the state seems to dislike most of us. We must really hope that Reform (in my view with the Tories) succeeds. Otherwise (as Leon is so fond of saying) the alternative looks uglier.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Several people I have heard speak in the last few years:
- Richard Dannett - gave a talk just after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, predicted a long drawn-out stalemate, pretty accurate. - Robert Winston - general common sense on fertility and gender etc. - Derek Jacobi - he put his success down in large part to luck - I'm sure there's more to it than that judging by the way he can still deliver some of Shakespeare's great speeches at 88.
(I don't know any of these people, have just heard them give public talks.)
Good examples. I have slight reservations about all three, but only slight. And of course in times past the average man may well have had reservations about all sorts of historical greats, and that has been mostly forgotten.
I have reservations about David Attenborough - mainly that I don't like his voice - but I keep them to myself for fear of being lynched.
I see Restore had 1000 activists in Makerfield today - I'm not quite sure what having 1000 activists achieves, the videos I've seen show most of them standing round chatting in a park.
Labour have worked this seat properly and will, I suspect, get the needed result and Reform will learn some lessons how to campaign in seats when facing determined opponents.
As for Restore, you only have to look at the Yarmouth results on Norfolk County Council in May to see the potential for such a party - they annihilated Labour and the Conservatives completely and utterly.
There is clearly a constituency for the nonsense Rupert Lowe is peddling - Nigel Farage may be anti-immigrant but he's no ethno-nationalist. The economic and social consequences of the implementation of Lowe's ethno-nationalism would be catastrophic - in my part of the world, I imagine half to two thirds of the population would be deported.
Unfortunately, I fear there is a significant minority in the population who, while they wouldn't say it openly, would support wholesale mass deportation of the non-white population.
IF we tried to implement such a policy, we would be the Gilead de nos jours but the mood currently is so set against "immigrants", the debate has moved on from boats via remigration to mass deportation of British citizens - presumably once a Restore Government has passed its own version of the Nuremburg Laws and redefined what being "British" means - there seems no ability or willingness to defend or support even a limited points-based immigration system which was where I thought we were going after we voted to leave the EU.
I don't fear mass deportations but I do fear the civil war that would result from any efforts in that direction.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
'millions must go' is a clear sign of how far politics has come along in the last 10 years, or even 5 years - even if is a position only held by Restore voters, that it is on the table signals what a different environment we are in.
David Cameron promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and people repeatedly voted for restrictions on immigration, but instead the government invited millions more into the country. It seems hard to argue that wanting to reverse that shouldn't be a democratically legitimate opinion.
Should the trend of the last 2 years continue much longer, Cameron's target of reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands will be met by the end of 2026.
A lot of that is just boriswavers going home. When 1000000 people come in one year, you can expect maybe 400000(?) of them to leave some time in the following five years.
Net migration might be the headline figure, but it's not the whole story.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
National Treasures
Dr Alice Roberts
Robert Plant
John Craven
Jules Holland
Twiggy
David Blunkett
Whispering Bob Harris
Gary Lineker
Lenny Henry
Tom Jones
Mo Farrah
Martin Brundle
Take Tom Jones off the list and you'd be the perfect contraindicator.
I see Restore had 1000 activists in Makerfield today - I'm not quite sure what having 1000 activists achieves, the videos I've seen show most of them standing round chatting in a park.
Labour have worked this seat properly and will, I suspect, get the needed result and Reform will learn some lessons how to campaign in seats when facing determined opponents.
As for Restore, you only have to look at the Yarmouth results on Norfolk County Council in May to see the potential for such a party - they annihilated Labour and the Conservatives completely and utterly.
There is clearly a constituency for the nonsense Rupert Lowe is peddling - Nigel Farage may be anti-immigrant but he's no ethno-nationalist. The economic and social consequences of the implementation of Lowe's ethno-nationalism would be catastrophic - in my part of the world, I imagine half to two thirds of the population would be deported.
Unfortunately, I fear there is a significant minority in the population who, while they wouldn't say it openly, would support wholesale mass deportation of the non-white population.
IF we tried to implement such a policy, we would be the Gilead de nos jours but the mood currently is so set against "immigrants", the debate has moved on from boats via remigration to mass deportation of British citizens - presumably once a Restore Government has passed its own version of the Nuremburg Laws and redefined what being "British" means - there seems no ability or willingness to defend or support even a limited points-based immigration system which was where I thought we were going after we voted to leave the EU.
I don't fear mass deportations but I do fear the civil war that would result from any efforts in that direction.
The current government is conducting ICE-style raids on delivery warehouses without any sign that it's leading to civil war.
I see Restore had 1000 activists in Makerfield today - I'm not quite sure what having 1000 activists achieves, the videos I've seen show most of them standing round chatting in a park.
Labour have worked this seat properly and will, I suspect, get the needed result and Reform will learn some lessons how to campaign in seats when facing determined opponents.
As for Restore, you only have to look at the Yarmouth results on Norfolk County Council in May to see the potential for such a party - they annihilated Labour and the Conservatives completely and utterly.
There is clearly a constituency for the nonsense Rupert Lowe is peddling - Nigel Farage may be anti-immigrant but he's no ethno-nationalist. The economic and social consequences of the implementation of Lowe's ethno-nationalism would be catastrophic - in my part of the world, I imagine half to two thirds of the population would be deported.
