Category: Politics

Economics, Journal, Politics

Neutrality matters: Bank of England

| admin

Neutrality matters: Bank of England

Ah yes, a blog about the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, and his comments on UK/EU relations. Procrastination at its finest—I’m dodging my other drafts because this feels more worth talking about. Andrew Bailey recently gave a speech at Mansion House about growth, and you can find the transcript here. The UK government has made growth a cornerstone of its platform. Without growth, we can’t have better public services.

There’s loads to say about this speech, but journalists have been a bit naughty by not publishing the full section that’s causing headlines. Here it is, quoted in full:

Now, as I have said many times, as a public official I take no position on Brexit per se. That’s important. But I do have to point out consequences. The changing trading relationship with the EU has weighed on the level of potential supply. The impact on trade seems to be more in goods than services, that is not particularly surprising to my mind. But it underlines why we must be alert to and welcome opportunities to rebuild relations while respecting the decision of the British people.

But, we should not focus just on the effects of Brexit. The picture is now clouded by the impact of geopolitical shocks and the broader fragmentation of the world economy. I will own up to being an old-fashioned free trader at heart. It’s a British characteristic, I like to think. My point is this: amidst the important need to be alert to threats to economic security, let’s please remember the importance of openness. Openness is an important determinant of productivity. There is nothing new about saying this, just to be clear.

The first point is simple: Bailey should stick to speaking about policy matters and decisions delegated to him. That means avoiding topics reserved for the government. When officials break that norm, it increases the likelihood of political appointments—people chosen not for expertise but for their loyalty to the government’s messaging. For an independent central bank, this is a massive challenge to its independence.

This norm exists for a reason. If future governors are picked for loyalty over skill, the quality of decisions will decline, and the central bank’s independence could crumble entirely. It’s not just central bank governors—look at the USA right now. You’ve got people with no experience or expertise holding office because of loyalty. It’s a total mess. And if you want a closer-to-home example, think of UK magistrates. They often have no legal experience but still help run the legal system. That already causes massive miscarriages of justice. Now imagine amateurs running the state itself.

Such comments also risk fuelling resentment, which already exists in some political quarters. Remember Liz Truss? She called out Bailey for simply doing his job during the fallout of her mini-budget.

Bailey is, of course, right in what he’s saying, but urging the Chancellor to act isn’t his job. His role is to set monetary and financial policy as effectively as possible within the framework of government decisions. That’s already difficult enough. Just look at how the central bank had to step in to stabilise the financial system after Liz Truss’s mini-budget. That fiasco caused bond market turmoil, massive losses, and a serious hit to pension values.

The temptation to comment must be enormous, given the job and the platform it provides. Journalists are relentless in trying to get a juicy quote to spark drama. But, just like the King or Queen stays silent on politics, or a deputy coach avoids publicly criticising the head coach, central bank officials need to adhere to the principle of collective responsibility. For Americans, think of it like the Hatch Act. These norms exist for a reason: they prevent the government’s reputation and decision-making from being publicly undermined. Would you invest in a company where employees openly disagreed with the CEO? People can have different opinions, but sometimes, your role demands silence.

Bailey raises valid points, but he could’ve expressed them more diplomatically. Given how quickly journalists pounced on his remarks, it’s clear he should’ve said less—or nothing at all. Let’s be honest, most people don’t have the reading comprehension to fully understand his nuanced message. The Chancellor might do well to send Bailey a strongly worded letter reminding him where the line is.

As much as Bailey’s comments reflect valid concerns, the bigger issue here isn’t Brexit or even growth—it’s how we protect the independence of our institutions. Norms exist to safeguard against political interference, and when they’re ignored, trust erodes. We’re already seeing attacks on institutions and the resulting collapse of trust. The last few years have given us enough warning signs to know better. It’s worth reflecting: would you feel the same if it were someone with different views at the helm? Institutions thrive on neutrality, and we lose that at our peril.

Journal, Politics

The middle – US presidential election

| admin

The middle – US presidential election

The U.S. presidential election will take time to analyze as we wait for data to explain the outcome. I’ve posted some early, sleep-deprived thoughts here. Trump’s gains were widespread, so any explanations should start there. The incumbent’s party lost, following a familiar pattern—recent incumbents have often lost for similar reasons. Voters were fed up with high inflation, and the incumbent didn’t address their concerns. Here’s a chart showing global voting patterns, and another highlighting trends from the 2024 U.S. election.

