What caught our eye this week.
Hello campers, TA here – standing in for TI, who’s off on his annual hols this week. That means topping up his monitor tan in some seedy foreign hotel instead of his seedy London lair. Ah well, a change is as good as rest as they say.
Right, with that piece of libel out of the way, I understand there’s a big event coming up on 4 July that simply cannot be ignored. That’s right, my assault on the Bitchfield pie-eating record. Oh, and this news just in: there’s a General Election on, too.
So as reluctant as I am to spend all day fighting fires in the comments section, I can’t rightfully ignore the political earthquake incoming.
Personally, I chart a wavy political line: weaving around the traffic cones of the centre ground.
I’ll happily borrow my opinions and remedies from the sane of the centre-left and centre-right. My vote goes to whoever I think will best govern in the interests of the whole country.
In 2010, I felt Labour could do with a spell in opposition. They needed time to think again.
So here we are in 2024 and we’re faced with a choice: more of the same or time for a change?
As ever, it’s Red vs Blue.
But governments shouldn’t be judged like football teams … “I’m Accrington Stanley until I die,” or whatever.
Governments should be judged like football managers: on their track record.
Why as citizens would we offer politicians our unconditional support?
Either they put the country on a sound footing and create the necessary conditions for prosperity, or we turf them out.
It’s the only leverage we have. If you’ve done a bad job, you have to go. And, my god, have any of the country’s problems appreciably improved over the last 14 years?
- Low productivity
- Economic competitiveness
- Public services: NHS, social care, education, welfare
- Housing
- National debt
- Immigration (interpret this according to your political taste)
- Regional imbalances
- Environmental protections
How about the two big promises of the last election: Brexit and Levelling Up?
Whatever you think of those two issues, it’s telling that the Conservatives aren’t shouting about their achievements on either count.
They haven’t got a vision beyond staying in power: witness ad hoc policy gimmicks like National Service. Tories were pooh-poohing that idea only weeks before the election was called.
They’re afraid to take difficult decisions to solve the country’s problems: hence the lack of progress on planning reform or social care.
And now they’re laying traps for the next Government by ruling out every tax rise they can think of. The objective being what? To keep the country in a mess until we fall back into their arms? Love it. Essentially, they’re saying: “If we can’t have you, nobody can.”
This from the people who gaslit us with ‘fiscal drag’ – raising the UK tax burden to its highest level since 1950, while simultaneously claiming they’re cutting taxes because they’ve knocked a few quid off National Insurance.
Not to mention the chaos of four prime ministers in five years – at least one of whom was manifestly unfit for office.
Casting a vote for this lot again is like going back to a bad boyfriend who says it’ll be different this time.
You may doubt Labour. “All politicians are the same,” is the cop-out defence I keep hearing. Well, let’s find out shall we?
The ire of the electorate should be biblical. Not because ‘beating the Tories’ is an inherently good thing. But because all politicians need to know that if they screw us around, they’re out.
That if they spend their time spinning and lying and fudging and faction-fighting instead of mending and sorting then they’re goners.
Remember how Boris Johnson’s 80-seat majority was meant to be unassailable? He was being talked about as a two-term prime minister because Labour needed an impossible swing to overturn their historic 2019 defeat.
Thankfully those political assumptions are in the shredder. Unquestioned party loyalty is breaking down. Tribalism is dissolving.
So, if Labour get in, they’re on notice. The electorate is volatile and vengeful.
That’s how it should be.
Some may still be stuck in the trenches, unable to overcome their fear of the Red team. But in truth, neither of our two main parties are radical. They’re usually only elected when the moderates are in charge.
Can things only get better? Definitely not. But tribalism doesn’t help us. It’s the political equivalent of auto-renewing your subscription. You will be taken advantage of.
So it’s time to switch supplier. I’m not expecting massively better service just because I’ve moved from EDF to E.ON or whoever. But it’s the only way to keep them both in line. Hence, I say:
- Vote tactically
- Vote on record
- Do not reward failure
Have a great weekend.
From Monevator
The Minimum Pension Age trap – Monevator
The perils of leveraging your mortgage to invest – Monevator [Members]
From the archive-ator: The floor and upside retirement strategy – Monevator
News
Note: Some links are Google search results – in PC/desktop view click through to read the article. Try privacy/incognito mode to avoid cookies. Consider subscribing to sites you visit a lot.
UK economic growth revised upwards – BBC
Labour won’t end tax-free cash for pensioners – Evening Standard via MSN
UK disposable income growth lags Europe but poorer households outpace richer ones – BBC
When a wealth tax goes wrong – Telegraph via MSN
Ex-Fujitsu engineer changed witness statements at behest of Post Office – Guardian
Productivity resurgence in the North – Business Live via MSN
SpaceX tender offer values company at $210 billion – Bloomberg
Top scientists turning down UK jobs due to visa costs – Guardian
The desert data boom – Sherwood
Election section mini-special
General Election poll-of-polls – Electoral Calculus
Tactical voting recommendations – Best for Britain
The economic challenges our politicians won’t talk about [Podcast] – Institute for Fiscal Studies
Reform activist makes racist comments about Sunak – Guardian
Macron looks to be in deep merde – The Economist
Democrats / Free World panics over Biden debate debacle [Search result] – FT
Mad elections [Podcast] – The Rest is History
Products and services
Best savings accounts beating inflation – Yahoo Finance
Time to lock savings up before interest rates fall? – This Is Money
Sign-up to Trading 212 via our affiliate link to claim your free share and cashback. T&Cs apply – Trading 212
Best travel insurance – Which
Open an account with low-cost platform InvestEngine via our link and get up to £50 when you invest at least £100 (T&Cs apply. Capital at risk) – InvestEngine
eBay seller’s tax guide – Yahoo Finance
Beautiful homes faintly connected to politicians, in pictures – Guardian
Comment and opinion
The happiest and unhappiest nations on Earth – Our World In Data
The seven laws of personal finance – Scott Burns
Why you need to stop hoarding cash – Cautiously Optimistic
Spendthrifts vs tightwads (which are you?) – Morningstar
Persuading elderly parents to downsize: how not to do it [Search result] – FT
Is Nvidia a good stock? – Bloomberg
The small cap premium is dead. No! It’s only resting – A Wealth of Common Sense
Can US stocks keep outperforming? – Morningstar
Five retirement regrets and how to avoid them – Which
Five things an investor shouldn’t care about – Safal Niveshak
The cost of following England at the Euros (possibly the most joyless article I’ve ever read. Had to share!) – Yahoo Finance
Why European stocks have lagged US stocks – Albert Bridge Capital
The World’s top retailers by revenue – Visual Capitalist
Empty inside: the eerie feeling of abandoned mansions – Yahoo Finance
Naughty corner: Active antics
Cancelled! TA is in charge this week. Say three Hail Mary’s and read Passive vs active investing as penance for even thinking about timing the market.
Kindle book bargains
A Man for All Markets by Edward O. Thorpe – £0.99 on Kindle
Doughnut Economics by Kate Raworth – £0.99 on Kindle
Taxtopia by The Rebel Accountant – £0.99 on Kindle
The $100 Startup by Chris Guillebeau – £0.99 on Kindle
Environmental factors
How global companies are rowing back on green targets [Search result] – FT
How to avert mass extinction – Guardian
Futuristic Saudi city, The Line, cut short (absolute shocker) – BBC
BP doubles down on fossil fuels (absolute shocker #2) – This Is Money via MSN
Robot overlord roundup
Bill Gates thinks AI will be net good vs climate change (presumably because it’ll kill us all?) – Guardian
What happens if humanity’s AGI dreams come true? [Podcast] – 80,000 Hours
Overthrowing our tech overlords – Noema
I’m sorry Robo-Master, I didn’t mean it when I said you’d kill us all [Grovels, sobs].
Sex click-bait! [New section]
The tyranny of the female-orgasm industrial complex – Atlantic
Can 25% of people orgasm from tickling? – Guardian
Better read these fast before TI returns to crush my awesome new editorial initiative.
Off our beat
Glasto in pictures! – BBC
How to choose between competing theories (send to the conspiracy theorist in your life) – Clearer Thinking
The loneliness of the tennis player who isn’t quite good enough (or how the dream dies) – Guardian
Why the West is not to blame for Putin invading Ukraine (spoiler alert: Putin is to blame) – Institute for the Study of War
Late bloomers: those who succeed later in life – Atlantic
How to think about differences in ability between groups – Clearer Thinking
German viral comedy-rap sensation (instant antidote to election blues) – YouTube
The correct way to hang toilet paper (this will change your life. Not for the better, obviously) – Unilad
And finally…
“Don’t aim at success. The more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one’s personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one’s surrender to a person other than oneself.”
– Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning
Like these links? Subscribe to get them every Friday. Note this article includes affiliate links, such as from Amazon and Interactive Investor.
Thanks for the links, I would say two of the last 5 PMs were manifestly unfit for office, I’ve been reading the Anthony Seldon books on them. Truss was obviously mad but Johnson’s mendacity, gaslighting and disregard of standards in public life have done more in my opinion to reduce confidence in politicians and politics generally.
Yes, you flummoxed me with “at least one [prime minister] whom was manifestly unfit for office”. It seems a very generous position to hold.
@TA,
Can’t find anything to argue with your summary of the past 14 years, possibly, you could have highlighted the sleaze i.e. party gate, betting, Tory donor racism etc.
I’m like you and not expecting much from the new Government, which in a way is quite sad. The financial constraints will be quite limiting and sometimes I think the current Govt has got us in this mess, let them sort it out!
I’d say it’s quite radical being not able to say that you will protect biological females from biological males and establish safe spaces in toilets, changing rooms etc.
It won’t cost Labour this GE, because the tories are unelectable, but I suspect that Starmer will get less votes than his previous anti semitic boss, partly because he has alienated a fair proportion of 51% of the people, and huge inroads by Reform into the Tory vote will give Labour more MPs but not more votes.
You make many good points, but it’s easy to view Labour as a different check of the same ass. Hence why there is increasing support for independents and Reform.
I do predict a huge Labour majority though, more than 250. But the next parliament being a hung one.
May I live in interesting times…
Just a heads up, the TSB switching deal that Be Clever With Your Cash discusses ended last Monday. May as well ditch it from this weeks links.
All seemed fair enough to me.
The “population” isn’t constant from one year to the next and it can have a major impact over a relatively low number of years:
-ageing population. 10% more 65+ isn’t 10% more NHS support needed…
-Less workers to non workers/pensioners
– more sickness due to ageing and lifestyle and imaginary
– more self selecting as being “too ill to work, disabled, anxious” etc. there was a ridulous comment this week about 16% of the population being disabled
– less hungry work force, less hours, less hustle, more apathy
It’s hard to blame the current govt for all of this as most of it is demography and culture. Frankly we need really hard leaders who can make tough decisions that upset many in the short term to secure our future
– less benefits
– less secure social housing
– lower benefits / time limits
– Limited conditions for NHS
– better use of the 20m spare bedrooms
More personal responsibility and lower entitlements
A biblical analogy might give historical context to the eternal human condition?