Unfortunately, I fear there is a significant minority in the population who, while they wouldn't say it openly, would support wholesale mass deportation of the non-white population.
IF we tried to implement such a policy, we would be the Gilead de nos jours but the mood currently is so set against "immigrants", the debate has moved on from boats via remigration to mass deportation of British citizens - presumably once a Restore Government has passed its own version of the Nuremburg Laws and redefined what being "British" means - there seems no ability or willingness to defend or support even a limited points-based immigration system which was where I thought we were going after we voted to leave the EU.
The debate has moved to mass deporatation for a tiny, vocal minority who would otherwise be voting BNP. I am no fan of Farage but if the balance of opinion on the Right is anywhere it is somewhere between he and Badenoch. Lowe is an outlier and one that is, in the end, going to garner very little support.
SNIP
I do agree on "the Right", the line seems to be more about dealing with those here illegally and preventing further unauthorised arrivals while tightening the rules on who can come in and for how long.
SNIP
.
That's a description of Labour policy.
I think for many the problem with that is twofold.
1. It is the stated policy of the leadership and doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the majority of the party either inside or outside Parliament 2. For all it may be policy, they don't seem to be doing much to actually make it reality.
Now personally I persist in my, perhaps foolish, belief that immigration is both good and necessary for this country in the medium to long term. All the more so if you consider the only logical alternative is forcing women to have children against their will. There are many things I would do to address the fears and issues that many have with immigration but actually cutting back is not one of them.
But no party is going to listen to me in the current climate (as if they ever would under any circumstances) and Labour have to understand that if they want to play in that particular paddling pool with the juveniles on the Right then they are going to have to start looking like they actually believe what they are saying.
Just realised that there is a G7 meeting this week in Evian and the US has the chair. Big week for global politics and US politics (there's a Fed meeting with the new Trump appointed Fed Chair). The Iran war may be history. It may be that our local bun fight my not even be covered by the media.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
There are quite a few candidates for national treasure as well as DA.
How about:
Judi Dench Stephen Fry Joanna Lumley Helen Mirren Michael Palin Paul McCartney Mary Berry Bob Mortimer
Who would make the best PM? I vote for Bob Mortimer.
Point of order, these are National Treasures surely? Different, if overlapping, category
Point taken. Are any of them wise? I know they are not all men.
Of all of them I have often thought Stephen Fry is the natural successor in the Wide Old Men stakes. He always seems to me to have the ability to find the middle ground in most things and, even where he is most strident - such as on the subject of religion - he lacks the strident offensiveness that prevents the seeking of mutual ground. He is almost unfailingly polite even when telling you you are utterly wrong.
I've always found Fry pretty foolish. And in general, I think the closer you get to any 'treasures' the more disillusioned you'll get. I've heard Judi Dench can be absolutely vile IRL.
We shouldn't idolise humans. Not because it angers God, but because humans can't ever live up to being idolised. We're just people.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
There are quite a few candidates for national treasure as well as DA.
How about:
Judi Dench Stephen Fry Joanna Lumley Helen Mirren Michael Palin Paul McCartney Mary Berry Bob Mortimer
Who would make the best PM? I vote for Bob Mortimer.
Best PM and not even on the National Treasure List:
Brian Blessed.
(Oh, and I think Macca is a bit of a knob.)
He would be very good at periodically telling us whether former PM Gordon Brown is dead or not.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
Oh agreed. I would like to see us do far more targeted support for Ukraine but we should also be spending far more on our own defence.
Although Ukraine is our own defence in that it's the frontline war on the eastern border of our continent against the greatest (probably only) serious military threat to it.
Just realised that there is a G7 meeting this week in Evian and the US has the chair. Big week for global politics and US politics (there's a Fed meeting with the new Trump appointed Fed Chair). The Iran war may be history. It may be that our local bun fight my not even be covered by the media.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
National Treasures
Dr Alice Roberts
Robert Plant
John Craven
Jules Holland
Twiggy
David Blunkett
Whispering Bob Harris
Gary Lineker
Lenny Henry
Tom Jones
Mo Farrah
Martin Brundle
John Craven is a good spot- though consistent with the "it was easier to accumulate sufficient trust in the old days" theory. Lineker probably ought to qualify, but clearly doesn't. Maybe Gareth Southgate? I also wonder if Jeremy Clarkson is wiser than his public persona suggests.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Several people I have heard speak in the last few years:
- Richard Dannett - gave a talk just after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, predicted a long drawn-out stalemate, pretty accurate. - Robert Winston - general common sense on fertility and gender etc. - Derek Jacobi - he put his success down in large part to luck - I'm sure there's more to it than that judging by the way he can still deliver some of Shakespeare's great speeches at 88.
(I don't know any of these people, have just heard them give public talks.)
Good examples. I have slight reservations about all three, but only slight. And of course in times past the average man may well have had reservations about all sorts of historical greats, and that has been mostly forgotten.
I have reservations about David Attenborough - mainly that I don't like his voice - but I keep them to myself for fear of being lynched.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
National Treasures
Dr Alice Roberts
Robert Plant
John Craven
Jules Holland
Twiggy
David Blunkett
Whispering Bob Harris
Gary Lineker
Lenny Henry
Tom Jones
Mo Farrah
Martin Brundle
So the original thought was to find the current 'wise men', rather than the more arty 'National Treasures' idea.
