Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
It's just removing a wedge issue from the Fukkers, who are great fans of environmental vandalism.
If Bernie Andham has any political nous he will tie the approvals up in bureaucratic bullshit to make sure they proceed only with excruciating slowness, thus keeping the Labour faithful onside, and then cancel it all after the GE.
Pretty much. Allowing O&G companies to make their own investment decisions, and possibly decide not to bother, is the easy part. The key question is what's the subsidy regime?
All new energy sources require subsidy, and in the case of nuclear humongous subsidies
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
It's just removing a wedge issue from the Fukkers, who are great fans of environmental vandalism.
If Bernie Andham has any political nous he will tie the approvals up in bureaucratic bullshit to make sure they proceed only with excruciating slowness, thus keeping the Labour faithful onside, and then cancel it all after the GE.
If he has any nous he'll govern pragmatically, which means expediting development.
Pragmatism trumps ideology. Even for outright socialists.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
What's the kremlinology here? Why is he desperate to have Brum's top Tony Hancock impersonator as CoE?
Search me. As far as I am aware she has no interest in economics and no experience and not said very much about it while in politics. And she wants to stay as Home Sec according to journalists.
Feels like putting a person there just to block Ed M from having the job which all seems a bit continuity Sunak/Starmer.
Reform's collapse is remarkable. They had two 10 point leads in early June. For the moment I can't see their way back. Now Labour have a sure footed leader (at least until Monday), the next sane stage would be a clear repudiation by the Tories of Reform, Restore, Lozza, etc and all their works and in six months time we would be creeping back to something resembling two party politics. FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial.
Currently Farage is the new Starmer - he cannot do anything right and the media have turned on him. And he is stuck in a joke by election.
It's not a collapse, their polling is solid, but it's now a core vote level that's ossified and not a GE winning level.
There was a time they were in the low 30s and Farage was almost equal as best PM.
This is an issue we may well disagree on as it involves speculation about the future. IMHO an anti Reform earthquake has occurred and we are going to see building collapse over the next few months, and that the current trend (see early June until now) is real. They are now in a position where they can't win, Labour and Tory have leaders that are OK, Farage's reputation is tarnished and he can't recover, like Boris.
For me Reform collapse = Reform can't recover and can't win.
In their hearts, do we really believe Kruger and Montgomerie (putting on one side the idiots) think they have made the winning decision? I don't.
I wouldn't trust Tim Montgomerie as far as I can throw him.
He's built a career out of positioning himself as a Conservative commentator, and yet I can't think of a single person he hasn't ended up attacking personally.
I feel quite sorry for him as he clearly is not well and struggles in interviews
I agree with your comment though
I think that Kruger is clear where he stands, and what his values are - though values change and evolve. OTOH exposed to a new philosophical context values can either change abruptly, or new views can be adopted almost without noticing.
To my eye Kruger has been moving towards greater nuance over the last year or two, and I am not sure how that will play out as a Ref UK MP.
On Monty aiui he had a rough time for mental during COVID.
There is also a capacity (or not) in organsations to evolve and absorb new insights. The Cons have traditionalyl been good at that (I question that quality now, though), Labour have done it with conflict, the Liberals have deon by adjusting the balance inside the party via debate around their values. I do not think Reform are good at that; it is too soon and their key long-term point is whether they can pass to a second generation of leaders.
One case I find fascinating is Pastor Chris Wickland, who has appeared at Yaxley-Lennon Rallies as one of the 'chaplains' speaking from the platform. He is aiui an Elim Pentecostal Minister, and styles himself as a Christin Nationalist, who has now attached himself to Bishop Cerion Dewar's group in the Confessing Anglican Church. They reject women priests and buy in to the Apostolic Succession (ordination via a continuous historic chain since Christ), but Elim has had women pastors for a century. I'm interested to see how he adapts in his new environment.
I think Wickland is entering a new tradition which is inimical to his former values, and I would call his development a process of grooming.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average uk GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average uk GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live.
Because the economy was golden in '97 - and WRECKED thanks to Brown in 2010.
That golden economy must have been why the Tories were reelected in 1997 with an increased majority.
The Tories lost in 1997 because of one person - John Major. It was he who had pushed for Britain to join the ERM when he was Chancellor and it was entirely his fault that we then crashed out in 1992. That destroyed the Tory reputation for financial stability and also resulted in all the in fighting that then continued up to 1997.
Major, perhaps more than any ther PM, was destroyed by his desire to be at the heart of the EU project. It was a well deserved downfall.
Clarke, Hurd and Heseltine also pushed for it and Major kept us out of the Euro they wanted. Major also won the 1992 general election Thatcher would have lost and left a low inflation, low unemployment, low strike, growing economy for Labour in 1997 and the start of the NI peace process
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
What's the kremlinology here? Why is he desperate to have Brum's top Tony Hancock impersonator as CoE?
The treasury under Burnham is a poison chalice job - given he wants to raise tax tax (but won't be able to) and wants to spend more (but the bond markets won't have it).
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
What's the kremlinology here? Why is he desperate to have Brum's top Tony Hancock impersonator as CoE?
Search me. As far as I am aware she has no interest in economics and no experience and not said very much about it while in politics. And she wants to stay as Home Sec according to journalists.
Feels like putting a person there just to block Ed M from having the job which all seems a bit continuity Sunak/Starmer.
Promoting a woman as CoE looks good. Plus it gets her out of the Home Office, without criticising her.
So the next Home Sec. will stop doing the policy *enforcement* that upset many Labour members and MPs. Without starting a political fight.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
What's the kremlinology here? Why is he desperate to have Brum's top Tony Hancock impersonator as CoE?
Search me. As far as I am aware she has no interest in economics and no experience and not said very much about it while in politics. And she wants to stay as Home Sec according to journalists.
Feels like putting a person there just to block Ed M from having the job which all seems a bit continuity Sunak/Starmer.
Promoting a woman as CoE looks good. Plus it gets her out of the Home Office, without criticising her.
So the next Home Sec. will stop doing the policy *enforcement* that upset many Labour members and MPs. Without starting a political fight.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
What's the kremlinology here? Why is he desperate to have Brum's top Tony Hancock impersonator as CoE?
Search me. As far as I am aware she has no interest in economics and no experience and not said very much about it while in politics. And she wants to stay as Home Sec according to journalists.
Feels like putting a person there just to block Ed M from having the job which all seems a bit continuity Sunak/Starmer.
She was Shadow Financial Secretary, so "no experience" is incorrect.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Big win for Kemi as well
Don't forget how she stopped Argentina from invading the Falklands this weekend and will almost certainly score the winning goal in the WC Final.
Bit unfair there. BigG right. KB went into Aberdeen Sth full tilt and it paid off. Stamped all over SNP and Labour.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
What's the kremlinology here? Why is he desperate to have Brum's top Tony Hancock impersonator as CoE?
The treasury under Burnham is a poison chalice job - given he wants to raise tax tax (but won't be able to) and wants to spend more (but the bond markets won't have it).
If he increases tax to spend more he can do so even if the bond markets won't like it. The bond markets liked Truss' tax cuts but disliked even more her failure to cut spending to pay for them
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
What's the kremlinology here? Why is he desperate to have Brum's top Tony Hancock impersonator as CoE?
Search me. As far as I am aware she has no interest in economics and no experience and not said very much about it while in politics. And she wants to stay as Home Sec according to journalists.
Feels like putting a person there just to block Ed M from having the job which all seems a bit continuity Sunak/Starmer.
She was Shadow Financial Secretary, so "no experience" is incorrect.
All economics is bollocks anyway. CoE is basically a presentation and sales job and SM gives every impression of not being able to sell chips to a Hartlepudlian.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
What's the kremlinology here? Why is he desperate to have Brum's top Tony Hancock impersonator as CoE?