In the “olden” days -the population had rulers(politicians) and priests (civil and local government officials) who did the day to day stuff well or if badly then a prophet arose and duly castigated all and sundry ,brought down the ship and the game restarted with hopefully a better cast of”leaders”
We await a prophet -not really many candidates in view yet though Farage seems to be creating a lot of waves
“Beige on beige” is a good description of the current players
xxd09
@xxd09 — Looking for an autocrat / Biblical flood would concern me if I had children.
I agree the global mood is going in that direction but I don’t see it elevating a charlatan like Farage and think to myself “cometh the hour cometh the man” even on his own terms, let alone the historical precedents.
Other than in my very first, I don’t vote in political elections, not even our village parish council, for the straightforward reason that there has never once been a political election in which I have been entitled to vote and in which the local result for me has been decided by a single vote.
I hear the clamour of voices saying, “What if everyone did that?”. My response is that then I would vote.
So, on with the motley on 4 July, and I shall adapt intelligently to whatever the outcome is.
Always wanted to vote Labour but there are too many Blairite floaters bobbing about. Blairism is just nihilism by another name and Labour will descend into infighting between the left and authoritarian right. I recall if they go below 40% in election poll-of-polls then this historically predicts a leadership battle within 2 years – Angie in the red corner!
Will be interesting to see how Ed Milliband’s destruction of our oil and gas industry will go. I can’t think of any other ideological destruction of an industry since Thatcher and the coal industry. Meanwhile, Norway has ramped up production and licensing to meet EU demand….more revenue for the sovereign wealth fund…health care….schools…
Perhaps our youth will follow those in the EU and migrate to the right.
Could be all over within 5 years.
I’d like to vote for Labour, but they’re putting in no effort whatsoever in this constituency. It’s not quite at the level of the New Forest or Canvey Island, but round here they normally just weigh the Tory vote rather than bothering to count it.
Ironically, this time though MRP polling suggests that the Tories are down here to 40%, which is a ~25% drop on 2019.
But Labour’s refused to cooperate with Libs (who used to come second here) and the Greens; meaning that there looks to be no chance of unseating the Tory incumbent.
And the Labour candidate lives 80 miles from the constituency, unlike all the others.
It doesn’t reflect well on Labour tactics in safe Tory seats, especially rural ones like ours where people are deeply and profoundly p****d off with the Tories, but still reasonably want to know what Labour would actually do for the countryside and the constituency.
I think that I’ll have to vote Green or Lib as a protest vote this time.
Investor-Rather like investing I don’t really believe “it’s different this time”
I just “stay the course” and regard the current shenanigans as one would regard a stockmarket drop -ie normality
Life goes on -though have often thought about being a hermit as an alternative lifestyle !
However 3 children and 8 great grandchildren later still in the market and playing the game -seems to be a winning formula -so far!!
xxd09
The really sad thing is if BJ was still PM, this contest would be a lot closer. Despite the lying, the laziness, the partygate, the Russian links, the failure to deliver anything except failure, he’s still “just a good old boy, don’t you know” (I despair).
I much prefer the beige on beige to what the USA and France are getting!!
I hope the Tories get a major kicking but while Sunak is so rich, he can not conceive of how real people live, I don’t believe he is corrupt.
It’s the next election that frightens me – the one in 2029. Because I doubt things will be much better in public services etc. and there will be an appetite for the extreme parties then. Because the “normal” ones will have failed – assuming the Tories haven’t become one of those extreme parties (which they currently seem inclined to become (eyeroll).)
Also anyone who votes for a party that wants to remove us from the ECHR really needs their head examined.
You seem to consider only two options @TA. There is also of course:
– Spoilt ballot paper, which does get counted (my preferred option)
– Independent candidate if there is a good one
– One of the other parties (although all the others are also most likely part of the uni-party anyway)
@ Andy T – thank you. My bad. Have removed the link.
Have replaced it with this German rap duo whose comedy tongue-twisters have gone viral. This just made my day:
https://youtu.be/ZYkBf0dbs5I?si=volBKJOLZjjF0BD4
@ Gary – Your comment caused me to look up gender policies and the BBC have written this balanced report of the various party positions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nng2j42xro#:~:text=In%20its%20manifesto%2C%20Labour%20has,to%20change%20their%20legal%20sex.
I do think Starmer got himself into a muddle on this one previously, but I guessed Labour had adopted a reasonable, centre-left position on it more recently as it hasn’t become a live issue during the campaign. Lo and behold that’s exactly what’s happened. Clearly what they’re not saying is: we won’t protect single-sex spaces. What they are saying is: we’d like to ensure spaces are safe for everyone, it’s a complex issue, and we don’t have all the answers yet.
@ Factor – what if thousands of people are acting the same way in your constituency? Watching declining turnout rates but noting that the majority is more than one. Yet if those many thousands came out and voted then perhaps there would be enough of them to change the result.
What if turnout declined so that only 1,000 people voted in your constituency? The majority would still likely be more than one, and you could still say: “Yep, no need for me to do anything yet.”
I don’t get what voting costs you?
@ Sarah – I hear you. I fear your 2o29 prediction could be quite prescient. The US and French examples are particularly worrisome because Biden and Macron have both done quite well economically. Labour have five years to get it right, or at least be heading in the right direction. I hope they’re bold enough, but bold means upsetting people.
@ Algernond – only two parties can win the election. But voting tactically can help you engineer the right result if you can’t stand to vote for your historic enemy or if it’s the only way to eject the incumbent. Spoiling your ballot paper seems pointless to me. What’s the message? That you’re all rubbish? Well, they’re the best we’ve got.
Compared to the likes of the French or US elections, the UK one is a non-event. Labour will win. Starmer will talk “change” but will find it very hard to deliver any. The room to manoeuvre is too small and time isn’t on his side.
The problem really stems from the electorate. They want easy answers to very complex problems. Their expectations are too high and they have no patience. So evolution selects for politicians that are willing to provide simple, quick answers and overpromise. Those that want to offer complex answers and realistic expectations go extinct.
The risk is that later in the decade, the UK start to follow other countries that are sliding into electing populist demagogues. Hungary, Italy and Netherlands are there. The risk for that in France is very high (whether left or right).
Most terrifying, the USA wants to elect Trump and throw away democracy. Bizarrely, he has become a cipher for a minority of Christian Nationalists who desire a change from a secular to theocratic state. Saying that feel I feel like I been reading some dystopian novel but it’s seems this is our reality.
I’m thinking that for the first time ever I’ll spoil my ballot paper in protest at what we’re being served up. I won’t vote either Conservative or Labour because:
Both main parties – the ‘conspiracy of silence’ about the real and serious challenges/state of finances that the IFS has noted – this is directly undermining of democracy, as how can our choice be informed and free under these circumstances?
Tories –
Brexit (massive black mark)
Partygate
Johnson and Truss (both unfit for office; Johnson worse than Truss, indeed I regard him as unfit for any position of responsibility)
The party’s a magnet for chancers and wastrels
No vision other than keeping power and performing ‘government’
Won’t get a grip on food and drinks industry that contributes to make people unhealthy and costs the welfare bill and NHS a fortune (‘nanny state’)
Labour –
CGT hit
VAT on private school fees
Stance on trans issues
Won’t get a grip on that proportion of ballooning welfare & NHS costs caused by people having made themselves unhealthy through obesity, etc (no such thing as ‘undeserving’)
That leaves the Lib Dems and Greens, and at least the Lib Dems have said they’d return to indexing CGT, but neither party really inspires.
@TA. I would agree with you if spoilt ballot papers weren’t counted, but they are. E.g., if more than half are spoilt, then I think that would send a clear message.
@ZX, I’m not sure where you get your info. from, but I haven’t seen anything that indicates ‘democracy’ with Trump in the US is more under threat that it has been with the regime of the last 4 years… (I’m not a Trump fanboy BTW).
I agree strongly with @Sarah and was going to make the same point:
> It’s the next election that frightens me – the one in 2029.
Any outcome that weakens Reform and damaging radicals on either side of the political spectrum is a good one for me – the situation’s bad enough as it is.
Farage is a demagogue, which I’ll define as being someone “who preaches what they know to be untrue to people they consider to be idiots.” Not content with UKIP leading the charge into the great failure that was Brexit (obviously because “we haven’t done it right” aka No True Scotsman) – like the proverbial turd that won’t flush, Farage rebrands as “Reform” which is more of the same, only harder. All the while mysteriously attracting racists to the cause. It amazes me how many supposedly intelligent people cannot see through it. Even to the point where Farage can stand up on TV proclaiming what a stand up guy Putin is and parroting Russian propaganda. Rightly, other crackpots like the infamously Stalin-esque Mr G Galloway aren’t given the time of day by most. Yet Farage still manages to bewitch people with his John Bull standup routine by posing with a pint at his local country pub. Heaven help us – wake up people.
Keep democracy working!
@Sarah – a Tory/Reform merger might be on the cards by 2029 with BJ and NF both in there. It would be a tragic endpoint to the appeasement of Farage that began with Cameron’s 2013 promise to hold *that* referendum. Boris and Farage may not see eye to eye on Ukraine but, sadly, they both pull in the votes.
@ZX: the aversion to confronting the world’s problems is only going to get worse as the climate, productivity, demographic and resource crises exacerbate and feed off each other as the century goes on. Populism will come in waves.
@ Tyro – I feel fully informed on the choice I’m making because I don’t look to political parties for that information. I rely – as you indicate – on organisations like the IFS, good journalists and commentators, and reading between the lines.
Relying on the main parties is like getting my information from the front of a cereal packet. Was it ever different? I don’t think so but ZX has rightly pointed out why our politicians can’t be open: because if they are, the electorate punishes them.
For example, Theresa May in 2017 when she tried to get a grip on social care.
You seem to be role-modelling this very tendency because Labour have said they’ll look at CGT and remove the VAT exemption on private schools in order to recruit more state school teachers. Will both of those costs hit you personally?
Meanwhile, teacher recruitment and retention is a raging binfire in the state sector which the majority of kids are relying upon for some semblance of an education.
The Atlantic piece ‘The tyranny of the female-orgasm industrial complex’ is paywalled, so I was unable to, er, finish it…!
@ Martin T – you can register for a free account and they’ll let you read one or two pieces per month
Labour will be similar to the Tories but with less corruption. I’ve never voted Labour before, but definitely am this time.
@TA, another great read, thank you.
“if they spend their time spinning and lying and fudging and faction-fighting instead of mending and sorting then they’re goners.”
Even if / when this happens, they don’t comprehend that they themselves are responsible.
Too arrogant, too up their own backsides, too stupid.
MPs betting on election dates ?? I rest my case.
And to misquote @John Charity Spring, they all consider us plebs to be idiots.
For the first time in decades of voting, I’m seriously considering spoiling the ballot paper.