Alice Roberts may well make the first list. I quite like Blunkett too, but personally feel he's not great.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Why would Restore even dream of helping Reform here?
Lowe is not a man to cross
Farage is in his crosshairs
It will be a fight to the political death.
Lowe is not a stupid man, he may be misguided but not stupid. He will pick fights he can win, quality over quantity.
The Tories in trying to mimic Reform on immigration and nationalism and Restore on economic policy face utter oblivion.
The only route the Tories have back to relevance initially and power in at least a decade is One Nation Christian Democratic Caring conservatism with a small c.
A Party that could attract centre soft right, centre soft left and sensible pro nationalists looking to protect the Union, not adverse to ties with Europe
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
National Treasures
Dr Alice Roberts
Robert Plant
John Craven
Jules Holland
Twiggy
David Blunkett
Whispering Bob Harris
Gary Lineker
Lenny Henry
Tom Jones
Mo Farrah
Martin Brundle
Take Tom Jones off the list and you'd be the perfect contraindicator.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
Oh agreed. I would like to see us do far more targeted support for Ukraine but we should also be spending far more on our own defence.
Although Ukraine is our own defence in that it's the frontline war on the eastern border of our continent against the greatest (probably only) serious military threat to it.
You are naïve if you think that Russia is the only serious military threat. Its probably not even the greatest, its just currently the most active.
The greater threat is China. Thank goodness they're not currently invading anywhere on Europe or Taiwan, but were they to choose to do so the consequences would make Russia's invasion of Ukraine look like but a minor skirmish.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Why would Restore even dream of helping Reform here?
Lowe is not a man to cross
Farage is in his crosshairs
It will be a fight to the political death.
Lowe is not a stupid man, he may be misguided but not stupid. He will pick fights he can win, quality over quantity.
The Tories in trying to mimic Reform on immigration and nationalism and Restore on economic policy face utter oblivion.
The only route the Tories have back to relevance initially and power in at least a decade is One Nation Christian Democratic Caring conservatism with a small c.
A Party that could attract centre soft right, centre soft left and sensible pro nationalists looking to protect the Union, not adverse to ties with Europe
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
National Treasures
Dr Alice Roberts
Robert Plant
John Craven
Jules Holland
Twiggy
David Blunkett
Whispering Bob Harris
Gary Lineker
Lenny Henry
Tom Jones
Mo Farrah
Martin Brundle
John Craven is a good spot- though consistent with the "it was easier to accumulate sufficient trust in the old days" theory. Lineker probably ought to qualify, but clearly doesn't. Maybe Gareth Southgate? I also wonder if Jeremy Clarkson is wiser than his public persona suggests.
Jeremy Clarkson is cleverer than his public persona, but he's willfully done immense damage with his public persona for the sake of enriching himself. That marks him out as deeply immoral and not one to be trusted on any subject, unless you could be assured of his complete disinterest. I wouldn't describe that as wisdom.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Why would Restore even dream of helping Reform here?
Lowe is not a man to cross
Farage is in his crosshairs
It will be a fight to the political death.
Lowe is not a stupid man, he may be misguided but not stupid. He will pick fights he can win, quality over quantity.
The Tories in trying to mimic Reform on immigration and nationalism and Restore on economic policy face utter oblivion.
The only route the Tories have back to relevance initially and power in at least a decade is One Nation Christian Democratic Caring conservatism with a small c.
A Party that could attract centre soft right, centre soft left and sensible pro nationalists looking to protect the Union, not adverse to ties with Europe
The Party of Major, Cameron, Hunt.
Loon.
Whether he is right or not, it certainly 'aint happening under Kemi and she is there now until 2028/9 GE.
Indeed, she seems to be saying that any Tory that opposes her plans to leave ECHR cannot be a candidate.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
Oh agreed. I would like to see us do far more targeted support for Ukraine but we should also be spending far more on our own defence.
Although Ukraine is our own defence in that it's the frontline war on the eastern border of our continent against the greatest (probably only) serious military threat to it.
Absolutely.
The best value for money in our defence budget in both people and treasure is to support Ukraine. Also to learn from them, particularly in terms of both battlefield drones and longer range, also drone defence. This was part of how we defeated Napoleon, by funding the Austrians and Prussians in their fight.
Our only real threat is from Russia. China and the Middle East are simply too far away for anything more than token forces.
So how does Rusdsia threaten us? By cyberwar and interfering in our politics (Nathan Gill was not alone I suspect), by threatening our undersea cables, by submarine.
The idea that Russia is a land threat to our own islands is risible, but we may want to fight alongside our european neighbours. Against missiles and nukes there is limited defence short of our own "Iron Dome", and that realistically cannot cover thr whole country.
So we need a cyber-corps, a drone-corps, anti-submarine and mine capability, land based aircraft (including airborne early warning and air-air refueling) and an army expeditionary capability integrated into European NATO forces. Anything else is most likely a white elephant, including the carriers.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Why would Restore even dream of helping Reform here?
Lowe is not a man to cross
Farage is in his crosshairs
It will be a fight to the political death.