Search me. As far as I am aware she has no interest in economics and no experience and not said very much about it while in politics. And she wants to stay as Home Sec according to journalists.
Feels like putting a person there just to block Ed M from having the job which all seems a bit continuity Sunak/Starmer.
She was Shadow Financial Secretary, so "no experience" is incorrect.
Ok. But wiki tells me she had that job for four months.
I'm not saying it wont work but it seems odd given what's happening in Home Office.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
What's the kremlinology here? Why is he desperate to have Brum's top Tony Hancock impersonator as CoE?
The treasury under Burnham is a poison chalice job - given he wants to raise tax tax (but won't be able to) and wants to spend more (but the bond markets won't have it).
If he increases tax to spend more he can do so even if the bond markets won't like it. The bond markets liked Truss' tax cuts but disliked even more her failure to cut spending to pay for them
He can increase tax rates, but increasing the tax take is going to very very difficult indeed.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
What's the kremlinology here? Why is he desperate to have Brum's top Tony Hancock impersonator as CoE?
Search me. As far as I am aware she has no interest in economics and no experience and not said very much about it while in politics. And she wants to stay as Home Sec according to journalists.
Feels like putting a person there just to block Ed M from having the job which all seems a bit continuity Sunak/Starmer.
She was Shadow Financial Secretary, so "no experience" is incorrect.
All economics is bollocks anyway. CoE is basically a presentation and sales job and SM gives every impression of not being able to sell chips to a Hartlepudlian.
Everything you need to know about politics is in Yes, Minister:
Hacker: Bernard, Humphrey should have seen this [financial crisis] coming and warned me.
Bernard: I don't think Sir Humphrey understands economics, Prime Minister; he did read Classics, you know.
Hacker: What about Sir Frank? He's head of the Treasury!
Bernard: Well I'm afraid he's at an even greater disadvantage in understanding economics: he's an economist.
Or consider the case of Ken Clarke, who knew naff all about economics but did OK.
But then again... we're all pointing at shadows on the cave for now. Outside the King of the North's most intimate court, none of us know what he's up to. Then again, I'd love to know what EdM is thinking this morning.
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
What's the kremlinology here? Why is he desperate to have Brum's top Tony Hancock impersonator as CoE?
Search me. As far as I am aware she has no interest in economics and no experience and not said very much about it while in politics. And she wants to stay as Home Sec according to journalists.
Feels like putting a person there just to block Ed M from having the job which all seems a bit continuity Sunak/Starmer.
I think having a woman in the role might have been a factor.
Although you can still get 1.3 on Mahmood. That's not a 'done deal' price for something settling on Monday.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
Crashes happen, its part of the economic cycle. The crash was actually overdue.
The problem was not the crash happening, it was being woefully unprepared for it - having maximised the deficit before it hit, from having had a budget surplus.
The financial system requiring a bailout to prevent collapse is not part of the economic cycle.
The reason for any crash varies, but the nature or existence of them does not.
The change in the UKs deficit from the year before the recession to the year after it was actually less in the GFC (+6.6%) than it was the previous recession (90/91, +7.2%).
The problem is that we entered the 90/91 recession running a surplus which meant that there was not much change needed from the post-recession deficit to bring the economy back to balance. In 2008/09 we entered already running a deficit rather than a surplus as we'd had years earlier.
I'm in a non-argumentative mood so let's just say, ok it would of course have made the crisis a little easier to deal with if the public finances had been flat or in surplus going into it. And if debt had been a bit lower too.
But crisis - and a huge one - it would still have been. This was not your normal business cycle type situation. It was long brewing and caused by major dysfunction in the financial markets. Greed, fraud, ignorance, laziness, recklessness and stupidity were all in the mix as contributory factors.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
Burnham has said he doesn't want to out-Reform Reform. And that's exactly what Mahmoud was doing. She might have been the right-wingers wet dream but she's not in a right-wing party.
It took the Tories years of multiple PMs and HSs to create the toxic policies Mahmoud has managed in 6 months. All for no up upshooting of polling. Get rid!
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
If Brown had been able to listen to others, he might have acted differently.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
Pace the tea-drinking purists on PB, but if I have tea (which isn't very often) I like it made in a pot, with the cup /mug warmed before the milk is put in, then the tea (once brewed) put in on top. Loose tea or teabags, either will do. But not flavoured tea, thank you! Ordinary tea - is it Indian tea?
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
Crashes happen, its part of the economic cycle. The crash was actually overdue.
The problem was not the crash happening, it was being woefully unprepared for it - having maximised the deficit before it hit, from having had a budget surplus.
The financial system requiring a bailout to prevent collapse is not part of the economic cycle.
The reason for any crash varies, but the nature or existence of them does not.
The change in the UKs deficit from the year before the recession to the year after it was actually less in the GFC (+6.6%) than it was the previous recession (90/91, +7.2%).
The problem is that we entered the 90/91 recession running a surplus which meant that there was not much change needed from the post-recession deficit to bring the economy back to balance. In 2008/09 we entered already running a deficit rather than a surplus as we'd had years earlier.
I'm in a non-argumentative mood so let's just say, ok it would of course have made the crisis a little easier to deal with if the public finances had been flat or in surplus going into it. And if debt had been a bit lower too.
But crisis - and a huge one - it would still have been. This was not your normal business cycle type situation. It was long brewing and caused by major dysfunction in the financial markets. Greed, fraud, ignorance, laziness, recklessness and stupidity were all in the mix as contributory factors.
Yes it would have been a crisis, which is fine, crises happen.
It is the legacy that would bave been different.
In any typical cycle the crisis causes the deficit to balloon, then it is brought back under control until the nexr one hits. In 1990/91 the delta between pre and post recession deficit was actually worse but because we went in with a surplus we came out at "only" a 7% deficit which means we needed to trim not too much to get the finances back under relative control.
In 2008/09 we entered already at a deficit, meaning we exited at 10% which made major austerity necessary to get back control.
The point is had we entered the GFC in surplus we could have exited and not required austerity even if the crisis was every bit as serious, just as happened in 1990/91.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
What's the kremlinology here? Why is he desperate to have Brum's top Tony Hancock impersonator as CoE?
Search me. As far as I am aware she has no interest in economics and no experience and not said very much about it while in politics. And she wants to stay as Home Sec according to journalists.
Feels like putting a person there just to block Ed M from having the job which all seems a bit continuity Sunak/Starmer.
She was Shadow Financial Secretary, so "no experience" is incorrect.
Ok. But wiki tells me she had that job for four months.
I'm not saying it wont work but it seems odd given what's happening in Home Office.
It is not unusual for Chancellors to not have economic experience, for example Ken Clarke, and the track record of those with financial or business experience such as Reeves, or Kwarteng is mixed at best!
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
If Brown had been able to listen to others, he might have acted differently.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
No doubt. But big picture - it was a huge US-originated bond/derivatives bubble which popped and drenched everyone in the vicinity. Esp places (like us) with close links. The City back then was a mini-me of Wall St. Maybe it still is, I don't know. I've been out of it for a while now and my knowledge/experience is getting stale.
I put milk in first - but not with a teabag. That's just wrong.
Socks with sandals ... is he a LibDem ?
It's not wrong at all. If I put the milk in first I know that I've got exactly the amount of milk I want. I only do this at home as I control all other variables such as using the same tea bags, teapot and amount of water. It results in perfect tea just the way I want it. If you put the milk in last it's too easy to overpour.
And then we come to the vexed question of what to do with the used teabag. What sort of degenerate leaves the soggy sac by the side of the sink?
I live with such a person so I suppose I should ask her.
Straight into the composting bin under the sink, with the potato peelings, coffee grounds and other veg waste. Empty the bin onto the actual compost bin every couple of days or so. Free compost.
That’s what I do. Apparently the leaking tea bag makes the food waste bin ‘messy’..