@The Accumulator #16
Thanks for your response. I see no need to say any more than I’ve already said.
Great article in links from Ben Carlson/ AWOCS on small caps. Just add to it that to the extent (which is debatable) that small cap is a factor premium in and of itself, and not just a diversification benefit (I’m on the fence, but constructively critical), then it may be significantly attributable to small cap value (SCV) companies – with small cap growth having a negative relative return to large caps (and even large cap growth IIRC). So, when diversifying from large caps, I look to SCV as far as possible, rather than to small caps per se.
On the BBC piece on the ludicrous Saudi Neom/The Line project: Real Life Lore has an excellent video from 2 weeks’ ago on this on YouTube. The Line project is even crazier than the BBC make out. Imagine the fiasco of HS2 multiplied a hundred fold. At least one advantage of democracy is that it’s usually possible to stop the barmiest ideas. Unfortunately, that’s not true in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
New election: I vote @TA to replace @TI! (Love the brackets and scattered snide humour) ….
And serious request: could Mrs @TA have a go at a weekend post too?
@ Delta Hedge – yes, agree that small cap value is where it’s at. Shame it’s so hard to invest in.
I don’t even believe they’ll build 2.4km of The Line. It’s MBS’ marketing department gone mad. Will check out that vid.
@ London ALTA – would love Mrs TA to write more, but she’s a shy and elusive creature. Her w/e reading would be hilarious. You could expect zero articles about investing.
This just in from Mrs TA: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/picture/2024/jun/29/from-the-big-red-bus-suit-to-unused-ppe-its-all-in-the-torys-closing-down-sale-the-stephen-collins-cartoon
The biggest threat in this election is the rise of poundshop fascism. For that reason I encourage ( can’t believe I’m saying this) every sane citizen of Clacton to tactically vote Tory.
@Algernond. I too am thinking of spoiling my ballot paper as a protest against the shower of sh1ts lining up to govern us. Very sad there hasn’t been a mass campaign for this on social media.
Democracy is messy compromise. Change is needed. Be part of it. If the next lot let you down – vote them out.
I agree with Mark Twain who said “Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason”.
I am also one to vote for whoever looks most competent, a valence voter. Who would I want in charge when the next unforeseen crisis arrives?
A small part of me is attracted to reform as although they are only offering simple (undeliverable) answers to complex problems at least they are willing to acknowledge complex problems exist – pub room bore type approach. The mainstream parties aren’t interested. I wouldn’t like to see Nigel Farage as prime minister though (understatement). If we don’t start having a conversation about these difficult issues, fringe parties will possibly become more and more popular.
I would remind those moaning about ‘is this the best we can vote for’ / ‘spoiling their ballot papers’ that in a modern democracy the electorate more or less gets the politicians they deserve.
So how do I change things? Easy, Join a political party – your relative influence on uk politics will be exponentially higher. Which one – probably conservatives as they are historically the party of govt. don’t believe me? If another 30k voted for Hunt or 15k for Sunak, Boris and Truss would never have happened. I’m not saying that’s a good or bad thing. I’m illustrating the influence you can have currently as political parties – particularly the conservatives have very very small membership bases. I feel confident that if 100k 25 year olds join the Conservative party the leaders desire to influence housing policy will increase significantly. You don’t need to be a right wing / wing nut or even a conservative voter to become a member.
But most people just want to moan and do nothing. It’s the human condition. It also why if yyou are willing to work hard in a place like the UK you can do better than the vast majority of people.
If it hadn’t have been for Truss we wouldn’t have had the energy price guarantee – Rishi initially wanted to channel all the energy help to universal credit, so I don’t regret voting for her. It was that energy price guarantee though that was the most expensive part of the mini -budget, not the tax cuts – and Liz was simply unlucky to take the fall. The bank of England didn’t like her challenge to orthodoxy, and didn’t lift a finger to redirect the blame at putin etc, and when it did it’s emergency bond buying it leveled the blame at the mini budget, becoming overtly political.
Liz wasn’t the mp’s choice, so many of them didn’t lift a finger to save her, to get Rishi in. It shows though that members should always vote for the MP’s choice because otherwise the MP’s won’t support them.
The debt we have always shot up in crisises – the gfc, covid, and energy crisis, I argue this government simply had an unlucky hand, and other governments around the world also suffered energy costs and interest rate spikes.
If you look at what services in our society have the shortages, it’s the ones with price controls (like the NHS, etc) – not the private sector.
I also would argue now though that austerity *is* a form of growth strategy by getting gilt yields down, you get corporate bond yields down, enabling growth. More austerity means lower interest rates.
@SeekingFire — Yes this is what I call the Barry Blimp “common sense” man in the golf club philosophy. It’s very appealing because it simply states problems and adopts the posture that a dozen sensible minded blokes could roll up their sleeves and take the tough decisions to enact never-exactly-explained solutions.
Unfortunately challenges such as low U.K. productivity, regional disparities, agglomeration affects that favour London and certain other cities in the 21st century, energy requirements vs longer term climate imperatives, or even immigration and house building are hard if not intractable problems, which is exactly why they aren’t solved by a few sensible Blimps over a pub lunch.
I think we may be entering dangerous times. When someone so wise as you can be persuaded by the half truths and omissions emanating from the Labour party at present it is sobering. We could be in very dangerous territory because behind the leader is an army for radical left who will push their agenda hard.
Not sure that, economically, this election is a game changer in any way. No new plans or major changes being mooted by either side. I don’t see Labour doing anything batshit crazy. More tinkering around the edges. That is what our politics has been reduced to these days.
Politically, though, it sounds as though it will be a seismic event, especially if the Tories are reduced to below 100 seats as some forecasters are predicting, which will be an existential crisis for the Conservative party. So, definitely interesting from a political/historical perspective.
You’re fretting about phantoms. Labour have always governed from the centre ground. It’s a broad church party just like the Tories. And just like the Tories, the headbangers only get their chance when the party is defeated. Electoral success empowers the moderates, not the lunatic fringe.
As for half truths and omissions, name me a party that isn’t trading in those? This is politics.
The difference, perhaps, is this… The Tories expect to be in power. They’re in charge two-thirds of the time, afterall. And this time they’ve squandered their chance.
Labour, meanwhile, know they’re on borrowed time from the moment they get in. They’re more likely to enact genuine change because they do not enjoy the intrinsic advantages of the Conservatives. Hence most of our reforming governments have been Labour, and we’re certainly in need of reform right now. (Not the Nigel kind).
@ Seeking Fire – great point about political membership. I’m tempted to join.
While I do understand the urge to spoil ballot papers or not bother voting (because what difference does it make?) it is self-defeating.
We know this because hard-voting pensioners have the Triple Lock while state support for the young has been slashed since 2010.
Average age of Conservative Party membership is circa 65 and I would suggest largely middle class / pink trouser brigade, golf club society, rotary club etc etc. nothing wrong with them obviously but Totally unrepresentative of wider society. But if you remember the hustings for BoJo and Jezza Hunt, good old hunt started warbling on about sending one of our aircraft carriers into the South Pacific seas to rattle china’s cage. He knows that’s as daft as it sounds but was simply pandering to the membership. It’s why Rory Stewart got no where. Moderate centres are just not very attractive to the c. party faithful. Anyways it’s £15 a go and just think only circa 50k elected the last prime minister…..
@Andrew Barber #37: whilst I suspect our politics are opposite (I have strong ‘hard left’ sympathies tbh – i.e. economically left wing and progressively internationalist, but moderately socially conservative); I wouldn’t entirely rule out the risk you highlight. However, it’s a risk that I think largely lies in the Labour Party’s past. The Trotskyist left (SWP + Alliance for Workers Liberty these days) have always advocated entryism and ‘a march through the institutions’. But, after 1983, Kinnock stymied their advance in the constituency Labour Party (through the vehicle of the Militant Tendency) and, despite organisations like Momentum under Corbyn, they’ve never recovered their own political momentum within the labour movement.
However, I acknowledge that the relative extremes of left and right have more chance of exerting influence in the main Parliamentary parties when membership levels are so low as compared to history. At the peak of mass UK political participation in the early 1950s:
– Conservative Party membership peaked at around 2.8 million in 1953.
– Labour Party membership reached over 1 million in the same year.
Whereas, as of recent years:
– Conservative Party membership was reported at a mere 172,437 as of September 2022.
– Whilst Labour Party membership at the same time stood at just 432,000.
And I think that if the Tories get wiped out next week then Farage has an inroad, tactically speaking, on pulling off a reverse take over of the rump of the Conservative Party. A Tory extinction level event on Thursday may turn out, therefore, not to be in either Labour’s or the country’s longer term interests.
I can’t think of any example of a moderate governing party falling to entryism in a western democracy. Far-left and far-right parties are usually pretty upfront about their agenda.
Has anyone got an example? It’s probably happened somewhere but it must be pretty rare.
I don’t get the fear stories about Labour. They aren’t backed up by previous experience. The last time Labour took over after a long period of Conservative government they did things like: give independence to the Bank of England, negotiate a political resolution to Northern Ireland’s longterm problems, establish the Supreme Court, introduce a minimum wage, introduce civil partnerships, bring in the Human Rights Act, start a longer term process of investing in health and education. There is no doubt more that doesn’t come to mind at the moment.
That didn’t look like a “radical left” agenda, and the current Labour leadership is well to the right of Blair and Brown. My real worry is that Labour (assuming of course it gets in as the polls predict) won’t have the same energy to fix the accumulated problems that face us.
@TA #41: The Tea Party movement in the US Republican Party: While not exactly a classic entryist group per se, the Tea Party activists quite effectively shifted the GOP substantially rightward by successfully ‘primarying out’ moderate Republicans and pushing for much more radical conservative policies, thereby presaging DJT and the MAGA takeover.
And Farage is aiming for a rerun of the 2003 merger of the Canadian Alliance (formerly the Reform Party) and the Progressive Conservative parties after the Progressive Conservatives (who were more or less akin to our own Conservative Party on the spectrum) went (following Canada’s 1993 general election) from governing to losing all but 2 of their 156 seats and more than half of their vote from 1988. Farage models himself on Canada’s former Reform Party, even down to the name.
On the extreme left, it’s true that entryism has been a failure (not that it’s stopped the Trots from trying though). However, there’s a footnote here about the links between Galloway’s Worker’s Party of Britain, which won Rochdale, and the CPGB-ML (the latter though, whilst definitely Communists, are also very definitely not Trots – in fact they have a burning hatred of Trots: its proper People’s Front of Judea versus Judean People’s Front territory!)
This isn’t New Labour under Blair, so it definately has the potential to be more left-wing. Yet, to get elected, it put itself in a fiscal straightjacket. That will probably take a full term to extract themselves from.