Lowe is not a stupid man, he may be misguided but not stupid. He will pick fights he can win, quality over quantity.
The Tories in trying to mimic Reform on immigration and nationalism and Restore on economic policy face utter oblivion.
The only route the Tories have back to relevance initially and power in at least a decade is One Nation Christian Democratic Caring conservatism with a small c.
A Party that could attract centre soft right, centre soft left and sensible pro nationalists looking to protect the Union, not adverse to ties with Europe
The Party of Major, Cameron, Hunt.
Loon.
Why on earth would conservatives listen to such rubbish
It is interesting that Kemi has pledged support for Mahmood's immigration policies putting her on the same page as Labour
Also this from someone who wants to bomb Tel Aviv and surrender our nuclear deterrent in a gift to Putin
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
Oh agreed. I would like to see us do far more targeted support for Ukraine but we should also be spending far more on our own defence.
Although Ukraine is our own defence in that it's the frontline war on the eastern border of our continent against the greatest (probably only) serious military threat to it.
You are naïve if you think that Russia is the only serious military threat. Its probably not even the greatest, its just currently the most active.
The greater threat is China. Thank goodness they're not currently invading anywhere on Europe or Taiwan, but were they to choose to do so the consequences would make Russia's invasion of Ukraine look like but a minor skirmish.
I'm not sure I see what we could possibly do if Taiwan is invaded or blockade at least militarily.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
Oh agreed. I would like to see us do far more targeted support for Ukraine but we should also be spending far more on our own defence.
Although Ukraine is our own defence in that it's the frontline war on the eastern border of our continent against the greatest (probably only) serious military threat to it.
You are naïve if you think that Russia is the only serious military threat. Its probably not even the greatest, its just currently the most active.
The greater threat is China. Thank goodness they're not currently invading anywhere on Europe or Taiwan, but were they to choose to do so the consequences would make Russia's invasion of Ukraine look like but a minor skirmish.
Yes, but apart from cyberwarfare how do we fight China? We have no assets in the region, no bases and couldn't field more than a token force.
Trump: "At the appropriate time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust, buried deep under the powerful sunken granite mountains, thanks to our beautiful B-2 Bombers and their brilliant pilots, and downblend and destroy it, whether in Iran, or the United States. "
Updates from Neo North Korea on Trump's "deal" starting to come in:
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 17m Burgum: "President Trump won the war militarily. Then he won the war economically ... diplomatically, militarily, economically -- three ways to win a war. Trump won all three of them."
Trump: "At the appropriate time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust, buried deep under the powerful sunken granite mountains, thanks to our beautiful B-2 Bombers and their brilliant pilots, and downblend and destroy it, whether in Iran, or the United States. "
The man is a muppet. And I immediately apologise to the muppets for that.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Why would Restore even dream of helping Reform here?
They wouldn't. Be a cold day in hell before Lowe helps Reform. However, I do think there will be more than a few Restore supporters who will be secretly praying that Reform don't lose as a direct result of the Restore vote.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
I lost a quarter of the value of one of my pensions, on supposedly low risk investments, thanks to Liz Truss.
I don't feel warm and fuzzy towards her.
Nobody is asking you to feel warm and fuzzy. , just to stay vaguely in touch with the facts.
The facts are that Liz Truss willfully did a stupid thing, which had bad consequences. Why should anyone afford her the benefit of the tiniest doubt? She deserves every bit of blame in her direction, and to the extent she involved the Conservative Party in her shenanigans, so do they.
Dear Lord in heaven above, sorry to shout, but BOND YIELDS ARE HIGHER NOW THAN THEY WERE DURING THE WORST OF THE LDI/MINIBUDGET CRISIS.
I am really struggling to see what part of this you don't understand. There is a higher premium for lending to Starmer and Reeves than there was for lending to Truss and Kwarteng. And that's without an energy price shock, or the Bank of England deciding to flog off £80bn bonds.
I don't particularly wish to relitigate the minibudget - by all means think as you wish, I am merely saying that the borrowing position is worse now.
Isn't is more intellectually honest than to compare the premium (or discount!) that investors demand for holding UK assets relative to peers?
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
National Treasures
Dr Alice Roberts
Robert Plant
John Craven
Jules Holland
Twiggy
David Blunkett
Whispering Bob Harris
Gary Lineker
Lenny Henry
Tom Jones
Mo Farrah
Martin Brundle
John Craven is a good spot- though consistent with the "it was easier to accumulate sufficient trust in the old days" theory. Lineker probably ought to qualify, but clearly doesn't. Maybe Gareth Southgate? I also wonder if Jeremy Clarkson is wiser than his public persona suggests.
Jeremy Clarkson is cleverer than his public persona, but he's willfully done immense damage with his public persona for the sake of enriching himself. That marks him out as deeply immoral and not one to be trusted on any subject, unless you could be assured of his complete disinterest. I wouldn't describe that as wisdom.
He's either a total twat, or gone to great lengths to make everyone think he is a total twat. Which itself is a very twattish thing to do.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Why would Restore even dream of helping Reform here?
Lowe is not a man to cross
Farage is in his crosshairs
It will be a fight to the political death.
Lowe is not a stupid man, he may be misguided but not stupid. He will pick fights he can win, quality over quantity.