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
If Brown had been able to listen to others, he might have acted differently.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
No doubt. But big picture - it was a huge US-originated bond/derivatives bubble which popped and drenched everyone in the vicinity. Esp places (like us) with close links. The City back then was a mini-me of Wall St. Maybe it still is, I don't know. I've been out of it for a while now and my knowledge/experience is getting stale.
They tightened up Financial Services regulation very significantly after GFC - no-one wants to be on the hook for too-big-to-fail banks again. But is it enough to prevent a repetition? The dirty secret is no-one actually knows. Banks have to pass stress tests (as they had to before the GFC) but you only pass the scenarios you test. And there is always pressure to relax regulation in the name of competitiveness.
Banks don't actually fail that often and when they do the circumstances are typically different each time. So Northern Rock failed on liquidity risk - financing dried up, the loan book was high quality, while Lehman Brothers that triggered the GFC failed on inaccurate probabilities of default, ie poor credit risk . You don't have a lot to go on when deciding what the next black swan event will be.
I put milk in first - but not with a teabag. That's just wrong.
Socks with sandals ... is he a LibDem ?
It's not wrong at all. If I put the milk in first I know that I've got exactly the amount of milk I want. I only do this at home as I control all other variables such as using the same tea bags, teapot and amount of water. It results in perfect tea just the way I want it. If you put the milk in last it's too easy to overpour.
And then we come to the vexed question of what to do with the used teabag. What sort of degenerate leaves the soggy sac by the side of the sink?
I live with such a person so I suppose I should ask her.
Straight into the composting bin under the sink, with the potato peelings, coffee grounds and other veg waste. Empty the bin onto the actual compost bin every couple of days or so. Free compost.
That’s what I do. Apparently the leaking tea bag makes the food waste bin ‘messy’..
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
Pensioners are part of that socialism (they absolutely won't see it that way, saying they paid their taxes their whole lives etc) but they are in receipt of a large amount of cash benefits and subsidies from the State.
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
Pensioners are part of that socialism (they absolutely won't see it that way, saying they paid their taxes their whole lives etc) but they are in receipt of a large amount of cash benefits and subsidies from the State.
I see no prospect of that being cut back.
You're going to be a pensioner one day...
Which is why we should get pensions onto a sustainable footing by abolishing the triple lock ratchet, rather than keep it unsustainable leading to collapse and nothing being available instead.
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
Pensioners are part of that socialism (they absolutely won't see it that way, saying they paid their taxes their whole lives etc) but they are in receipt of a large amount of cash benefits and subsidies from the State.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
If Brown had been able to listen to others, he might have acted differently.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
No doubt. But big picture - it was a huge US-originated bond/derivatives bubble which popped and drenched everyone in the vicinity. Esp places (like us) with close links. The City back then was a mini-me of Wall St. Maybe it still is, I don't know. I've been out of it for a while now and my knowledge/experience is getting stale.
The U.K. banks were buying the derivatives because proper risk analysis was deprecated. Regulation on risk could have tapered down the positions.
I was working on a contract in ABN - IT working on derivatives pricing - at the time. The only question the traders were asking each other for months before the end was “when?”
It’s rather well portrayed in the film Margin Call - they knew, but the size and rapidity of it caught them out.
I was on the way back from lunch one day, when I caught up with one of guys, smoking outside. I mention that Ed Balls had been claiming that they’d abolished boom-and-bust. The trader laughed and said that was the top of the market and that he was going to sell everything…
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
Pensioners are part of that socialism (they absolutely won't see it that way, saying they paid their taxes their whole lives etc) but they are in receipt of a large amount of cash benefits and subsidies from the State.
I see no prospect of that being cut back.
You're going to be a pensioner one day...
Not if we ensure the state pension age is always a year above Casino’s age.
I put milk in first - but not with a teabag. That's just wrong.
Socks with sandals ... is he a LibDem ?
It's not wrong at all. If I put the milk in first I know that I've got exactly the amount of milk I want. I only do this at home as I control all other variables such as using the same tea bags, teapot and amount of water. It results in perfect tea just the way I want it. If you put the milk in last it's too easy to overpour.
And then we come to the vexed question of what to do with the used teabag. What sort of degenerate leaves the soggy sac by the side of the sink?
I live with such a person so I suppose I should ask her.
Straight into the composting bin under the sink, with the potato peelings, coffee grounds and other veg waste. Empty the bin onto the actual compost bin every couple of days or so. Free compost.
That’s what I do. Apparently the leaking tea bag makes the food waste bin ‘messy’..
waste disposal for me, quick and tidy
Does it work on turnips too?
Waste?!? Forsooth! That’s no way to talk to a Scotch person!
There is no turnip waste - all goes into the vats for the cask strength turnip juice. With bits in it.
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
Pensioners are part of that socialism (they absolutely won't see it that way, saying they paid their taxes their whole lives etc) but they are in receipt of a large amount of cash benefits and subsidies from the State.
I see no prospect of that being cut back.
You're going to be a pensioner one day...
Not if we ensure the state pension age is always a year above Casino’s age.
Theory - the Emperor in 40k is actually hanging on to pass the ever rising pension age.
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
Pensioners are part of that socialism (they absolutely won't see it that way, saying they paid their taxes their whole lives etc) but they are in receipt of a large amount of cash benefits and subsidies from the State.
I see no prospect of that being cut back.
You're going to be a pensioner one day...
Not if we ensure the state pension age is always a year above Casino’s age.
Theory - the Emperor in 40k is actually hanging on to pass the ever rising pension age.
I put milk in first - but not with a teabag. That's just wrong.
Socks with sandals ... is he a LibDem ?
It's not wrong at all. If I put the milk in first I know that I've got exactly the amount of milk I want. I only do this at home as I control all other variables such as using the same tea bags, teapot and amount of water. It results in perfect tea just the way I want it. If you put the milk in last it's too easy to overpour.
And then we come to the vexed question of what to do with the used teabag. What sort of degenerate leaves the soggy sac by the side of the sink?
I live with such a person so I suppose I should ask her.
Straight into the composting bin under the sink, with the potato peelings, coffee grounds and other veg waste. Empty the bin onto the actual compost bin every couple of days or so. Free compost.
That’s what I do. Apparently the leaking tea bag makes the food waste bin ‘messy’..
waste disposal for me, quick and tidy
Does it work on turnips too?
how would a turnip fit in a waste disposal silly boy. They are not your namby pamby swedes
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
Pensioners are part of that socialism (they absolutely won't see it that way, saying they paid their taxes their whole lives etc) but they are in receipt of a large amount of cash benefits and subsidies from the State.
I see no prospect of that being cut back.
You're going to be a pensioner one day...
he does not count all the freebies he gets for his brood, that is different story
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
If Brown had been able to listen to others, he might have acted differently.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
No doubt. But big picture - it was a huge US-originated bond/derivatives bubble which popped and drenched everyone in the vicinity. Esp places (like us) with close links. The City back then was a mini-me of Wall St. Maybe it still is, I don't know. I've been out of it for a while now and my knowledge/experience is getting stale.
The U.K. banks were buying the derivatives because proper risk analysis was deprecated. Regulation on risk could have tapered down the positions.
I was working on a contract in ABN - IT working on derivatives pricing - at the time. The only question the traders were asking each other for months before the end was “when?”
It’s rather well portrayed in the film Margin Call - they knew, but the size and rapidity of it caught them out.
I was on the way back from lunch one day, when I caught up with one of guys, smoking outside. I mention that Ed Balls had been claiming that they’d abolished boom-and-bust. The trader laughed and said that was the top of the market and that he was going to sell everything…
Spooky or what. I was also with that very bank (ABN) when the shit hit the fan. I could even have been that smoker. The ban had recently come in. It was my last serious gig anyway. I was getting a bit old for it in any event but the crash probably accelerated my exit. After that it was 'consultancy', on and off, until total retirement 5 years later. Like a stone skimming across the water, each skip a little shorter until finally ... plop.