Meanwhile, it won’t be able to deliver any substantive change. It can fiddle while Rome burns. Take the NHS. Labour is basically adopting the Tory spending plan that already requires an additional £40bn in real terms over the next four years (from £180bn to £220bn/annum). That doesn’t actually deliver anything except more staff and higher compensation for those staff. It will then sprinkle over the top a few billion here or there for this scheme or that. Mainly to fudge waiting lists. Finding the money from a small tax rise here or there. All rounding errors in real terms, but it will make nice headlines. Meanwhile, they will not grasp the basic problem that the NHS can only need more and more money to cope with an aging population.
Similarly, they have taken advantage of the “Brexit bonus” by adding VAT to private school fees (something no other European country does and which would have not been allowed if we were still in the EU). They say this will raise £1.6bn but will probably raise perhaps £0.5bn once additional costs for state schools are absorbed. It makes some happy, others pissed off but it’s just another rounding error. It won’t change education.
The reality is, given our level of growth and productivity, it doesn’t matter which govt is in power. Over 90% of spending is basically fixed. Taxes will have to rise to pay for less and lower quality public services. Plus at some point, perhaps very soon, we are going to have to increase defence spending very substantially.
It’s typical of populists to offer simplistic solutions to complex problems, eg cutting immigration will solve all our problems, or, only biological women should have access to women’s ‘safe spaces’.
I saw Richard Tice being interviewed the other day and what was his solution to cutting NHS waiting lists? Why, cut immigration of course, simple! The interviewer politely pointed out that most immigrants are young so hardly a burden on the NHS, and immigrant doctors and nurses are helping fill vacancies in the NHS, so actually immigration is helping cut NHS waiting lists. To which Tice mumbled some non reply and tried to change the subject.
Rishi Sunak in his desperation is now trying to jump on the J K Rowling transphobic band wagon. Anyone would think there was some tidal wave of transexuals coming to a women’s changing room near you, the way they harp on about it. I mean there are major crime problems, eg knife crime, county lines gangs, online fraud, how on earth have they made trans rights the number one criminal concern?
I get it, you don’t want some guy putting a wig on and using trans as an excuse to go in a women’s changing room (or go to a women’s prison as that guy in Scotland tried to do). But consider the opposite, a trans girl who has known all her life she is a girl, has gone through all the trouble and cost of changing gender, legally and physically, who to all intents and purposes is a girl, are we really saying they still have to use the men’s changing room? How intolerant and basically immoral is that? It’s a complex issue and needs a considered approach, not this dog whistle politics we’re currently seeing.
The Tories are no longer adults. Since Boris took over they’ve descended further and further into culture wars, corruption, stupidity, and dishonesty. Sunak’s persistent claims about reducing taxes, when in actual fact they’ve increased them again and again, shows his basic lack of integrity, the very thing he claimed he was going to bring back. (I’m not necessarily against higher taxes, but I do think you should be honest when you increase them that that’s what you’re doing.) The Tories need to spend a long spell on the sidelines and have a real think about who they are and what they believe in. If they do get wiped out by Reform then they only have themselves to blame.
As for Labour I am hopeful they can turn things around, I’ve been reading Torsten Bell’s new book and it is an eye opener (he is the former director of the Resolution Foundation and is now standing for Labour). There are some quick wins I think Labour can implement, eg closer trading relationship with the EU, clamping down on tax avoidance (I notice Jeremy Clarkson suddenly hates Labour again now he’s realised his favoured method of tax avoidance, ie buying up farm land because it’s inheritance tax free, is being looked into), looking at planning permissions and encouraging investment in onshore wind farms (the cheapest form of energy and since 2015 there has been a de facto ban on new onshore wind farms). There are more besides. A stable government with intelligent hard working people in charge committed to growth should encourage private and public investment in the UK which is what will really help make us all better off. One can hope anyway.
@ZX #44: I don’t disagree with the facts of what you’ve said, save that I think you’ve jumped to a conclusion not supported by the evidence in your final sentence about the need to soon increase defense spend, “very substantially”.
I don’t want to be accused of underplaying Vladimir Putin’s neo-imperial ambitions here, so let me make it plain that Russia is (and likely will remain) an expansionist hegemon which doesn’t play by the rules based international order and which, if it could do so, would annexe or ‘vassalize’ Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the Baltic states and possibly even eastern Poland.
But the Ukraine war has shown that the Russian armed forces are extremely poorly led, have absolutely terrible logistics, hopelessly outdated equipment, and sever recruitment and morale issues. Moreover they evidently can’t properly coordinate between different service branches and can’t adapt tactics.
All in all Russia’s forces are generally rather unimpressive for such a large land power.
Does that really suggest then that we need to ratchet defense spending?
Over a little more than 2 years Russia has had 450,000 killed and wounded and lost 4,000 tanks.
In its current offensives Russia is only managing to seize ~0.03% of Ukraine’s territory per month (Russia gained 201 sq km in May).
To me this looks like an unmitigated disaster for Putin, and an unexpected, albeit incomplete, triumph for NATO.
All we have to do now is just keep bleeding Russia dry on the battlefields of the Donbas.
We don’t need to start ramping defence spending to 3% of GDP. It’s just unnecessary. We don’t need to confront Russia directly (as opposed to by proxy) or to escalate. We should take the win.
We had similar debates in the early 80s when we were all told the Warsaw Pact had overwhelming numbers of tanks etc which would soon be smashing through the Fulda Gap heading for the Rhine
Rather less well publicised was that those same tank armies were junk. We saw this when the Pact unravelled in 1989-90 and during the 1991 Gulf War when Iraq’s then million strong Soviet equipped armed forces fell apart.
For some relevant historical perspective (from 1986) I’d recommend reading “The Myth of Soviet Military Supremacy” by Tom Gervasi (Harper & Row, New York).
@DH – would presume ZX was talking about China/Taiwan rather than Russia?
But what can the UK do about Taiwan/ China if that kicks off? It’s 6,000 miles away. The South China Sea is not a NATO operating area. Leave well alone I say. British military adventures against China (the Opium Wars of 1839-42 and 1858-60) does not inspire confidence that we’d not make a bad situation even worse, even if we could make a difference at that range, which I doubt.
@ Delta Hedge – Andrew Barber raised the spectre that somehow Labour moderates are a front for the far-left who will take control after Labour assume power. (Despite the fact this has never happened before.)
The Tea Party aren’t an example of that. The Tea Party pushed the Republicans to the right while in opposition. The consequence was Trump who presented his agenda to the American public in 2016.
And that’s my point. When Labour move too far to the left they become unelectable. But there’s no example I can think of, and certainly none in British political history, where a moderate government has been hijacked by the lunatic fringe.
Re: Russia – I agree with you, the ideal strategy would be to keep Russia tied down in the Ukraine. But what if they win? Or even if they lose? There’s every chance they double down on militarism and become a more potent threat that forces defence spending rises on the rest of Europe.
Moreover, their military is currently in the process of learning how to fight on the modern battlefield aka they’re learning from their mistakes. While economically they seem to have the headroom to increase their military capability further. Given those conditions I submit we’d be wise to bolster our hollowed-out defence forces sooner rather than later.
It’s worth noting that those next in line – e.g. the Poles – are doing this now.
To briefly address your point about the Soviet era. Future confrontation won’t look like this. We’re more likely to be fighting hybrid warfare. Attacks on undersea pipelines and communications infrastructure. Cyber warfare. The gradual subsuming of a Baltic state – challenging us to start a nuclear war over a piece of Latvia etc…
Readily concede(d) that the Tea Party are not an ‘entryist’ example, at least under a narrow definition of the term; but they are a quite striking + important example of a party radically self radicalising. The GOP is now well to the right of where it was under Nixon, Regan and George Bush Jr.
The same could happen to the Tories after Thursday, depending on the result and how the Brexit Sparta, Trussite and Faragist sympathiser wings play their cards.
On Russia, it’s possible they rise up to successfully challenge NATO, but history suggests otherwise.
The Russian armed forces have pretty much always been woeful.
In 1812 Moscow fell and it was General Winter who defeated Napoleon.
In 1854-6 Russian incompetence in Crimea became legendary.
In 1914-16 the Imperial Russian Army all but collapsed against Germany and Austria-Hungary, and in Mar-Nov 1917 Kerensky’s Provisional Government fared even worse leaving Lenin and Trotsky (after the Nov 1917 Bolshevik coup d’état) to sue for a peace with the Germans on any terms.
In the Russian Civil War of 1918-21 the Red and White armies were all hopeless in the field and the Reds won what was in effect a trial of weakness.
In 1920 the Poles bested a numerically much larger Red Army invading force (although it didn’t help the Reds that their two commanders, Trotsky and Stalin, hated and undermined each other).
In 1941 a numerically inferior German force went through Soviet lines like a hot knife through butter and came close to taking Moscow only to be defeated, like the French 130 years before, by the winter.
From 1942-45 the Soviets always lost at least 250 men for every 100 Germans and probably wouldn’t have prevailed in the East without massive Lend-Lease assistance from the US and UK.
The Soviet’s made heavy weather of subduing Hungary in 1956 and couldn’t manage Afghanistan in 1979-89.
In 1994-96 the Chechens bested the Russians and Putin’s rerun of that war from 1999 barely worked out for Russia.
In 2008 the Russians performed quite badly against Georgia, even though – with a tremendous paper superiority in numbers – they did just about prevail.
In 2015 the Russian separatist forces in eastern Ukraine were close to being overrun.
And since 2022 Russia had screwed up its plans to invade Ukraine, which having regard to the historical record, should have surprised no one.
So I’m not afraid of the Russians, and I don’t think the UK should be too. With US/NATO assistance, Ukraine is doing a very good job of degrading Russian capabilities for a long time to come.
[Quick p.s.: Also consider Russia’s abysmal under performance in their war against Japan in 1904-5, their woeful showing in their attempt to invade Finland in 1939-40 and their resort to barrel bombs and such like in support of Assad in Syria from 2015-19. They’re hardly the next Prussia].
@ wephway
As a father with daughters, and 5 granddaughters, I’m 100% behind protecting their spaces from people with penises (often with mental problems).
If they pass and have had surgery then it’s probably a reasonable compromise.
TA/TA Feel free to delete if it’s going to cause problems
@Boltt @all — It’s an area that only ever leads to a bitter breakdown of discussion tbh. Let’s say both sides have made their point here now and leave it there I suggest.
Good discussion thread cheers all!
Rather than rushing to a tactical voting website please run your eyes over your actual candidates. Any STEM graduates in the mix?
There’s a lot more to being an MP than voting in the chamber. We need skilled individuals who can work the committees and surgeries etc. My selection for Thursday includes three candidates who deny scientific facts, which rules them out for me. The contentious area might be tiny but it speaks volumes for their approach to problems.