The Tories in trying to mimic Reform on immigration and nationalism and Restore on economic policy face utter oblivion.
The only route the Tories have back to relevance initially and power in at least a decade is One Nation Christian Democratic Caring conservatism with a small c.
A Party that could attract centre soft right, centre soft left and sensible pro nationalists looking to protect the Union, not adverse to ties with Europe
Updates from Neo North Korea on Trump's "deal" starting to come in:
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 17m Burgum: "President Trump won the war militarily. Then he won the war economically ... diplomatically, militarily, economically -- three ways to win a war. Trump won all three of them."
I guess, if someone asked me what I found most incomprehensible and alien about the Trump administration, it is the requirement to constantly shower the great leader in -sometimes absurdly over the top- praise.
I see Restore had 1000 activists in Makerfield today - I'm not quite sure what having 1000 activists achieves, the videos I've seen show most of them standing round chatting in a park.
Labour have worked this seat properly and will, I suspect, get the needed result and Reform will learn some lessons how to campaign in seats when facing determined opponents.
As for Restore, you only have to look at the Yarmouth results on Norfolk County Council in May to see the potential for such a party - they annihilated Labour and the Conservatives completely and utterly.
There is clearly a constituency for the nonsense Rupert Lowe is peddling - Nigel Farage may be anti-immigrant but he's no ethno-nationalist. The economic and social consequences of the implementation of Lowe's ethno-nationalism would be catastrophic - in my part of the world, I imagine half to two thirds of the population would be deported.
Unfortunately, I fear there is a significant minority in the population who, while they wouldn't say it openly, would support wholesale mass deportation of the non-white population.
IF we tried to implement such a policy, we would be the Gilead de nos jours but the mood currently is so set against "immigrants", the debate has moved on from boats via remigration to mass deportation of British citizens - presumably once a Restore Government has passed its own version of the Nuremburg Laws and redefined what being "British" means - there seems no ability or willingness to defend or support even a limited points-based immigration system which was where I thought we were going after we voted to leave the EU.
The debate has moved to mass deporatation for a tiny, vocal minority who would otherwise be voting BNP. I am no fan of Farage but if the balance of opinion on the Right is anywhere it is somewhere between he and Badenoch. Lowe is an outlier and one that is, in the end, going to garner very little support.
SNIP
I do agree on "the Right", the line seems to be more about dealing with those here illegally and preventing further unauthorised arrivals while tightening the rules on who can come in and for how long.
SNIP
.
That's a description of Labour policy.
I think for many the problem with that is twofold.
2. For all it may be policy, they don't seem to be doing much to actually make it reality.
I do not think that accurate. Net immigration is at its lowest for a decade or more (covid year excepted), small boat arrivals are markedly down in large part due to co-operation with european allies, and deportations of illegals are up.
Further to go on these of course, but steady progress in the direction of the stated policy.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Several people I have heard speak in the last few years:
- Richard Dannett - gave a talk just after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, predicted a long drawn-out stalemate, pretty accurate. - Robert Winston - general common sense on fertility and gender etc. - Derek Jacobi - he put his success down in large part to luck - I'm sure there's more to it than that judging by the way he can still deliver some of Shakespeare's great speeches at 88.
(I don't know any of these people, have just heard them give public talks.)
Good examples. I have slight reservations about all three, but only slight. And of course in times past the average man may well have had reservations about all sorts of historical greats, and that has been mostly forgotten.
I have reservations about David Attenborough - mainly that I don't like his voice - but I keep them to myself for fear of being lynched.
Edit: Oh bugger!
Actually he's got a lovely voice. It's his delivery, pausing randomly every three or four words, that I find a bit off putting.
Updates from Neo North Korea on Trump's "deal" starting to come in:
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 17m Burgum: "President Trump won the war militarily. Then he won the war economically ... diplomatically, militarily, economically -- three ways to win a war. Trump won all three of them."
I guess, if someone asked me what I found most incomprehensible and alien about the Trump administration, it is the requirement to constantly shower the great leader in -sometimes absurdly over the top- praise.
Maybe I just love a bit of nuance.
I mean, I met Doug Bergum when he ran Great Plains, and he was looking to buy a European enterprise software company. And he was an incredibly driven and smart guy. If I'd read his comments today to the Doug of 1996, he would have buried his head in his hands in embarassment.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Several people I have heard speak in the last few years:
- Richard Dannett - gave a talk just after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, predicted a long drawn-out stalemate, pretty accurate. - Robert Winston - general common sense on fertility and gender etc. - Derek Jacobi - he put his success down in large part to luck - I'm sure there's more to it than that judging by the way he can still deliver some of Shakespeare's great speeches at 88.
(I don't know any of these people, have just heard them give public talks.)
Good examples. I have slight reservations about all three, but only slight. And of course in times past the average man may well have had reservations about all sorts of historical greats, and that has been mostly forgotten.
I have reservations about David Attenborough - mainly that I don't like his voice - but I keep them to myself for fear of being lynched.
Edit: Oh bugger!
Actually he's got a lovely voice. It's his delivery, pausing randomly every three or four words, that I find a bit off putting.
We don't seem to have public intellectuals like we used to. Jonathan Miller for example - long gone sadly.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
Oh agreed. I would like to see us do far more targeted support for Ukraine but we should also be spending far more on our own defence.