I put milk in first - but not with a teabag. That's just wrong.
Socks with sandals ... is he a LibDem ?
It's not wrong at all. If I put the milk in first I know that I've got exactly the amount of milk I want. I only do this at home as I control all other variables such as using the same tea bags, teapot and amount of water. It results in perfect tea just the way I want it. If you put the milk in last it's too easy to overpour.
And then we come to the vexed question of what to do with the used teabag. What sort of degenerate leaves the soggy sac by the side of the sink?
I live with such a person so I suppose I should ask her.
Straight into the composting bin under the sink, with the potato peelings, coffee grounds and other veg waste. Empty the bin onto the actual compost bin every couple of days or so. Free compost.
That’s what I do. Apparently the leaking tea bag makes the food waste bin ‘messy’..
waste disposal for me, quick and tidy
Does it work on turnips too?
how would a turnip fit in a waste disposal silly boy. They are not your namby pamby swedes
A bit tough to put a Swede in a waste disposal.
Dane or Norwegian maybe, but they still need to be cut up first.
Reform's collapse is remarkable. They had two 10 point leads in early June. For the moment I can't see their way back. Now Labour have a sure footed leader (at least until Monday), the next sane stage would be a clear repudiation by the Tories of Reform, Restore, Lozza, etc and all their works and in six months time we would be creeping back to something resembling two party politics. FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial.
Currently Farage is the new Starmer - he cannot do anything right and the media have turned on him. And he is stuck in a joke by election.
It's not a collapse, their polling is solid, but it's now a core vote level that's ossified and not a GE winning level.
There was a time they were in the low 30s and Farage was almost equal as best PM.
This is an issue we may well disagree on as it involves speculation about the future. IMHO an anti Reform earthquake has occurred and we are going to see building collapse over the next few months, and that the current trend (see early June until now) is real. They are now in a position where they can't win, Labour and Tory have leaders that are OK, Farage's reputation is tarnished and he can't recover, like Boris.
For me Reform collapse = Reform can't recover and can't win.
In their hearts, do we really believe Kruger and Montgomerie (putting on one side the idiots) think they have made the winning decision? I don't.
I wouldn't trust Tim Montgomerie as far as I can throw him.
He's built a career out of positioning himself as a Conservative commentator, and yet I can't think of a single person he hasn't ended up attacking personally.
I feel quite sorry for him as he clearly is not well and struggles in interviews
I agree with your comment though
I think that Kruger is clear where he stands, and what his values are - though values change and evolve. OTOH exposed to a new philosophical context values can either change abruptly, or new views can be adopted almost without noticing.
To my eye Kruger has been moving towards greater nuance over the last year or two, and I am not sure how that will play out as a Ref UK MP.
On Monty aiui he had a rough time for mental during COVID.
There is also a capacity (or not) in organsations to evolve and absorb new insights. The Cons have traditionalyl been good at that (I question that quality now, though), Labour have done it with conflict, the Liberals have deon by adjusting the balance inside the party via debate around their values. I do not think Reform are good at that; it is too soon and their key long-term point is whether they can pass to a second generation of leaders.
One case I find fascinating is Pastor Chris Wickland, who has appeared at Yaxley-Lennon Rallies as one of the 'chaplains' speaking from the platform. He is aiui an Elim Pentecostal Minister, and styles himself as a Christin Nationalist, who has now attached himself to Bishop Cerion Dewar's group in the Confessing Anglican Church. They reject women priests and buy in to the Apostolic Succession (ordination via a continuous historic chain since Christ), but Elim has had women pastors for a century. I'm interested to see how he adapts in his new environment.
I think Wickland is entering a new tradition which is inimical to his former values, and I would call his development a process of grooming.
It is easy to overstate the significance of ecclesiastical eccentrics who combine simplisticism with populism and attention seeking. They are characterised by being useful rent a quotes by media for the dim (Gavin Ashendon "formerly the chaplain to the queen!" (he was one of 36 such people) and never subject themselves to serious scrutiny and hard questions. In fact there are very few of them and their ecclesial structures (if any) are tiny and inward looking. This internet thingy can be used to identify the structural reality underneath the vestments and bluster. The theocratic emperors have no clothes.
The late William Oddie was the best of them, but still a populist simplifier of complex issues. But compared with today's offering he was Aquinas and Barth rolled into one.
The excellent ecclesial attention seekers make a living keeping us entertained, running interesting churches and being simple but sort of right. Like Marcus Walker and the late Peter Mullen. Walker writes in the Spectator, and I know a Labour peer who attends his church out of choice.
The reviews have varied from good to ecstatic. Stuckmann gave it an A+. Jeremy Jahns and Mark Kermode loved it. It's getting better reviews than "Project Hail Mary", even though it doesn't have a cute alien in a ball going "amaze amaze amaze"
It does have problems. It's 173 mins long. Bits of it are too dark - not in tone, but in the sense of you can't see it. Did I mention it's only 7 mins short of 3 hours? The predicted numbers for the weekend are very good: https://www.the-numbers.com/#20260717-predictions
Bear in mind that long running time and niche subject-matter killed "Blade Runner 2049" despite ecstatic reviews, but interest in this one seems intense enough to override that.
So yes, go see it.
People always rave about Nolan films when they come out, but they never seem to have much staying power. Is there any Nolan film that is widely regarded as a classic and people keep watching again and again? I don't think it really counts if people say "X is great, I last saw it 20 years ago".
I tend to find most of his recent films spectacular but also somewhat hollow. I'd argue that his films were more interesting and entertaining when he had less money to spend.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
If Brown had been able to listen to others, he might have acted differently.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
No doubt. But big picture - it was a huge US-originated bond/derivatives bubble which popped and drenched everyone in the vicinity. Esp places (like us) with close links. The City back then was a mini-me of Wall St. Maybe it still is, I don't know. I've been out of it for a while now and my knowledge/experience is getting stale.
The U.K. banks were buying the derivatives because proper risk analysis was deprecated. Regulation on risk could have tapered down the positions.
I was working on a contract in ABN - IT working on derivatives pricing - at the time. The only question the traders were asking each other for months before the end was “when?”
It’s rather well portrayed in the film Margin Call - they knew, but the size and rapidity of it caught them out.
I was on the way back from lunch one day, when I caught up with one of guys, smoking outside. I mention that Ed Balls had been claiming that they’d abolished boom-and-bust. The trader laughed and said that was the top of the market and that he was going to sell everything…
I agree completely. I remember during my Master's in financial economics reading in one of the textbooks about how bets on derivatives could rapidly snowball and cause a financial crisis, spreading from trading arms to the rest of the investment banks to commercial banks unless banks were effectively regulated.
That was several years before 2008.
The idea that no-one warned against the financial crisis, and that no-one could have prevented it, is ridiculous. Effective regulation, like in countries such as Italy, Sweden or Canada, could have done so easily. But we, like the Americans and Irish, had an incompetent and staggeringly complacent group of financial regulators, under a system put in place by Gordon Brown and Ed Balls, and not-overseen by some quangocrat friends of theirs.
The reviews have varied from good to ecstatic. Stuckmann gave it an A+. Jeremy Jahns and Mark Kermode loved it. It's getting better reviews than "Project Hail Mary", even though it doesn't have a cute alien in a ball going "amaze amaze amaze"
It does have problems. It's 173 mins long. Bits of it are too dark - not in tone, but in the sense of you can't see it. Did I mention it's only 7 mins short of 3 hours? The predicted numbers for the weekend are very good: https://www.the-numbers.com/#20260717-predictions
Bear in mind that long running time and niche subject-matter killed "Blade Runner 2049" despite ecstatic reviews, but interest in this one seems intense enough to override that.