@ Azamino
https://studee.com/media/mps-and-their-degrees-media
Interesting profile of MPs from 2019 by sex, which uni, subject studied
Economics (4th) was nearest to stem from the top 6 subjects (covering 65% MOs) – a poor showing for the scientists
Sample size one for my area – French, politics, Stem (you can probably guess which is which)
To inject a note of optimism and unity – however and whoever we vote for on Thursday, we all have one elemental foe: absolute poverty, which civilisation itself is a rallying cry against:
https://open.substack.com/pub/noahpinion/p/the-elemental-foe
@ Delta Hedge – I’m only carrying this on because I’m enjoying the debate, it’s not meant to be antagonistic…
I don’t think we should be afraid of the Russians and I don’t think we’re likely to face a massed Russian onslaught. But our current level of defence spending is not predicated on facing a hostile Russia in Europe.
The byproduct of current Russian military travails is they are learning how to fight a contemporary war. Their tactics continue to evolve in light of their experience.
Still I think our spending will likely have to rise – not to fight Russian tanks -but to contain Russian attempts to destablise our society and disable Nato. In other words, more troop deployments in vulnerable Nato states, more resources allocated to cyber warfare, protection of critical infrastructure etc, not to mention more arms for Ukraine.
Re: challenging NATO it’s likely to involve the destabilisation of a Baltic state and seeing what we do about it. They don’t need to roll them up with tanks. Continued assaults on civic society should do it, sowing discord, continued provocations against a democratically elected government, funding extremist groups, enabling the election of a pro-Russian government, arson campaigns, sending in the little green men to take de facto control of a border area featuring a sizeable Russian-speaking population…
@Azamino. Given that a fairly large percentage of the population seem to deny scientific facts, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that MPs do aswell. Remember, people want their MPs to be representative of society. We really do get the politicians we deserve. They reflect our ignorance. Personally, I’d prefer my MPs to be as unrepresentative as possible!
@DH. I think you are going a bit parabolic regarding my defence comment.
I’d say we are in a new Cold War with China and her proxies (Russia, Iran, North Korea etc). The only thing I can agree with Trump on is we’ve not been paying our way on defence. It’s not reasonable to expect the US to be our shield forever. Plus, the idea we can ignore the threat of China is nonsense. It doesn’t just operate in Asia. It’s embedded in Latam, Africa, Europe, Middle East etc. Defence spending at 2% of GDP is very low in historical terms. Throughout the Cold War period, defence spending never dropped below 4%, and was regularly much higher (up to 11%).
If we take just part of our armed services, the Royal Navy, as an example, we can see the impact. In 1990, at the end of the Cold War, it has around 200 warships and auxililaries. It now has around 80. Submarines from 29 to 6 (excluding SSBNs), escorts (frigates/destroyers) from 48 to 15. Mine countermeasure ships from 48 to 7. Moreover, we haven’t even got enough sailors to operate this fleet. Many ships are tied up alongside with no crew. The Navy simply doesn’t have enough ships to fight any sustained hot war. It has no resilience, no depth. We could say the same for the British Army and RAF.
Everyone says the NHS is at breaking point but so are our armed services. Why are they less deserving than nurses or doctors? My view is at least the armed services actually protects ALL of us. The NHS increasingly doesn’t. By accident, it’s become a form of wealth transfer. It taxes young workers to pay for older people. Many of whom have the wealth to pay for themselves. Same could be said for our care system.
@ZX @TA: I always take the base case and work back from there. Russia is never as strong as she looks, and Russia is never as weak as she looks. Her military history is one of failures and incompetence. But she can just about manage to prevent foreign invasions and lasting occupations of her own territory, and to hold that unwieldy span of land together.
We could spend an extra 1% p a. of GDP on defence, and either borrow more or spend less on societal infrastructure to the tune, over a 5 year Parliament, of £130+ bn; or we could say ‘let’s keep Putin bogged down in Ukraine for a bargain few billion a year cost to the UK’.
It’s not 1990, less still 1985, even if we are in Cold War 2 (and Noahpinion thinks we are).
The armed forces of the Russian Federation are rated at barely 20% of the overall conventional strength of the Soviet Union immediately pre Perestroika.
We can’t sensibly compare our defence needs now to those we had in 1985 (or even 1990) when the Warsaw Pact forces were still strung across the inner German frontier and central Europe, and the Soviet Armed forces on their own numbered 5.5 mn, as against 1.5 mn under Russian arms now (up from 1 mn admittedly in 2022).
In Cold War 1 there were many Red scares – a bomber gap in the 1950s, a missile gap in the 1960s, a first strike ‘window of vulnerability’ in the 1980s. In the end, it turned out all the gaps were in NATO’s favour.
It would be tragic to fall for the siren song of scaremongering again.
Yes Putin is a terrible man. Yes Russia is an expansionist aggressor. But something is only going to happen if it can happen. On all past performances, I just can’t realistically see Russia successfully jeopardising NATO’s core interests.
On China, over 1964-8 Wilson decided that by 1971 the UK should withdraw east of Suez. Bar the two Gulf Wars + Afghanistan successive governments have since then stuck to that. It was a pragmatic decision then, and IMO still is the right call now.
We’re not a Superpower. Nor are we an Imperial power anymore. We have to cut our cloth to fit. Defence is an even more a bottomless money pit than the NHS.
And with regard to investing, how much more will they take from our general investment accounts in taxes.
Not heard many talking about this but for those of us who are at/near retirement, and don’t have large pots in ISAs, it’s a worry as the Tories have already slashed our CGT annual allowance to only a miniscule 3k – nothing in the scheme of things from what it was. This doesn’t enable you to draw hardly anything (for most people who have invested for a while) each year for living expenses/top up cash funds. You find it hard to even reorganise your broker accounts to mitigate against high fees as when you do and have to sell anything much out, you are now hit with a big tax bill and not much you can do really – the ISA allowance is that small and kept at same level – not index linked to inflation as it should be. Diffusing CGT is pretty much a thing of the past now as there’s now a pitiful amount to “diffuse” each year!
Can’t remember who it was but heard some politicians saying that CGT should be increased further with no annual CGT allowance and someone else saying CGT should be at the same level as income tax – so all merged into one – so those who have saved hard, not squandered, for their retirement are the ones hit. When questioned Labour don’t seem to say much on this issue which rings alarm bells – just the standard stock answer that they won’t raise Inc tax/NI/VAT. This could be a big hit on the typical retiree investment pot which is not that large.
@ J – if we’re in agreement that public services are on their knees then the choices are: increased borrowing, increased taxes, increased growth, or just letting public services fall apart.
The two main parties are claiming they’ll find the money from increased growth – sounds great.
Then there’s the usual blather about clamping down on tax loopholes and spending inefficiencies. The Tories have apparently been on this mission for 14-years, so good luck squeezing more juice out of these pips.
Then there’s the appeals to the biases of each party’s base:
Tories: “Don’t worry we’ll squeeze the benefit layabouts” – they’ve been doing this for 14-years too.
Labour: “Don’t worry we’ll close down some tax perks only rich people enjoy.”
At least the rich don’t have to choose between heat or eat. But such talk panics the middle class, and there’s only so much revenue to be raised from the ‘rich’.
The point is both the Tory and Labour approaches are just headline-grabbers. Neither will raise enough money to square the circle while staying within the bounds of the politically possible.
The Tory solution: use smoke-and-mirror wheezes like fiscal drag to increase income taxes for the majority. Much as I don’t love paying more income tax, this at least is moving the needle. I just hate the dishonesty of it.
This cheery piece OTOH suggests that the markets will allow Labour to borrow more to invest in future growth:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/30/labour-needs-billions-to-fund-its-plans-and-i-know-where-it-can-be-found
The wiggle room comes from market perceptions of Labour economic credibility. How about that?
So maybe there is hope that the growth solution is possible. But will the electorate give Labour the time? And will they be bold enough to grasp the nettle?
Re: typical retiree investment pot. Isn’t it all in pension schemes protected from CGT?
The ONS offers these figures for average total pension wealth:
age 55-64 = £102,300
age 65-74 = £92,100
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/pensionwealthwealthingreatbritain
Median 50th percentile point (£) for all persons (2)
Table 6.10
On a positive note I shall very much enjoy seeing the Tories being thoroughly humiliated on Thursday. They deserve all that’s coming to them for the mess they have made of my country.
There will of course be a high cost to fix things and no doubt we will be paying for Tory incompetence for years to come, but that’s a concern for later.
There’s consensus that we’re in a pickle. Whether it’s France, America, India, Russia or here, in this year of elections, this rings true:
“Pity the nation whose people are sheep
And whose shepherds mislead them
Pity the nation whose leaders are liars
Whose sages are silenced
And whose bigots haunt the airwaves
Pity the nation that raises not its voice
Except to praise conquerors
And acclaim the bully as hero
And aims to rule the world
By force and by torture… ”
—Lawrence Ferlinghetti
The populists offer the same smoke and mirrors as the elites which they criticise, but who – more often than not – they are just another part of (rather than apart from, as they claim).
When the illusion is dispelled a new one will rise to take its place.
The Liberal government of 1906 lost its majority in 1910.
The Atlee government of 1945 did so in 1951.
Cameron was a shoe in for another 10 years in 2015, but went a year later.
Boris Johnson’s majority of 80 in 2019 was said to guarantee him a decade in Downing Street. But he was gone in 2022.
Political volatility mark all systems struggling to respond. It’s a symptom of a deep malaise, not a cause of it.
A few observations:
1) It is interesting to note that, in markets, when everyone is leaning one way, the chances are quite high that the opposite happens. I don’t know if that applies to politics of course but there you go! Referring to the polls of course.
2) I think that the old saying ” be careful what you wish for” applies here. The people who are trumpeting the triumph of Labour may find that the tax and pensions raid that they are likely to unleash will not please many of the people on this site -given their strong interest in personal finance! I believe I read somewhere that Britain has the highest number of exiting millionaires in the world – including China (which has 1.5 bn people!)
3) I think Rishi Sunak has done a half-way decent job in trying to get things done over the last eighteen months or so – after the disasters that went before him.
4) Punishing a party or leader, particularly if the current leader was not really responsible for many of the most egregious things that happened under the Tory party’s watch is not the smartest way to vote, in my opinion.
5) You have to look at the the future and who you think is most competent to run the UK over the next few years. I believe we actually are turning the corner in the UK and I think things are on the verge of getting better. The problem is that Labour governments have a tendency to trash the economy, jack up taxes and leave everyone worse off.
6) I remember the good times under Tony Blair and have a soft spot for Labour but I think practically speaking, the Tories generally do a better job of defence and managing the economy – they are just generally better at it than Labour for various reasons.
7) Right now the two most important things are defence and the economy – which are historically Labour weak points.
The decision to who you vote for should be made for practical, logical reasons – not to punish anyone. You have to think about who is better able to manage the economy, defence and of course Britain’s standing on the world stage. Can Starmer, Reeves and Rayner really do that convincingly? I’m not sure about that.
But what do I know – seems like most people aren’t that bothered!