Although Ukraine is our own defence in that it's the frontline war on the eastern border of our continent against the greatest (probably only) serious military threat to it.
You are naïve if you think that Russia is the only serious military threat. Its probably not even the greatest, its just currently the most active.
The greater threat is China. Thank goodness they're not currently invading anywhere on Europe or Taiwan, but were they to choose to do so the consequences would make Russia's invasion of Ukraine look like but a minor skirmish.
And the US of course. Wtf knows what they'll get up to. But no, it's Russia in the main. Course it is.
Caveat: the longer term geopolitical future is unknowable.
Updates from Neo North Korea on Trump's "deal" starting to come in:
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 17m Burgum: "President Trump won the war militarily. Then he won the war economically ... diplomatically, militarily, economically -- three ways to win a war. Trump won all three of them."
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
National Treasures
Dr Alice Roberts
Robert Plant
John Craven
Jules Holland
Twiggy
David Blunkett
Whispering Bob Harris
Gary Lineker
Lenny Henry
Tom Jones
Mo Farrah
Martin Brundle
John Craven is a good spot- though consistent with the "it was easier to accumulate sufficient trust in the old days" theory. Lineker probably ought to qualify, but clearly doesn't. Maybe Gareth Southgate? I also wonder if Jeremy Clarkson is wiser than his public persona suggests.
Jeremy Clarkson is cleverer than his public persona, but he's willfully done immense damage with his public persona for the sake of enriching himself. That marks him out as deeply immoral and not one to be trusted on any subject, unless you could be assured of his complete disinterest. I wouldn't describe that as wisdom.
I have a couple of mutual acquaintances with the gentleman in question.
They both assure me he's very different in private. Much nastier, for a start.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
National Treasures
Dr Alice Roberts
Robert Plant
John Craven
Jules Holland
Twiggy
David Blunkett
Whispering Bob Harris
Gary Lineker
Lenny Henry
Tom Jones
Mo Farrah
Martin Brundle
Really?
I mean, really?
To be fair he couldn’t have Paul Danan as he died relatively recently.
I see Restore had 1000 activists in Makerfield today - I'm not quite sure what having 1000 activists achieves, the videos I've seen show most of them standing round chatting in a park.
Labour have worked this seat properly and will, I suspect, get the needed result and Reform will learn some lessons how to campaign in seats when facing determined opponents.
As for Restore, you only have to look at the Yarmouth results on Norfolk County Council in May to see the potential for such a party - they annihilated Labour and the Conservatives completely and utterly.
There is clearly a constituency for the nonsense Rupert Lowe is peddling - Nigel Farage may be anti-immigrant but he's no ethno-nationalist. The economic and social consequences of the implementation of Lowe's ethno-nationalism would be catastrophic - in my part of the world, I imagine half to two thirds of the population would be deported.
Unfortunately, I fear there is a significant minority in the population who, while they wouldn't say it openly, would support wholesale mass deportation of the non-white population.
IF we tried to implement such a policy, we would be the Gilead de nos jours but the mood currently is so set against "immigrants", the debate has moved on from boats via remigration to mass deportation of British citizens - presumably once a Restore Government has passed its own version of the Nuremburg Laws and redefined what being "British" means - there seems no ability or willingness to defend or support even a limited points-based immigration system which was where I thought we were going after we voted to leave the EU.
The debate has moved to mass deporatation for a tiny, vocal minority who would otherwise be voting BNP. I am no fan of Farage but if the balance of opinion on the Right is anywhere it is somewhere between he and Badenoch. Lowe is an outlier and one that is, in the end, going to garner very little support.
SNIP
I do agree on "the Right", the line seems to be more about dealing with those here illegally and preventing further unauthorised arrivals while tightening the rules on who can come in and for how long.
SNIP
.
That's a description of Labour policy.
I think for many the problem with that is twofold.
2. For all it may be policy, they don't seem to be doing much to actually make it reality.
I do not think that accurate. Net immigration is at its lowest for a decade or more (covid year excepted), small boat arrivals are markedly down in large part due to co-operation with european allies, and deportations of illegals are up.
Further to go on these of course, but steady progress in the direction of the stated policy.
Sadly, this is resulting in far too many of my comrades crying into their tofu in despair.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m One thing a lot of people are missing from the current Makerfield analysis. The polls are interesting. But by this stage a large amount of people have already voted.
Updates from Neo North Korea on Trump's "deal" starting to come in:
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 17m Burgum: "President Trump won the war militarily. Then he won the war economically ... diplomatically, militarily, economically -- three ways to win a war. Trump won all three of them."
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
National Treasures
Dr Alice Roberts
Robert Plant
John Craven
Jules Holland
Twiggy
David Blunkett
Whispering Bob Harris
Gary Lineker
Lenny Henry
Tom Jones
Mo Farrah
Martin Brundle
Really?
I mean, really?
Public intellectuals rather than national treasures would currently include Brian Cox and Lucy Worsley and on radio, Mary Beard. David Starkey used to be one before he went political. People who would look at a camera and say clever stuff. Older PBers will remember AJP Taylor, Kenneth Clark, James Burke, Magnus Pyke, Peter Jay among others. Television turned away – too boring; too elitist – but podcasts show the demand is still there.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
Oh agreed. I would like to see us do far more targeted support for Ukraine but we should also be spending far more on our own defence.