So yes, go see it.
People always rave about Nolan films when they come out, but they never seem to have much staying power. Is there any Nolan film that is widely regarded as a classic and people keep watching again and again? I don't think it really counts if people say "X is great, I last saw it 20 years ago".
I tend to find most of his recent films spectacular but also somewhat hollow. I'd argue that his films were more interesting and entertaining when he had less money to spend.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average uk GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average uk GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live.
Because the economy was golden in '97 - and WRECKED thanks to Brown in 2010.
That golden economy must have been why the Tories were reelected in 1997 with an increased majority.
The Tories lost in 1997 because of one person - John Major. It was he who had pushed for Britain to join the ERM when he was Chancellor and it was entirely his fault that we then crashed out in 1992. That destroyed the Tory reputation for financial stability and also resulted in all the in fighting that then continued up to 1997.
Major, perhaps more than any ther PM, was destroyed by his desire to be at the heart of the EU project. It was a well deserved downfall.
Clarke, Hurd and Heseltine also pushed for it and Major kept us out of the Euro they wanted. Major also won the 1992 general election Thatcher would have lost and left a low inflation, low unemployment, low strike, growing economy for Labour in 1997 and the start of the NI peace process
Doesn't change the fact that it was Major who pushed for ERM membership and then was so desperate for us to join that he agreed us joining at entirely the wrong rate.
His downfall as a result was well deserved. All the more so given one if his last acts was to write a whining letter to the EU Commission moaning about how they were interpreting the rules in a way he didn't agree with.
He us definitely one who should be scorned when he pops up pontificating as an elder statesman
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
Pensioners are part of that socialism (they absolutely won't see it that way, saying they paid their taxes their whole lives etc) but they are in receipt of a large amount of cash benefits and subsidies from the State.
I see no prospect of that being cut back.
You're going to be a pensioner one day...
Not if we ensure the state pension age is always a year above Casino’s age.
Good idea, fixing spending money to a moving away target. This is how the conjuring trick with government borrowing works, and it ought to be more widely known. The formula is that Net financial debt should fall as a share of the economy in five years time. But it never lands. Every year it goes forward 12 months.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
If Brown had been able to listen to others, he might have acted differently.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
No doubt. But big picture - it was a huge US-originated bond/derivatives bubble which popped and drenched everyone in the vicinity. Esp places (like us) with close links. The City back then was a mini-me of Wall St. Maybe it still is, I don't know. I've been out of it for a while now and my knowledge/experience is getting stale.
They tightened up Financial Services regulation very significantly after GFC - no-one wants to be on the hook for too-big-to-fail banks again. But is it enough to prevent a repetition? The dirty secret is no-one actually knows. Banks have to pass stress tests (as they had to before the GFC) but you only pass the scenarios you test. And there is always pressure to relax regulation in the name of competitiveness.
Banks don't actually fail that often and when they do the circumstances are typically different each time. So Northern Rock failed on liquidity risk - financing dried up, the loan book was high quality, while Lehman Brothers that triggered the GFC failed on inaccurate probabilities of default, ie poor credit risk . You don't have a lot to go on when deciding what the next black swan event will be.
That's true. There's only so much Reg can do. The culture is paramount. It was crazy back then. Bonus bonus bonus. It's creeping back now from what I hear from my son who works in the thick of it.
The Rock, iirc, were lending long and funding it all short in huge amounts. Easy peasy profits that you claim is due to your brilliance. Then the liquidity dried up and they were the proverbial beached whale.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
If Brown had been able to listen to others, he might have acted differently.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
No doubt. But big picture - it was a huge US-originated bond/derivatives bubble which popped and drenched everyone in the vicinity. Esp places (like us) with close links. The City back then was a mini-me of Wall St. Maybe it still is, I don't know. I've been out of it for a while now and my knowledge/experience is getting stale.
The U.K. banks were buying the derivatives because proper risk analysis was deprecated. Regulation on risk could have tapered down the positions.
I was working on a contract in ABN - IT working on derivatives pricing - at the time. The only question the traders were asking each other for months before the end was “when?”
It’s rather well portrayed in the film Margin Call - they knew, but the size and rapidity of it caught them out.
I was on the way back from lunch one day, when I caught up with one of guys, smoking outside. I mention that Ed Balls had been claiming that they’d abolished boom-and-bust. The trader laughed and said that was the top of the market and that he was going to sell everything…
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
Crashes happen, its part of the economic cycle. The crash was actually overdue.
The problem was not the crash happening, it was being woefully unprepared for it - having maximised the deficit before it hit, from having had a budget surplus.
Oh FFS. Give it up. Even if there had been a ‘maximised’ deficit, it made no difference to either the GFC or our coping with it.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
Crashes happen, its part of the economic cycle. The crash was actually overdue.
The problem was not the crash happening, it was being woefully unprepared for it - having maximised the deficit before it hit, from having had a budget surplus.
Oh FFS. Give it up. Even if there had been a ‘maximised’ deficit, it made no difference to either the GFC or our coping with it.
Oh FFS, I said that. 🤦♂️
Try reading it again. What it made a difference to is the legacy of coming out of the crash with a 10% deficit, which had never happened before despite previously having bigger increases during a crash, because the increase was piled on top of a non-crash pre-existing deficit. 🤦♂️
It is not the crash that is the issue. Crashes happen.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
If Brown had been able to listen to others, he might have acted differently.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
No doubt. But big picture - it was a huge US-originated bond/derivatives bubble which popped and drenched everyone in the vicinity. Esp places (like us) with close links. The City back then was a mini-me of Wall St. Maybe it still is, I don't know. I've been out of it for a while now and my knowledge/experience is getting stale.
They tightened up Financial Services regulation very significantly after GFC - no-one wants to be on the hook for too-big-to-fail banks again. But is it enough to prevent a repetition? The dirty secret is no-one actually knows. Banks have to pass stress tests (as they had to before the GFC) but you only pass the scenarios you test. And there is always pressure to relax regulation in the name of competitiveness.
Banks don't actually fail that often and when they do the circumstances are typically different each time. So Northern Rock failed on liquidity risk - financing dried up, the loan book was high quality, while Lehman Brothers that triggered the GFC failed on inaccurate probabilities of default, ie poor credit risk . You don't have a lot to go on when deciding what the next black swan event will be.
That's true. There's only so much Reg can do. The culture is paramount. It was crazy back then. Bonus bonus bonus. It's creeping back now from what I hear from my son who works in the thick of it.
The Rock, iirc, were lending long and funding it all short in huge amounts. Easy peasy profits that you claim is due to your brilliance. Then the liquidity dried up and they were the proverbial beached whale.
I wasn't involved in financial services back in 2008, but I would slightly challenge that everyone knew, say a year before, that the whole thing was going tits up. It's something people always say, and most of the time it doesn't happen.
A couple of other banking crises since WW2: Barings - conduct risk controls. BCCI - the whole bank was a fraud from top to bottom. It's different each time.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
If Brown had been able to listen to others, he might have acted differently.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
No doubt. But big picture - it was a huge US-originated bond/derivatives bubble which popped and drenched everyone in the vicinity. Esp places (like us) with close links. The City back then was a mini-me of Wall St. Maybe it still is, I don't know. I've been out of it for a while now and my knowledge/experience is getting stale.
They tightened up Financial Services regulation very significantly after GFC - no-one wants to be on the hook for too-big-to-fail banks again. But is it enough to prevent a repetition? The dirty secret is no-one actually knows. Banks have to pass stress tests (as they had to before the GFC) but you only pass the scenarios you test. And there is always pressure to relax regulation in the name of competitiveness.
Banks don't actually fail that often and when they do the circumstances are typically different each time. So Northern Rock failed on liquidity risk - financing dried up, the loan book was high quality, while Lehman Brothers that triggered the GFC failed on inaccurate probabilities of default, ie poor credit risk . You don't have a lot to go on when deciding what the next black swan event will be.