@not sure about that
If the Tories did somehow manage to sneak in with an improbable victory I don’t think Rishi would last long – the Tories don’t seem to be able to help themselves when it comes to internal party conflict and leadership challenges would surely follow, leading to further chaos, lack of investment and so on. Did you know over the last 14 years there have been 16 different Housing Secretaries? No wonder housing is such a problem at the moment, when there is such instability. But it’s a symptom of a party that is full of populists and ambitious self-serving narcissists and which chops and changes at every turn.
“Labour governments have a tendency to trash the economy, jack up taxes and leave everyone worse off.” What, like the Tory government of the last 14 years? I don’t know to which Labour government you are referring to, maybe the one from the 70s? My memory of New Labour was a responsible stable government where nearly everyone prospered. Of course there was the GFC but I don’t think that was really Labour’s fault, and actually I thought Gordon Brown showed impressive international leadership at the time which prevented an even worse crash.
“I think Rishi Sunak has done a half-way decent job in trying to get things done over the last eighteen months or so” I’m struggling to think of what he has actually achieved? Inflation has come down but I don’t think that was really down to him, unless you count higher taxes (which does in theory bring inflation down). Jeremy Hunt did bring some normality back to the country’s finances, but I don’t think Rishi can take much credit from that other than just letting Hunt get on with it. On the other hand the weekly scandals have continued, NHS waiting lists are higher than ever, Brexit is still causing economic harm, immigration is higher than it’s ever been, prisons are full to the point of bursting, schools are crumbling, I could go on. Some of the flagship Tory policies haven’t happened because he called the early election, eg ban on smoking, Rwanda flights, Rental Reform Bill. What has he actually achieved?
@ Not Sure About That –
“Punishing a party or leader, particularly if the current leader was not really responsible for many of the most egregious things that happened under the Tory party’s watch is not the smartest way to vote, in my opinion.”
Punishing a party for the most egregious things that happened under their watch is not the smartest way to vote?
Then who should be held responsible? If someone does a terrible job, you sack them.
After 14 years, enough is enough.
It’s not about Sunak. It’s about the party and government that has failed to solve Britain’s economic malaise. Not only failed to solve it but actively contributed to it thanks to:
– Increasing barriers with our closest trading partners
– Creating an unstable environment for investors due to years of uncertainty, continual changes of strategy and leadership, dropping the Truss bomb
– The “fuck business!” attitude of the party’s most famous son
Strong on the economy? What more evidence do you need to junk that outmoded stereotype.
Meanwhile, investors are lining up to invest in the UK because they believe Reeves will deliver the stability they crave.
It’s odd that you claim the history of this government doesn’t matter – that Sunak should be given another chance – yet you’re reaching back into history to blackball the current Labour crop.
Like Wephway, I suspect you’re talking about the 1974-79 Labour government. While turning a blind eye to the 3-day week / inflation-stoking chaos of the 1970-74 Tory government.
How is defence a Labour weak point?
Re: looking to the future. Absolutely. The Tories are riven by in-fighting and have proven themselves incapable of unlocking the growth we need. They played the “fresh start” card with Johnson and it’s been worse than ever.
They’re out of ideas. They’re clinging on to power for power’s sake. Never has a party more needed a period in opposition to sort themselves out.
The Labour team look perfectly competent. I’ve got no problem whatsoever with giving them a shake. I’m not expecting miracles but it really is time for a change.
It seems to me that most of the defences mounted here of the Tory Government are based not on their record of the achievement but on the notion that any Labour alternative must be de facto dangerous, incompetent or both.
That viewpoint is not born out by historical facts but by selective memory and stereotyping. Yes, there have been poor Labour administrations in the past, as there have been poor Conservative ones.
If you cannot vote for a moderate, centre-left government when your own side has been demonstrably terrible than you are making a case for a one-party state. I can’t think of anything more dangerous than that.
You can bet your bottom dollar that if this was happening the other way round, I’d want Labour out.
It’s astonishing how the Tory economic record gets given a free pass. What Labour did half a century ago is given as much airtime by some as what the Tories have spent the past 14 years doing.
Just a reminder of the Conservative economic record: (Covid aside) recessions in 1972-74, 1980-81 and 1989-92 (three million unemployed in the last two); and miserable recoveries from 2010 onwards and after 2021.
Sure, you can say that those were down to external factors to an extent, but reasoning like that is never then extended to or given legitimacy for Labour from 1974-79, or in 2007-2009.
There’s always been a huge, inexplicable double standard.
And for any waiverers, enough said:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/03/list-terrible-policy-conservatives-britain-2010
Well one thing is quite likely, and this should be concerning for people who wish to keep more of their wealth ie everybody on this website, and that is that Labour is probably going to come after wealth if they get in to power. CGT, Pension allowances, IHT, taxing pensioners etc…the list is endless…
So the decision how to vote is not as straightforward as “punishing” people for events that have happened in the past. As you may well end up punishing yourself – quite heavily as well…
@quite sure about this — Just as tribal left-wing voters so often fail to realise that it’s ‘our’ money that governments are spending (having raised it via taxation), so too tribal right-wing voters often seem to not understand that there’s more to wealth in the long-run than whether they *personally* have an extra few hundred quid in their pockets at the end of the year.
The country is in a funk, GDP per person hasn’t grown for 15 years, NHS waiting lists have skyrocketed over that time, the Conservatives implemented almost the hardest version possible of the economically damaging Brexit they mid-wifed for us which has done nobody any good, and, not coincidentally, always-crappy levels of UK capital investment are still years below their (lamentable) trend…
…oh and the tax take under the Tories has anyway reached the highest level it’s been for c.70 years!
None of that is good for the long-term economic growth that would actually make us all a lot richer than the Tories giving pensioners another tax-saving bung.
I’m not even getting into absolutely nonsense stuff here like the ineptitude of Johnson at anything other than winning elections or Truss at, well, anything. I agree with @TA that they’re more evidence that the party needs to get out and grow up.
Sadly I doubt Labour will be able to do much meaningful due to (a) the depths of this hole (b) the already high level of taxation (c) the ongoing self-inflicted slow-bleed of Brexit (d) the wilful ignorance and wishful thinking of a large cohort of an electorate increasingly infected with populist brain-rot.
However I’m more than happy to have a few years break from ‘Tory competence’, given the oxymoron that has become.
Happy election day all. I’ve enjoyed this thread and the chance to debate. I’m thankful that the choice before us is better than the one facing the Americans or the French. No matter what happens I sincerely hope things look rosier for us all in five years time than they do today. See you on the other side!
@TI
“voters often seem to not understand that there’s more to wealth in the long-run than whether they *personally* have an extra few hundred quid in their pockets at the end of the year.”
This, 1,000 times this.
To which I’d add (though you may not) “voters often seem to not understand that there’s more to improving things for everyone than protectionism* can achieve”.
* here meaning protecting “my” patch, whether re anti-immigration, anti-multicultural societal development, pro increasing redistribution but only from those a bit more wealthy / earning a bit more than me. Basically, the look after only me and my kind (however defined) brigade.
Whilst I agree the sleazy Tories need to be kicked out for all their incompetence, corruption and disrespect to the electorate with too many scandals to mention – you cannot name anything that really works or is good about this country anymore – but I won’t be voting Labour either. They are just as useless with a usual policy of massive tax and waste. They are all the same including the Libs – I mean really, who’d vote for a party lead by Ed Davy – just for a kick off.
And if I remember rightly it didn’t end well for Labour last time with their incompetence and massive debt leading to the Tories austerity for which they said the Tories wouldn’t get another term due to what they would have to implement and hence the Byrne note labour left for the Tories re: “no money left as we spent it all.” The GFC was a factor but I don’t think anybody can say they covered themselves in any glory although not quite in same league as this current lot of charlatans. Starmer also changes his mind like the wind, would sell his granny to anyone to gain power (and obviously is as dull as ditchwater). Whilst he may have been right about brexit, he doesn’t go down well with many for doing his utmost to overturn the will of the people – if we’re going to be given a referendum they should nevertheless abide by it whatever the outcome, even if it is shooting yourself in the foot.
So for those shouting “Labour, Labour” I think the electorate has a short memory of even recent past events. They’ll soon be voting the Tories back in for god’s sake!
Although I agree the country needs fixing, I think Labour will put up taxes astronomically as others have said and think it’ll cost us more than just a few hundred for most of us (CGT, pensions and will hold all allowances incl. ISAs at same levels for years without indexation even though Tories have already reduced CGT and dividend allowances a shedload and obviously Inc tax allowances not rising) and like the Tories they won’t use it wisely – just wastrels. I don’t want to pay any more for it to be wasted by incompetents or worse via corruption. You may think they are not as corrupt as the Cons but all the main parties had their noses equally as deep in the trough when they were found out in the expenses scandal (claiming for all sorts of weird and wonderful things, as well as for salaries for close family members as well as “flipping” houses like burgers on the barby.)
We may laugh at the US and their choice of candidates – Trump or the dithering Biden – but ours are all equally as bad. Who is there really to vote for? There is no “least worst” in my opinion – they’re all a bunch of F***WITS who don’t deserve a vote. There’s no escape though. We’re getting Labour but just watch the results go sour and then as I said it won’t be long before the Tories are back at the wheel. It’s like just banging your head against the wall constantly. We need radical change in this country otherwise we are all just doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different outcome – definition of insanity.
“voters often seem to not understand that there’s more to wealth in the long-run than whether they *personally* have an extra few hundred quid in their pockets at the end of the year.”
Well yes of course growing the pie is the best solution. But that can take time and people who are struggling now need some reassurance that the government will not take even more of their money in the meantime, while they are getting some growth going.
It is only wealthy people who have the luxury of thinking that they can handle more taxes or be more altruistic about the whole thing. Interestingly, Jim Ratcliffe, the billionaire who backed Labour, moved his tax status abroad so will not be affected if there is a Labour tax raid, if they get in of course.
If you are living paycheque to paycheque, you want your taxes cut and the pressure off you, while the growth gets going.
“The GFC was a factor” (#76): come on. It was more that “a” factor, it was *the* factor. Think back. The developed world looked like it was doing a Titanic with the iceberg as the credit crunch and the ocean as the risk of a global depression. And amongst the big economies only China had any lifeboats ready. Remember the AIG bailout in the US, the TARP, QE – it all started in the US and, as always, the Americans do things bigger than us, crashes included. Does that mean Gordon Brown is absolved of all blame here? Absolutely not. He did some things wrong, and some things well. But Labour did not cause the events of 2007-09 with their own policies, and can scarcely be held more responsible for the GFC than the Tories can for the onset of Covid in 2020.
If anyone is interested in the books, I loved Ian Dunt’s “How Westminster Works, and Why it Doesn’t”, as well as Paul Johnson’s (IFS) “Follow the Money”. They were so helpful in understanding how government actually works/fails, beyond the day-to-day jousting. I also read Will Hutton’s “This Time No Mistakes” which is heavier and more left-leaning. Next I am reading Torsten Bell’s (was Resolution Foundation) “Great Britain?” (I expect a bit left too given he’ll probably be a Labour MP tomorrow) and then, when imminently launched, Sam Freedman’s “Broken Britain” (he of The Power Test podcast).