Although Ukraine is our own defence in that it's the frontline war on the eastern border of our continent against the greatest (probably only) serious military threat to it.
You are naïve if you think that Russia is the only serious military threat. Its probably not even the greatest, its just currently the most active.
The greater threat is China. Thank goodness they're not currently invading anywhere on Europe or Taiwan, but were they to choose to do so the consequences would make Russia's invasion of Ukraine look like but a minor skirmish.
Yes, but apart from cyberwarfare how do we fight China? We have no assets in the region, no bases and couldn't field more than a token force.
This is not the 19th Century.
That's a reflection of British weakness, rather than that China isn't a threat. And British participation in the Korean War was hardly in the 19th century.
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
National Treasures
Dr Alice Roberts
Robert Plant
John Craven
Jules Holland
Twiggy
David Blunkett
Whispering Bob Harris
Gary Lineker
Lenny Henry
Tom Jones
Mo Farrah
Martin Brundle
Really?
I mean, really?
Public intellectuals rather than national treasures would currently include Brian Cox and Lucy Worsley and on radio, Mary Beard. David Starkey used to be one before he went political. People who would look at a camera and say clever stuff. Older PBers will remember AJP Taylor, Kenneth Clark, James Burke, Magnus Pyke, Peter Jay among others. Television turned away – too boring; too elitist – but podcasts show the demand is still there.
I'd add Brian Walden to that list and Melvyn Bragg
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
He's a decent shout.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
National Treasures
Dr Alice Roberts
Robert Plant
John Craven
Jules Holland
Twiggy
David Blunkett
Whispering Bob Harris
Gary Lineker
Lenny Henry
Tom Jones
Mo Farrah
Martin Brundle
Really?
I mean, really?
Public intellectuals rather than national treasures would currently include Brian Cox and Lucy Worsley and on radio, Mary Beard. David Starkey used to be one before he went political. People who would look at a camera and say clever stuff. Older PBers will remember AJP Taylor, Kenneth Clark, James Burke, Magnus Pyke, Peter Jay among others. Television turned away – too boring; too elitist – but podcasts show the demand is still there.
Lucy Worsley? Really? I find her work insufferably naff and naive personally, but each to their own.
About the only good thing to say about her programmes is they're not nearly as ignorant as Tristram Hunt's.
Comments
LDs came up with it. Cons and Labour said it was silly.
Then Labour switched and Cons said it was silly.
Then Rishi switched and Truss said it was silly. The Cons agreed more with Truss.
Then Truss became responsible for doing something and couldn't think of anything better.
When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.
What's happened? Maybe Dyson?
I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.
(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)
My dad was very wise too - he rarely talked to my stepmother. I wish he'd been a more confident man in his views. I don't doubt that they'd have been wise, but there it is.
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/2065737410453852321
- Richard Dannett - gave a talk just after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, predicted a long drawn-out stalemate, pretty accurate.
- Robert Winston - general common sense on fertility and gender etc.
- Derek Jacobi - he put his success down in large part to luck - I'm sure there's more to it than that judging by the way he can still deliver some of Shakespeare's great speeches at 88.
(I don't know any of these people, have just heard them give public talks.)
No doubt of course in past times people like Ed Milliband would have been seen as elder statesman-like. Thank god those times have passed.
How about:
Judi Dench
Stephen Fry
Joanna Lumley
Helen Mirren
Michael Palin
Paul McCartney
Mary Berry
Bob Mortimer
Who would make the best PM?
I vote for Bob Mortimer.
... and caused the bond spikes.
Irony is Truss is forever tarnished for being remembered as causing the spikes, which were caused by implementing the policy she was last to support and right in opposing.
Had she stuck to her guns, she would have been unpopular but the bond shenanigans would never have happened.
Gorgeous afternoon here in downtown East London.
I see Restore had 1000 activists in Makerfield today - I'm not quite sure what having 1000 activists achieves, the videos I've seen show most of them standing round chatting in a park.
Labour have worked this seat properly and will, I suspect, get the needed result and Reform will learn some lessons how to campaign in seats when facing determined opponents.
As for Restore, you only have to look at the Yarmouth results on Norfolk County Council in May to see the potential for such a party - they annihilated Labour and the Conservatives completely and utterly.
There is clearly a constituency for the nonsense Rupert Lowe is peddling - Nigel Farage may be anti-immigrant but he's no ethno-nationalist. The economic and social consequences of the implementation of Lowe's ethno-nationalism would be catastrophic - in my part of the world, I imagine half to two thirds of the population would be deported.
Unfortunately, I fear there is a significant minority in the population who, while they wouldn't say it openly, would support wholesale mass deportation of the non-white population.
IF we tried to implement such a policy, we would be the Gilead de nos jours but the mood currently is so set against "immigrants", the debate has moved on from boats via remigration to mass deportation of British citizens - presumably once a Restore Government has passed its own version of the Nuremburg Laws and redefined what being "British" means - there seems no ability or willingness to defend or support even a limited points-based immigration system which was where I thought we were going after we voted to leave the EU.
Again.
Maybe.