That's true. There's only so much Reg can do. The culture is paramount. It was crazy back then. Bonus bonus bonus. It's creeping back now from what I hear from my son who works in the thick of it.
The Rock, iirc, were lending long and funding it all short in huge amounts. Easy peasy profits that you claim is due to your brilliance. Then the liquidity dried up and they were the proverbial beached whale.
I wasn't involved in financial services back in 2008, but I would slightly challenge that everyone knew, say a year before, that the whole thing was going tits up. It's something people always say, and most of the time it doesn't happen.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
If Brown had been able to listen to others, he might have acted differently.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
No doubt. But big picture - it was a huge US-originated bond/derivatives bubble which popped and drenched everyone in the vicinity. Esp places (like us) with close links. The City back then was a mini-me of Wall St. Maybe it still is, I don't know. I've been out of it for a while now and my knowledge/experience is getting stale.
The U.K. banks were buying the derivatives because proper risk analysis was deprecated. Regulation on risk could have tapered down the positions.
I was working on a contract in ABN - IT working on derivatives pricing - at the time. The only question the traders were asking each other for months before the end was “when?”
It’s rather well portrayed in the film Margin Call - they knew, but the size and rapidity of it caught them out.
I was on the way back from lunch one day, when I caught up with one of guys, smoking outside. I mention that Ed Balls had been claiming that they’d abolished boom-and-bust. The trader laughed and said that was the top of the market and that he was going to sell everything…
I agree completely. I remember during my Master's in financial economics reading in one of the textbooks about how bets on derivatives could rapidly snowball and cause a financial crisis, spreading from trading arms to the rest of the investment banks to commercial banks unless banks were effectively regulated.
That was several years before 2008.
The idea that no-one warned against the financial crisis, and that no-one could have prevented it, is ridiculous. Effective regulation, like in countries such as Italy, Sweden or Canada, could have done so easily. But we, like the Americans and Irish, had an incompetent and staggeringly complacent group of financial regulators, under a system put in place by Gordon Brown and Ed Balls, and not-overseen by some quangocrat friends of theirs.
Alan Greenspan merits a (dishonourable) mention if we're looking for culprits outside the financial sector participants themselves.
But no, it would not have been easy for any feasible (given the prevailing culture) UK reg regime to have prevented the global financial crisis of 2008 happening or when it did from hitting us hard. It would have been nearer impossible than easy.
Poor regulation was a factor but it was at heart a culture/behavioural problem. You're right that we had it worse than many and that's mainly because our finance sector was disproportionately large and the City tended to ape Wall St in its practices.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
If Brown had been able to listen to others, he might have acted differently.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
No doubt. But big picture - it was a huge US-originated bond/derivatives bubble which popped and drenched everyone in the vicinity. Esp places (like us) with close links. The City back then was a mini-me of Wall St. Maybe it still is, I don't know. I've been out of it for a while now and my knowledge/experience is getting stale.
They tightened up Financial Services regulation very significantly after GFC - no-one wants to be on the hook for too-big-to-fail banks again. But is it enough to prevent a repetition? The dirty secret is no-one actually knows. Banks have to pass stress tests (as they had to before the GFC) but you only pass the scenarios you test. And there is always pressure to relax regulation in the name of competitiveness.
Banks don't actually fail that often and when they do the circumstances are typically different each time. So Northern Rock failed on liquidity risk - financing dried up, the loan book was high quality, while Lehman Brothers that triggered the GFC failed on inaccurate probabilities of default, ie poor credit risk . You don't have a lot to go on when deciding what the next black swan event will be.
That's true. There's only so much Reg can do. The culture is paramount. It was crazy back then. Bonus bonus bonus. It's creeping back now from what I hear from my son who works in the thick of it.
The Rock, iirc, were lending long and funding it all short in huge amounts. Easy peasy profits that you claim is due to your brilliance. Then the liquidity dried up and they were the proverbial beached whale.
I wasn't involved in financial services back in 2008, but I would slightly challenge that everyone knew, say a year before, that the whole thing was going tits up. It's something people always say, and most of the time it doesn't happen.
A couple of other banking crises since WW2: Barings - conduct risk controls. BCCI - the whole bank was a fraud from top to bottom. It's different each time.
I was there and I can 100% assure you they did not. Eg RBS were ramming through a top dollar acquisition of ABN.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I live in studentland and I look into what other people in Lidl put into their baskets, as market research/out of nosiness. Young people don't buy a lot of meat. Maybe chicken.
Drink a lot less alcohol too.
Having picked my 16 year old daughter up from a party last night, I'm happy to relate that reports of the youth going all abstemious are perhaps a tad overstated.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I live in studentland and I look into what other people in Lidl put into their baskets, as market research/out of nosiness. Young people don't buy a lot of meat. Maybe chicken.
Drink a lot less alcohol too.
Having picked my 16 year old daughter up from a party last night, I'm happy to relate that reports of the youth going all abstemious are perhaps a tad overstated.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I'm not a veggie but often opt for non-meat meals and in our city virtually every restaurant has plenty of vegetarian options so there is no need to go to a purely veggie restaurant anymore
I know the owner of the highest rated restaurant in town pretty well as we go there most weeks and he has told me that about 50% of people opt for non-meat main courses these days and that has been gradually rising over recent years,
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average uk GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average uk GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live.
Because the economy was golden in '97 - and WRECKED thanks to Brown in 2010.
That golden economy must have been why the Tories were reelected in 1997 with an increased majority.
The Tories lost in 1997 because of one person - John Major. It was he who had pushed for Britain to join the ERM when he was Chancellor and it was entirely his fault that we then crashed out in 1992. That destroyed the Tory reputation for financial stability and also resulted in all the in fighting that then continued up to 1997.
Major, perhaps more than any ther PM, was destroyed by his desire to be at the heart of the EU project. It was a well deserved downfall.
Clarke, Hurd and Heseltine also pushed for it and Major kept us out of the Euro they wanted. Major also won the 1992 general election Thatcher would have lost and left a low inflation, low unemployment, low strike, growing economy for Labour in 1997 and the start of the NI peace process
Oddly Lawson had already started shadowing the DM against Thatcher's express wishes. That Treasury is an odd institution. Burnham isn't wrong to want to break it up.
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
Pensioners are part of that socialism (they absolutely won't see it that way, saying they paid their taxes their whole lives etc) but they are in receipt of a large amount of cash benefits and subsidies from the State.
I see no prospect of that being cut back.
You're going to be a pensioner one day...
But if the Government have got future pension ages right, only for that one day...
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
I'm sure new announcements will be a mixed bag, but that is one I support.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I'm not a veggie but often opt for non-meat meals and in our city virtually every restaurant has plenty of vegetarian options so there is no need to go to a purely veggie restaurant anymore
I know the owner of the highest rated restaurant in town pretty well as we go there most weeks and he has told me that about 50% of people opt for non-meat main courses these days and that has been gradually rising over recent years,
I've been vegetarian for my entire adult life, and I can confirm that it has steadily become easier and easier to find vegetarian options. I no longer even check to see if a place offers veggie stuff before going because almost everywhere does these days. Even the carvery that my lad wanted to eat at last time he was home had a couple of decent veggie meals!
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Just remember: no-one has voted for his bullshit.
People didn't seem to like the old bullshit which they did vote for, so they might prefer the new bullshit they did not.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I'm not a veggie but often opt for non-meat meals and in our city virtually every restaurant has plenty of vegetarian options so there is no need to go to a purely veggie restaurant anymore
I know the owner of the highest rated restaurant in town pretty well as we go there most weeks and he has told me that about 50% of people opt for non-meat main courses these days and that has been gradually rising over recent years,
I've been vegetarian for my entire adult life, and I can confirm that it has steadily become easier and easier to find vegetarian options. I no longer even check to see if a place offers veggie stuff before going because almost everywhere does these days. Even the carvery that my lad wanted to eat at last time he was home had a couple of decent veggie meals!