It could be worse -at least it’s not a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn-who I believe Kier Starmer voted for as a worthwhile future prime minister!
xxd09
@xxdo9 – exactly and with judgement as comprehensive as his you wouldn’t put him in charge of a kids party and tomorrow he’ll be supposedly running (mismanaging) the country!
@DH – yes the GFC was the trigger but as I said they didn’t cover themselves in glory. It was all about their overspending/mismanagement including allowing the bankers to do what they liked with massive under regulation and not segregating capital from what I remember – so incompetence at best. The media was all over it and Labour were dumped in shame with Byrne still having the audacity to leave that comment. Not something I can easily forget. And another thing didn’t G. Brown sell off all the gold at rock bottom prices IIRC.
It’s true that voting for Corbyn wasn’t an ideal choice, but presumably you lot instead voted for Johnson — a serial liar who led the country into a hard Brexit and was so bad he was booted out of office by his own party of sycophants, which he’d already purged of its last remaining competent members like some Poundshop People’s Republic leader because they resisted the Brexit currently costing us £40bn+ a year in lost tax revenues.
So, you know, those who live in glass houses et cetera.
In normal times I can stomach a bit of tribalism. But I’ve almost got more time for the ballot spoilers (I still think they should vote tbh) then anyone still sticking up for the Tories on ‘they are not Labour’ grounds when you can vote for the most centrist Labour party since Blair and the Conservatives have been a historic clown show for the best part of decade — easily the worst administration for more than 100 years.
#76 @confused
“it didn’t end well for Labour last time with their incompetence and massive debt leading to the Tories austerity”
I keep hearing this, but where does it come from as it does not appear to be true?
In 2009/2010 UK national debt stood at £1.3T, 65% GDP, and in 2019/2020 (to discount any effect from Covid or the war in Ukraine) it was £1.8T, 85% GDP. So what am I missing?
If Labour do get in, I think the shine will come off pretty quickly as people realize the mistake they have made in voting them in – and realise how incompetent the people at the top really are as they struggle with the issues that are facing us – both domestically and internationally.
I would guess that the vast majority calling for change now will regret it in 6 months to a year.
Change for change’s sake is pointless. A change for the worse is…well, worse
@ Nyul – thank you for the book recommendations. I’ll check those out!
@ Confuzed – National debt going into the GFC was 35% of GDP going into the Financial Crisis (2007/08). In other words, Labour weren’t overspending, that wasn’t the reason the GFC hit us so hard:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/282841/debt-as-gdp-uk/
Also notice how national debt keeps falling over successive Tory and Labour administrations before bottoming out. In other words, no sign of Labour maxing out the credit card until the GFC hits and the banks have to be bailed out.
(BTW, if the GFC was a regulatory failure, do you think an alternative Tory administration would have regulated the City more severely?)
Re: tax burden – here’s the figures from the OBR 1965-2021:
https://obr.uk/box/the-uks-tax-burden-in-historical-and-international-context/
You’ll see the tax burden (as % of GDP) moves in a range from 29% to 34%. Your narrative of Labour profligacy is hard to support looking at this.
Here’s the latest numbers:
https://fullfact.org/economy/70-year-high-tax-burden/
At 36.3%, the tax burden in 2022/23 was the highest since 1949 (when it was 36.9%) and the second highest since records began in 1948, when the tax burden was 37.2%. However, in 2023/24 it fell slightly to 36.1%.
The commentary from the IFS is worth reading because it slaughters a few sacred cows:
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/how-tax-burden-high-when-most-us-are-taxed-so-low
In sum, Tories have increased the tax burden since instituting fiscal drag. There’s no evidence that Labour put up taxes astronomically.
Why don’t they? Because they know they’ll be booted out if they do.
The current Labour team have already ruled out raising the main taxes which make much difference.
If they make some changes to CGT and IHT – well, they just don’t affect the vast majority of people. Which means:
(1) Those taxes are not big revenue raisers, so Labour will have to rely on other methods to fix our problems.
(2) Increases in those taxes are the first of first world problems – as TI mentioned.
There’s no way Labour are going to target pensioners. It’s just a lose-lose narrative. Funnily enough, the Tories are increasing the burden on pensioners via fiscal drag and targeting tax cuts at NI.
Much of this debate reminds me of the old line about propaganda:
“Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.”
i.e. Labour are inveterate tax-and-spend maniacs so watch your wallets. Tories are the Praetorian Guard of the economy but hate the poor.
The truth is far more complex.
@Nyul
Thanks for these, I’ll have a look into them. I would also recommend Rory Stewart’s “Politics on the Edge” as a good insider account of the political system and why it’s so hard to implement change (spoiler: you need stability and ministers that stay in their role longer than a year).
I am currently half way through Torsten Bell’s book and keep having to read out sentences to my wife. I would say it’s centre-left, definitely a focus on the less well off, but he is dismissive of some of the more radical left ideas and he’s very pro-growth and pro-investment. It’s probably a useful guide to how Labour will govern as I think he’ll be quite influential.
@absolutely certain about this — Labour can’t do much, the country is in a hole not least (but not entirely) due to the misrule of the Tories over the past decade.
I’ve already conceded this headwind, for my part.
It’s telling though that the best anyone can come up with is “ooo-eer, Labour are scary!”
Nobody, not even Tory diehards, are celebrating their achievements (there are none, rounding down) or their platform (give pensioners even more money, bring back national service).
It’s important to keep an open mind as probably it will take someone very special to get us out of this current hole that our congnoscenti (Conservative/Labour,SNP et al) have dug for us poor proles
No one believes any of our leaders any more -a sad state of affairs but not an unprecedented situation
It will be interesting to find out what the electorate actually thinks today-recent referendums in Britain ,Australia and Ireland have definitively not gone the way those in charge who instigated them would wish-delineating the continuing yawning gap between the people and their elected representatives
xxd09
I am not sticking up for the Tories – I hate these corrupt lot and everything they have done as I said above. I want them out tomorrow as much as anyone. For one I was not able to visit my dying father who got Covid whilst in hospital while Partygate was going on in Downing Street, so I don’t think I would be likely one to support the Tories – just on that score alone never mind the other countless episodes of chaos and corruption.
I don’t think Labour are the messiah though – we’ve had it all before and nothing much changes. I don’t want Labour either – even though tomorrow we’re stuck with them for another 5 years. All the main parties have had their day and are as bad as each other. From what I’ve heard/read – Labour run NHS in Wales is in a worse state than NHS in England – although difficult to see how as it’s totally abysmal here. We need complete change and electoral system reform but god knows how we’ll get with any of these.
There is no belief in the political class anymore as xxdo9 says above. Admittedly Blair did do some good and get some things running better – the NHS for one was streets ahead but then he blew it over Iraq war/lies (wrong intelligence?) and being Bush’s poodle. Doesn’t matter who is in power we always have to follow the US and get involved in foreign escapades and wars – it’s not like we have that much military might anyway but still seem to think we do? Would we still have the guts to be the most vocal country to support Ukraine against Russia if we didn’t have the might of the US as allies behind us? We should only act with all allies/NATO if needs be with all contributing to the cost. Not spending our money to go bombing with the Americans like we still do (e.g. Houti rebels). If it is to protect all western shipping as they say then why shouldn’t all affected contribute instead of us mainly doing the spending/bombing and basically doing whatever the US wants us to so they are not seen to be acting alone – it’s not about what little we as a miniscule pretty insignificant country can offer them – it’s just for show. They don’t respect us anyway – they won’t even give us a decent trade deal, apparently, post Brexit – true friends they are!
“Labour run NHS in Wales is in a worse state than NHS in England”: Welsh based friends confirm this. They’re travelling to Liverpool to get treatment so bad has the situation with delays / missed diagnosis gotten in NHS Wales. Of course, this may or may not be down (in whole or in part) to the decisions taken and not taken by the devolved Welsh government.
“even though tomorrow we’re stuck with them for another 5 years.”
Well actually you are not stuck with them for 5 years, assuming they win, as there is no fixed term parliamentary act as I understand. Therefore, if they perform poorly, which I expect, then they may have to call an early general election (as in 2017 and 2019).
@ Confuzed – my response is less about party affiliation and more focussed on debunking the fear-mongering that leads many on this thread to believe there is no alternative to an extension of the Tory shitshow. (I know you’re not saying this, but quite a few people are.)
I agree with you that there is much less difference between the parties than is generally accepted.
My expectations are quite low too. That doesn’t lead me to give up on politics. I think democracy requires participation to remain healthy.
I think a few things would help:
– Switching to a PR system instead of first-past-the-post. Everyone’s vote should count. Too many don’t under our current system.
– Not punishing our politicians every time they level with us with news we don’t like e.g. we’re gonna have to put taxes up to pay for better services.
– Or to put it another way: stop rewarding politicians who claim they won’t put taxes up but then do. (Our politicians would lie a lot less if we didn’t keep sending them this signal.)
– Accept that there’s only so much democratic politicians can do, accept that change takes time.
– Stop demonising the other side.
– Be more involved as citizens. I’d love to see the UK deepen participation through citizen assemblies as part of a programme to re-engage people in their democracy
– Reject easy answers touted by populists. We know it ain’t so.
– Focus on reducing inequalities which I think are largely responsible for the fissures splintering democracies across the western world.
@TA – I wasn’t particularly meaning you when I said I wasn’t at all a supporter of the Tories but some others, including comments on post #82 states that as mentions Corbyn and was only xxdo9 and myself who had discussed Starmer’s support of Corbyn at posts #80 & #81 but I think my post#76 states clearly I am not in support of Tories or Labour (or Libs for that matter) although thought you might be impying it when you asked “BTW, if the GFC was a regulatory failure, do you think an alternative Tory administration would have regulated the City more severely?” I would answer “no” to that like they have failed on pretty much everything else over the last few years but Labour were in charge then and their responsibility and which cost the taxpayer large in bail outs.
The system needs complete reform and agree with some of your points made including re: “Switching to a PR system instead of first-past-the-post. Everyone’s vote should count. Too many don’t under our current system” but can you see that happening under our 2 party system? They won’t bring that in as will threaten their stranglehold. Too much is wrong now in this country and can’t see that much will change, TBH, although sorely needed. Too many scandals on both sides/corruption. Like I said it shows you how corrupt they all are just when look at the expenses scandal – it was all 3 parties involved but wasn’t that a failure of regulation as who was meant to be auditing these and they obviously weren’t?