Mary Berry
Rupert is a twerp
He's half-barmy
So's his army
Oh, whistle while you work
Obviously David Attenborough is on the list, but who else should be? I suspect that our gotcha media culture makes it hard for people to stay on the membership path for long enough to qualify. And maybe the really wise people are the ones who stay far enough under the radar to avoid ever being invited.
I do agree on "the Right", the line seems to be more about dealing with those here illegally and preventing further unauthorised arrivals while tightening the rules on who can come in and for how long. Such a broad view is probably sensible enough though I'm still to be convinced how getting rid of for example via over-stayers is going to be accomplished without considerable cost and bureaucracy.
It remains to be seen how much "the boats" will dominate the summer political discourse - scenes of dinghies coming ashore at Eastbourne, Brighton and elsewhere don't look good.
The Devil is, as ever, in the detail and I do think both the Conservatives and Reform have plenty of thinking to do to come up with an effective cost-beneficial solution.
The oddness is that there simply no candidates. (Very reassuring that the obvious celebrity clownshow wasn't suggested)
Brian Blessed.
(Oh, and I think Macca is a bit of a knob.)
Edit: Oh bugger!
Dr Alice Roberts
Robert Plant
John Craven
Jules Holland
Twiggy
David Blunkett
Whispering Bob Harris
Gary Lineker
Lenny Henry
Tom Jones
Mo Farrah
Martin Brundle
Net migration might be the headline figure, but it's not the whole story.
1. It is the stated policy of the leadership and doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the majority of the party either inside or outside Parliament
2. For all it may be policy, they don't seem to be doing much to actually make it reality.
Now personally I persist in my, perhaps foolish, belief that immigration is both good and necessary for this country in the medium to long term. All the more so if you consider the only logical alternative is forcing women to have children against their will. There are many things I would do to address the fears and issues that many have with immigration but actually cutting back is not one of them.
But no party is going to listen to me in the current climate (as if they ever would under any circumstances) and Labour have to understand that if they want to play in that particular paddling pool with the juveniles on the Right then they are going to have to start looking like they actually believe what they are saying.
Friday may be a good day to bury bad news.
We shouldn't idolise humans. Not because it angers God, but because humans can't ever live up to being idolised. We're just people.
Alice Roberts may well make the first list. I quite like Blunkett too, but personally feel he's not great.
Farage is in his crosshairs
It will be a fight to the political death.
Lowe is not a stupid man, he may be misguided but not stupid. He will pick fights he can win, quality over quantity.
The Tories in trying to mimic Reform on immigration and nationalism and Restore on economic policy face utter oblivion.
The only route the Tories have back to relevance initially and power in at least a decade is One Nation Christian Democratic Caring conservatism with a small c.
A Party that could attract centre soft right, centre soft left and sensible pro nationalists looking to protect the Union, not adverse to ties with Europe
The Party of Major, Cameron, Hunt.
The greater threat is China. Thank goodness they're not currently invading anywhere on Europe or Taiwan, but were they to choose to do so the consequences would make Russia's invasion of Ukraine look like but a minor skirmish.
Indeed, she seems to be saying that any Tory that opposes her plans to leave ECHR cannot be a candidate.
The best value for money in our defence budget in both people and treasure is to support Ukraine. Also to learn from them, particularly in terms of both battlefield drones and longer range, also drone defence. This was part of how we defeated Napoleon, by funding the Austrians and Prussians in their fight.
Our only real threat is from Russia. China and the Middle East are simply too far away for anything more than token forces.
So how does Rusdsia threaten us? By cyberwar and interfering in our politics (Nathan Gill was not alone I suspect), by threatening our undersea cables, by submarine.
The idea that Russia is a land threat to our own islands is risible, but we may want to fight alongside our european neighbours. Against missiles and nukes there is limited defence short of our own "Iron Dome", and that realistically cannot cover thr whole country.
So we need a cyber-corps, a drone-corps, anti-submarine and mine capability, land based aircraft (including airborne early warning and air-air refueling) and an army expeditionary capability integrated into European NATO forces. Anything else is most likely a white elephant, including the carriers.
It is interesting that Kemi has pledged support for Mahmood's immigration policies putting her on the same page as Labour
Also this from someone who wants to bomb Tel Aviv and surrender our nuclear deterrent in a gift to Putin
The question is why on earth did she ever get rid of the coach who helped her to win the US Open ?
Andrew Richardson is back .
This is not the 19th Century.
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
·
17m
Burgum: "President Trump won the war militarily. Then he won the war economically ... diplomatically, militarily, economically -- three ways to win a war. Trump won all three of them."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2065852772835033538
I mean, really?
So he must be a twat.
Maybe I just love a bit of nuance.
Further to go on these of course, but steady progress in the direction of the stated policy.
Is this because the modern BBC is rubbish?
Caveat: the longer term geopolitical future is unknowable.
They both assure me he's very different in private. Much nastier, for a start.
@DPJHodges
·
16m
One thing a lot of people are missing from the current Makerfield analysis. The polls are interesting. But by this stage a large amount of people have already voted.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2065856483661639911
Edit: of course that is incorrect as it is "large number of people" not "amount"
About the only good thing to say about her programmes is they're not nearly as ignorant as Tristram Hunt's.