Sign of the woke times!
Or just sensible reaction for the restaurant market, take your pick.
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
Pensioners are part of that socialism (they absolutely won't see it that way, saying they paid their taxes their whole lives etc) but they are in receipt of a large amount of cash benefits and subsidies from the State.
I see no prospect of that being cut back.
You're going to be a pensioner one day...
he does not count all the freebies he gets for his brood, that is different story
I get none. Zero. Nor do I ask for them or want them.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
Crashes happen, its part of the economic cycle. The crash was actually overdue.
The problem was not the crash happening, it was being woefully unprepared for it - having maximised the deficit before it hit, from having had a budget surplus.
Oh FFS. Give it up. Even if there had been a ‘maximised’ deficit, it made no difference to either the GFC or our coping with it.
We had a budget deficit before the crash. Afterwards it ballooned to more than 10% of government spending.
A budget deficit like that is unsustainable, even in the short term.
This is why austerity happened - and we went into the election with Labour promising to cut *more*.
If we had gone into the GFC with a 5% surplus (say), then the collapse in receipts from taxes would have merely brought us to neutral - leaving room for classic counter cyclic spending by the government (see Keynes).
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep out right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
Pensioners are part of that socialism (they absolutely won't see it that way, saying they paid their taxes their whole lives etc) but they are in receipt of a large amount of cash benefits and subsidies from the State.
I see no prospect of that being cut back.
You're going to be a pensioner one day...
Indeed, we all will. And I support the ending of the triple lock, pensioner freebies and a raising of the retirement age, which will affect me.
It's the right thing to do. My politics aren't based on what's most financially beneficial for me personally.
I went into the cinema with the same trepidation I had when I went to see The Fellowship of The Ring as I thought it was unfilmable/they wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
Boy was I wrong, my apologies to Sir Christopher Nolan and the cast and crew.
Go see it in IMAX.
One person behind me at the end said ‘thank God that’s over.’
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
They are somehow sliding downwards toward a bigger lead with Yougov.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
I'm not sure there aren't three components to Farage's steep decline in July. First, the grift; second, his irritable and hostile reaction cf Jeremy Corbyn who also went from magic grandpa to grumpy grandpa between two elections, which is not a good look for a leader; third, confusion between Reform and Restore (and it is by design they have similar names) and Rupert Lowe's minimisation of Dunblane. Politics is not always rational and hardly ever fair.
I went into the cinema with the same trepidation I had when I went to see The Fellowship of The Ring as I thought it was unfilmable/they wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
Boy was I wrong, my apologies to Sir Christopher Nolan and the cast and crew.
Go see it in IMAX.
One person behind me at the end said ‘thank God that’s over.’
Philistines are still around.
Sorry about that, I should learn not to talk in the cinema.
I went into the cinema with the same trepidation I had when I went to see The Fellowship of The Ring as I thought it was unfilmable/they wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
Boy was I wrong, my apologies to Sir Christopher Nolan and the cast and crew.
Go see it in IMAX.
One person behind me at the end said ‘thank God that’s over.’
Philistines are still around.
My favourite film of the year so far
I am opposed to 172 min films generally but this one flew by
I went into the cinema with the same trepidation I had when I went to see The Fellowship of The Ring as I thought it was unfilmable/they wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
Boy was I wrong, my apologies to Sir Christopher Nolan and the cast and crew.
Go see it in IMAX.
One person behind me at the end said ‘thank God that’s over.’
Philistines are still around.
At the end Odysseus also said ‘thank God that’s over.’
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I'm not a veggie but often opt for non-meat meals and in our city virtually every restaurant has plenty of vegetarian options so there is no need to go to a purely veggie restaurant anymore
I know the owner of the highest rated restaurant in town pretty well as we go there most weeks and he has told me that about 50% of people opt for non-meat main courses these days and that has been gradually rising over recent years,
Yeah, but that's both nonsense and bollocks.
Everyone I know who was "vegan", or even veggie in some instances, in recent years has now gone pescatarian or flexitarian. It's totally fallen back and has gone off the boil.
You've lost. Sorry.
The only change I have noticed in the last 2 years is everyone everywhere asking you if you have any allergies before each meal, of which there appear to be an explosion, but veganism has gone right out of fashion, plenty of such businesses have closed, and people neither order it nor talk about it much anymore.
People are now eating normal food again. Thank Christ.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
I'm not sure there aren't three components to Farage's steep decline in July. First, the grift; second, his irritable and hostile reaction cf Jeremy Corbyn who also went from magic grandpa to grumpy grandpa between two elections, which is not a good look for a leader; third, confusion between Reform and Restore (and it is by design they have similar names) and Rupert Lowe's minimisation of Dunblane. Politics is not always rational and hardly ever fair.
The curtain was pulled back in Makerfield. It turns out he didn't have a preternatural connection to the WWC after all. That smashed the illusion that he was nailed on next PM. Both for the media and himself.
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Just remember: no-one has voted for his bullshit.
I thought you would be in favour of the King we haven't voted for even if he did the dirty on Diana
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Just remember: no-one has voted for his bullshit.
People didn't seem to like the old bullshit which they did vote for, so they might prefer the new bullshit they did not.
That's wishful thinking. Burnham has no well to draw on for any unpopular move he makes, and make them he must and he will.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep out right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
To be fair to Burnham allowing licences for Jackdaw is an essentially meaningless gesture, pick your battles etc etc. it's an easy option even I would choose.
The risk with Burnham is that he only does meaningless gestures.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
I'm sure new announcements will be a mixed bag, but that is one I support.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
Ultimately, if we are to avert the most extreme effects of global warming, most of the remaining fossil fuels need to stay under the ground. If it were the case that extracting more from below the North Sea meant that less would be extracted elsewhere then, yes, it would make environmental sense to continue to exploit the North Sea. But we all know that that is not the case. It just means the world as a whole continues to burn more gas and oil.
So yes, drilling in the North Sea will go some small way towards improving our balance of payments, but it is delusional to claim as some do that it has no downside for the environment.
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Just remember: no-one has voted for his bullshit.
I thought you would be in favour of the King we haven't voted for even if he did the dirty on Diana
Burnham shagged Diana?
Quick: get onto the Sun. You'll make a killing with that story.
Burnham seems to have the same level of cockiness that his hero Kinnock had in dismissing Blair and brown along with thatcher . At least Blair and thatcher won multiple elections to be pm .
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Just remember: no-one has voted for his bullshit.
I thought you would be in favour of the King we haven't voted for even if he did the dirty on Diana
Burnham shagged Diana?
Quick: get onto the Sun. You'll make a killing with that story.
Comments
All new energy sources require subsidy, and in the case of nuclear humongous subsidies
Pragmatism trumps ideology. Even for outright socialists.
https://x.com/Sheetrockdust/status/2078134575864098830
I am not a Zohran guy, but there definitely has been a marked observable shift in the effectiveness of the:
- Parks Department
- Sanitation Department
- DEP
- DOT
Feels like putting a person there just to block Ed M from having the job which all seems a bit continuity Sunak/Starmer.
To my eye Kruger has been moving towards greater nuance over the last year or two, and I am not sure how that will play out as a Ref UK MP.
On Monty aiui he had a rough time for mental during COVID.
There is also a capacity (or not) in organsations to evolve and absorb new insights. The Cons have traditionalyl been good at that (I question that quality now, though), Labour have done it with conflict, the Liberals have deon by adjusting the balance inside the party via debate around their values. I do not think Reform are good at that; it is too soon and their key long-term point is whether they can pass to a second generation of leaders.