Talking of lack of regulation, I wasn’t going to mention this as it is a personal issue but it runs through mostly everything the Govt. do or fail to do properly. As I mentioned my father died during, and due to, Covid during lockdown when Johnson et al where having suitcase drink nights at number 10. Just in the last 2 weeks I have been contacted by local Police re: Legacy Funeral scandal investigation – before that I knew nothing (as I didn’t use Legacy but another company but unfortunately they were a company connected to Legacy). You may have heard about it on national news and obviously it’s been widespread on our local news – but these fraudsters have been holding bodies and ashes at their warehouse premises, not carrying out the deceased/family wishes, giving out wrong ashes, money laundering and not paying crematorium bills to local authority etc – and probably much more but investigation still ongoing. So I believed back during lockdown his ashes had been interred but Police now say they have been in their warehouse for past few years as they found some with the name on. (Cannot say for definite as DNA can’t be obtained from ashes, but likely.) Also this has been allowed to happen as it is totally unregulated so could happen again. There are no checks/audits/inspections and you don’t have to have anything to set up in business as a funeral director I have been told. Why not? That surely can’t be right and will just happen again. It even started me thinking what has happened to my mother who died just a few months before my father, albeit with a different funeral director. Just another local example for me how bad it all is. It should be regulated by legislation but it’s not.
If we need major reform and not just “more of the same” who do you vote for? Labour just because they will be the least worst option – in that nobody could possibly do more damage than the Tories have over the last few years – even the Monster Raving Looney Party probably? If people like Sunak, Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, Davy are the most able and best minds we have in this country then God help us!
I’ll log off now, sorry for the long rants but that’s how I feel with them – not much optimism I’m afraid!
Labour landslide, according to the exit poll.
Yet GBP/USD is entirely flat. FTSE 100 mildly up by a few dozen points.
So much for Labour terrifying the markets as some on this thread predicted.
Liz Truss got three-times this much market roiling done before breakfast.
If the exit poll turns out to be right, then it’s not, IMHO, an extinction level outcome for the Cons. (though their worst ever for seats); and, with Lab. projected with only 36% of the votes (albeit projecting 410 seats), it might not win again in 2029, depending upon Reform’s impact and shallowness of support for Lab.
If (big if) Ref. has really broken through now, with a 13 seat projection, then that’s going to put pressure on Cons. to merge with Ref. or cave in to NF’s policy demands in order to avoid a repeat of the Ref. fireboat crashing into their side.
In the end voted Lab. (reluctantly, as no effort made by the Lab. candidate here), but very pleased to see that the Lib Dems are projected in the exit poll with (for them) a really strong seat tally.
Maybe there is a still some hope for eventually rejoining the EU?
Or is that just a dream?
The Conservatives managed to squander an 80 seat majority in just a few years-how long before Labour repeats the same scenario-with a bigger majority it might-take a bit longer ?
This is the nature of the game -not really sure why one lot should really end up very different over all from the previous incumbents
I am not being cynical here but it’s all rather like investing where we are constantly assured by those in the know that “it’s different this time” and it turns out in a slightly different format to be essentially just the same
All we poor voters/investors can do is remain working/invested and stay the course!
xxd09
@ xxd09 – we know we will end up disappointed and turf them out eventually. An apt quote published yesterday by The Knowledge:
“Democracy is the process by which people choose who to blame.”
Bertrand Russell
However, I disagree that they’re all the same. They all fail in the end, but I’d argue this government was materially worse than the previous Labour administration. And just for balance, I’d argue they were materially worse than the previous Major / Thatcher governments.
@ Confuzed – I haven’t heard of the Legacy Funeral Scandal – it sounds absolutely awful, I’m sorry you and your family have been caught up in that. Too many people in this country are on the take.
With 34% of the votes, Labour gets 63% of the seats. Tories+Reform get 38% of the votes and 19% of the seats.
The Labour landslide is skin deep. A function of FPTP. Farage, the pound-shop Enoch Powell, will make much of this. He plays the victim well. With 14% of the vote but only 0.6% of the seats, his narrative will be that Reform voters were robbed. He has a point.
It clearly raises the risk of a Tory+Reform merger (or reverse takeover). Once they crunch the numbers, it may be clear that the best way to win in 2029 is to present a single front.
The question is why almost one sixth of the population is so dumb as to vote for this charlatan. Labour really needs to deliver or we may have our own Orban/Trump/Meloni/LePen in 2029.
Still, FPTP delivers on democracy’s USP – decisively getting rid of unpopular gov’s who’ve made bad decisions.
Votes against are every bit as valid as votes for.
Channelling Munger for an investment parallel: “It is remarkable how much long-term advantage people like us have gotten by trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent”.
[p.s. Dreadful turnout at 60%, second lowest for a GE since 1918, but relieved that Farage has only gotten about 4 mn votes, and not the 6 mn+ which he predicted when he took to Twitter/X just after the exit poll came out.]
I suspect Labour’s vote share would have been higher if it looked like the election was going to be closer. A lot of people have turned to other parties, the Greens, Independents, pro-Gaza candidates, because they were expecting Labour to win anyway. Having said that, 34% does seem quite low and there will be pressure on Labour to deliver.
The economic indicators look good at the moment:
– the FTSE250 is up as is the FTSE100
– the pound is stable (the markets had largely priced in a Labour win)
– inflation is lower (which I still don’t think the Tories had much to do with but they could have made it worse I suppose)
– it looks like interest rates are going to start coming down
– economic growth seems to have returned after recession last year
– borrowing costs are coming down
– apparently the OBR are likely to give Labour more room to spend in September
– the EU trade deal is up for renewal in early 2025 so a closer trading relationship should also help improve growth
– while other countries (eg the US, France) are in chaos international investors will look at the UK as a safe haven to invest.
I think if Labour can encourage private investment (which will require some public investment) and reform planning to get the country building again, build wind power, infrastructure projects and so on without local objections getting in the way, then we can be well on the way to growth which will ease tax pressures.
I am hopeful. We need to get behind Labour and urge them on, the alternative is growing support for Reform which would be disastrous.
Agreed it’s a thin mandate, and striking how little Labour could say about issues that are important and that animate many of its MPs (e.g. homelessness) because of the rightward pull of politics right now and the certainty of it losing them votes.
My hope is a competent administration will start to wake-up some people from their zombie march towards populism, but given the above and the macro backdrop it won’t be easy.
Suella Braverman pretty much made her pitch for a Tory/Reform alliance last night.
My hope is that such a merger would actually drain support from Reform (because now it’s the same old people again, from a Reform voter perspective) and that Farage would rather have a platform to shout from then a job where he actually had to do and be accountable for some work.
The big vote for Reform is depressing but not hugely surprisingly. Most of these people voted for Brexit, a great many as a protest, and at least for all those without assets things have only got worse since 2016. Plus immigration has very obviously not gone down.
And Brexit has predictably turned out to be a bag of spanners — it’s human nature to double down on saying it wasn’t a ‘proper Brexit’, like the USSR wasn’t ‘proper’ communism, rather than to swallow your pride and admit it was a terrible solution in search of a problem it could actually fix.
p.s. Both Sunak’s speeches were gracious and a glimpse of a better world where politics was a debate of ideas among equals, rather than a shouting match outside a pub. Depressingly I can see zero chance of this situation getting any better in the near-term.
The Sunak we’ve seen in defeat presumably judged he’d be even more unelectable without all the far right-wing pandering. 🙁
This is surely the most depressing aspect of the past few years.
Just my take of what has happened…….
Conservatives got rightly grubbed for stabbing their vote winning leader in the back and incompetence
Labour got 170 majority -we will see how long that lasts
SNP also gubbed for sheer incompetence so Independence out the window
Farage into parliament as is Jeremy Corbyn-good- both these are principled ( at least compared to the rest) politicians-whether you agree with them or not They are the warning flags of what is waiting out there if who ever is in charge doesn’t get a grip
It always intrigues me that most of our leader/high IQ types seem to have very little common sense-(often seem to be two uncorrelated traits ). This is a game you can get away with for a while (one parliamentary term?) but reality always gets you eventually
xxd09
@xxd09 — Not least given Nigel Farage’s disowning of the hard Brexit he wanted as “not real Brexit, a Remainer’s Brexit” I’m afraid I don’t see a principled man at work.
Farage got what he wanted and it’s done nothing good for anyone. Predictably he’s doubled down rather than said “oops, I guess I was wrong…”
This is populism 101. I’m no huge Corbyn fan but he’s a titan compared to Farage.
@xxd09. “Common sense” is possibly the most overrated concept I know of.
The universe as we know based on empirical data is fits incredibly well to three theories: general relativity, SU(3) chromodynamics and SU(2)xU(1) electroweak theory. That’s how the universe works as far as we know it. No need for sky fairies or intelligent design. None of these theories could be described as having much to do with “common sense”.
The universe is complex. Life is complex. Society is complex. Nothing is simple. Please save me from those who want simple answers and common sense solutions to complex problems.
We really do need to explore FPTP and other PR style options. It’s hard to stomach the range of votes per MP seat for the 4 most popular parties:
Reform – 1m per seat
Con – 56k per seat
Lib Dem – 49k per seat
Labour – 24k per seat
Especially when you see Reform getting more votes than Lib Dems.
Hopefully we will have some stability, competence and focus on the big stuff that the whole of the Uk are wanting and in need of.
Feels like a blend of reform and conservatism could easily win the next election.
@ZX: But the weakly emergent property which we call “mind” perceives a universe made up of stories; not of fermions’ and bosons’ respective antisymmetric multi particle and symmetric wave functions. Those stories are often accepted by minds as ‘real’ to the extent they fit with the traits selected by the fitness landscape which tribal humans occupy (e.g. outside tribes to be feared as competition for resources / territory etc). It’s an inherent property of an evolved consciousness this common sense.
Very difficult to see any reasonable market reaction that’s not potentially noise here, but if I squint a bit I can see my UK small cap funds going up a bit more than I’d expect otherwise on this sort of day.
Pound is rallying a tiny smidgeon, but gold is much more so presume that’s a weak dollar affect.
@ Boltt – completely agree about moving to some form of PR, though the public rejected it in the 2011 referendum.
Partly those numbers are a reflection of parties and an electorate that have learned to game FPTP e.g. Liberals pouring resources into winnable seats, Labour giving them a free pass, tactical voters in those constituencies switching to Lib Dems to defeat Tories.
Here are those votes per seat figures in the 2019 election. They’re quite different:
Con – 38k per seat
Lib Dem – 336k per seat
Labour – 51k per seat
SNP – 26k
Green – 866k
Brexit Party – n/a – Nige stood ’em down
Re posts #44, 48, 51, 52, 53, 59, 60 and 61 above (@ZX, @TA etc): I realise my views re Russian risk may seem a tad complacent in view of the prevailing orthodoxy that Russia is not far off now rolling into Poland, the Baltic States etc; but, as an update, here is the Guardian today reporting on the comments of the UK Chief of the Defence Staff (the top UK MoD uniformed honco) Admiral Sir Tony Radakin who said that “it was important not to over-exaggerate any threat posed by Russia, and repeated a Ukrainian figure: that the invaders had lost 550,000 fighters, either killed or wounded, since the invasion began in February 2022. “It would take Putin 5 years to reconstitute the Russian army to where it was in February 2022,” Radakin said, “and another 5 years beyond that to rectify the weaknesses that the war has revealed.””