One case I find fascinating is Pastor Chris Wickland, who has appeared at Yaxley-Lennon Rallies as one of the 'chaplains' speaking from the platform. He is aiui an Elim Pentecostal Minister, and styles himself as a Christin Nationalist, who has now attached himself to Bishop Cerion Dewar's group in the Confessing Anglican Church. They reject women priests and buy in to the Apostolic Succession (ordination via a continuous historic chain since Christ), but Elim has had women pastors for a century. I'm interested to see how he adapts in his new environment.
I think Wickland is entering a new tradition which is inimical to his former values, and I would call his development a process of grooming.
2. ...nope, that's it.
So the next Home Sec. will stop doing the policy *enforcement* that upset many Labour members and MPs. Without starting a political fight.
So the next Home Sec. will stop doing the policy *enforcement* that upset many Labour members and MPs. Without starting a political fight.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
I'm not saying it wont work but it seems odd given what's happening in Home Office.
Hacker: Bernard, Humphrey should have seen this [financial crisis] coming and warned me.
Bernard: I don't think Sir Humphrey understands economics, Prime Minister; he did read Classics, you know.
Hacker: What about Sir Frank? He's head of the Treasury!
Bernard: Well I'm afraid he's at an even greater disadvantage in understanding economics: he's an economist.
Or consider the case of Ken Clarke, who knew naff all about economics but did OK.
But then again... we're all pointing at shadows on the cave for now. Outside the King of the North's most intimate court, none of us know what he's up to. Then again, I'd love to know what EdM is thinking this morning.
@DPJHodges
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Although you can still get 1.3 on Mahmood. That's not a 'done deal' price for something settling on Monday.
But crisis - and a huge one - it would still have been. This was not your normal business cycle type situation. It was long brewing and caused by major dysfunction in the financial markets. Greed, fraud, ignorance, laziness, recklessness and stupidity were all in the mix as contributory factors.
It took the Tories years of multiple PMs and HSs to create the toxic policies Mahmoud has managed in 6 months. All for no up upshooting of polling. Get rid!
2. Easy to control - no power base in the Labour Party
3. Rates her political and adminstrative competence
Would be my guess. If so, Burnham could be disappointed on points 2 and 3.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
https://x.com/BSmith/status/2078219754762903570
It is the legacy that would bave been different.
In any typical cycle the crisis causes the deficit to balloon, then it is brought back under control until the nexr one hits. In 1990/91 the delta between pre and post recession deficit was actually worse but because we went in with a surplus we came out at "only" a 7% deficit which means we needed to trim not too much to get the finances back under relative control.
In 2008/09 we entered already at a deficit, meaning we exited at 10% which made major austerity necessary to get back control.
The point is had we entered the GFC in surplus we could have exited and not required austerity even if the crisis was every bit as serious, just as happened in 1990/91.
Banks don't actually fail that often and when they do the circumstances are typically different each time. So Northern Rock failed on liquidity risk - financing dried up, the loan book was high quality, while Lehman Brothers that triggered the GFC failed on inaccurate probabilities of default, ie poor credit risk . You don't have a lot to go on when deciding what the next black swan event will be.
I was working on a contract in ABN - IT working on derivatives pricing - at the time. The only question the traders were asking each other for months before the end was “when?”
It’s rather well portrayed in the film Margin Call - they knew, but the size and rapidity of it caught them out.
I was on the way back from lunch one day, when I caught up with one of guys, smoking outside. I mention that Ed Balls had been claiming that they’d abolished boom-and-bust. The trader laughed and said that was the top of the market and that he was going to sell everything…
There is no turnip waste - all goes into the vats for the cask strength turnip juice. With bits in it.
Dane or Norwegian maybe, but they still need to be cut up first.
The late William Oddie was the best of them, but still a populist simplifier of complex issues. But compared with today's offering he was Aquinas and Barth rolled into one.
The excellent ecclesial attention seekers make a living keeping us entertained, running interesting churches and being simple but sort of right. Like Marcus Walker and the late Peter Mullen. Walker writes in the Spectator, and I know a Labour peer who attends his church out of choice.
I tend to find most of his recent films spectacular but also somewhat hollow. I'd argue that his films were more interesting and entertaining when he had less money to spend.
That was several years before 2008.
The idea that no-one warned against the financial crisis, and that no-one could have prevented it, is ridiculous. Effective regulation, like in countries such as Italy, Sweden or Canada, could have done so easily. But we, like the Americans and Irish, had an incompetent and staggeringly complacent group of financial regulators, under a system put in place by Gordon Brown and Ed Balls, and not-overseen by some quangocrat friends of theirs.
His downfall as a result was well deserved. All the more so given one if his last acts was to write a whining letter to the EU Commission moaning about how they were interpreting the rules in a way he didn't agree with.
He us definitely one who should be scorned when he pops up pontificating as an elder statesman
The Rock, iirc, were lending long and funding it all short in huge amounts. Easy peasy profits that you claim is due to your brilliance. Then the liquidity dried up and they were the proverbial beached whale.
The idea that immigrants steal jobs or any of that bullshit is long disproven lump of labour fallacy.
We can have net migration, or net emigration, and either way it is other issues that matter much more.
Try reading it again. What it made a difference to is the legacy of coming out of the crash with a 10% deficit, which had never happened before despite previously having bigger increases during a crash, because the increase was piled on top of a non-crash pre-existing deficit. 🤦♂️
It is not the crash that is the issue. Crashes happen.
A couple of other banking crises since WW2: Barings - conduct risk controls. BCCI - the whole bank was a fraud from top to bottom. It's different each time.
Eventually they will be right.
But no, it would not have been easy for any feasible (given the prevailing culture) UK reg regime to have prevented the global financial crisis of 2008 happening or when it did from hitting us hard. It would have been nearer impossible than easy.
Poor regulation was a factor but it was at heart a culture/behavioural problem. You're right that we had it worse than many and that's mainly because our finance sector was disproportionately large and the City tended to ape Wall St in its practices.
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/2078433327980175367
I know the owner of the highest rated restaurant in town pretty well as we go there most weeks and he has told me that about 50% of people opt for non-meat main courses these days and that has been gradually rising over recent years,
Or just sensible reaction for the restaurant market, take your pick.
A budget deficit like that is unsustainable, even in the short term.
This is why austerity happened - and we went into the election with Labour promising to cut *more*.
If we had gone into the GFC with a 5% surplus (say), then the collapse in receipts from taxes would have merely brought us to neutral - leaving room for classic counter cyclic spending by the government (see Keynes).
* I would still vote to keep out right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
It's the right thing to do. My politics aren't based on what's most financially beneficial for me personally.
I went into the cinema with the same trepidation I had when I went to see The Fellowship of The Ring as I thought it was unfilmable/they wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
Boy was I wrong, my apologies to Sir Christopher Nolan and the cast and crew.
Go see it in IMAX.
One person behind me at the end said ‘thank God that’s over.’
Philistines are still around.
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
I am opposed to 172 min films generally but this one flew by
Everyone I know who was "vegan", or even veggie in some instances, in recent years has now gone pescatarian or flexitarian. It's totally fallen back and has gone off the boil.
You've lost. Sorry.
The only change I have noticed in the last 2 years is everyone everywhere asking you if you have any allergies before each meal, of which there appear to be an explosion, but veganism has gone right out of fashion, plenty of such businesses have closed, and people neither order it nor talk about it much anymore.
People are now eating normal food again. Thank Christ.
It turns out he didn't have a preternatural connection to the WWC after all. That smashed the illusion that he was nailed on next PM. Both for the media and himself.
The risk with Burnham is that he only does meaningless gestures.
So yes, drilling in the North Sea will go some small way towards improving our balance of payments, but it is delusional to claim as some do that it has no downside for the environment.
Quick: get onto the Sun. You'll make a killing with that story.