Red Dawn

Trump didn’t just improve his margins in swing states; he made gains in Democratic strongholds too. Harris’s campaign managed to swim against very strong currents, losing by only a small margin in seven swing states. The swing fell within the polling error, which isn’t bad, but this defeat feels more significant than 2016. It’s a harsh loss that will demand a complete rethink and strategic response moving forward. The forces that put Trump in the White House could easily turn against him, but I wouldn’t bet on it. There’s a much deeper trend here—one that’s been building for years and has now solidified. Non-graduate voters shifting from Democrats to Republicans has been ongoing, but now, non-white working-class voters are following the path of their white counterparts. One positive: Black voters have largely remained loyal to the Democrats. A good starting point for analysis could be the working-class boroughs in New York City. This chart from Nate Silver illustrates the long-standing issue Democrats face.

Help!

It’s not that voters are in love with Trump or his policies—they just want him to fix inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. Many are deeply frustrated with the political system and the economy. Ironically, while Republicans have helped break the system, Democrats are taking the blame. Most people don’t follow politics closely; they care more about gas prices, eggs, and other essentials. It’s only when things get chaotic that they tune in. So, when Trump talked about gas prices, many voters turned out for him and tuned out the rest. Trump is still unpopular, and that’s a huge problem: if he oversteps his mandate—which he’s likely to—it’ll store up trouble down the line. His win isn’t a vindication; it’s about people wanting him to make them feel better off. Failing to deliver will cause issues, from policies that could trigger an inflationary spiral to deportations affecting people who never expected it to happen to them.

Twist and Shout

Smart Republicans should take note and avoid indulging their worst impulses. Like the Democrats, they’re likely to face internal conflicts—free-trade business interests versus protectionism, or the desire for social security programs versus cutting government spending. Billionaire libertarians and the highly educated elite want different things. Republican leaders without degrees have a stronger grasp of what the non-graduate majority feels and have tapped into that sentiment. Democrats could learn from their opponents, especially about how people consume news today. The far right now has a new breeding ground based on old ideas. Engaging in unfamiliar or even unfriendly spaces and fostering new media networks could be essential. The elephant in the room is disinformation and misinformation—Republicans have ruthlessly exploited this, along with the far right leaking ideas into the right mainstream.

Under the Waves

There’s also a chance for a reset here, with the next battle coming in just two years at the midterms. Time hasn’t stopped, and history hasn’t ended—it’s about getting back up after being knocked down. Rethinking is required to handle a political force like Trump. A fresh perspective is essential, but it’s going to be painful—a real catch-22. Polarisation among educated voters makes shifting rightward on some issues challenging. “Sacred cows” that are non-negotiable leave many voters thinking, “You don’t speak for me.” As a British progressive, I can say this is incredibly painful and a global challenge for centre-left parties. Failing to deliver what voters want could quickly turn the tide, but that won’t solve the larger problem. After three straight defeats over 14 years, the UK Labour Party came back from its worst defeat to its largest majority by ditching several unpopular stances and making changes. Nothing is set in stone.

We also won’t know turnout details for a while or whether voters switched allegiances or simply stayed home, feeling torn between Trump and Harris.

Owner of a Lonely Heart

Expanding on the Labour Party example, Democrats can make a comeback too, but it will require hard work and a deep understanding of the challenge ahead. To put it another way—didn’t Republicans make a massive comeback after Obama? My heart breaks with you; the grief will take time to process. Rebuilding won’t be easy, and it will require some genuinely painful compromises. Talk to Republicans about how much they had to change with Trump. Political apathy will only give Trump and his allies more power—they’re counting on it, and with the level of grief you’re likely feeling now, losing trust in the process makes sense. I know what that feels like. As I said earlier, it’s going to require a shift in perspective and some serious rethinking.

Sense of Direction

Ignoring legitimate grievances is how we got here. Trying to shame people won’t help your cause. Labeling people as racists or fascists won’t stop them from voting for far-right nationalist parties. So maybe it’s time to focus on listening to them. Speaking of which, moderates fared far better than others. Calling people “garbage” only causes them to shut down before you can even speak. I speak from experience on that. I don’t have all the answers, and frankly, it’s going to take time before anyone does. The worst thing you can do is double down on a failed approach.

Don’t Look Back in Anger

Defiance and resilience are needed. Let’s avoid hyperbole and over-the-top rhetoric. Yes, tensions are high, and so is fear, but we should treat each other with kindness. Actions speak louder than words, and America could use some kindness right now.

Lost in the Echo

The hard truth is that the Democratic Party has failed to speak to voters in a straightforward way. This was a party failure, not a single person’s fault—not Biden’s or Harris’s alone. The party focused on news channels most ordinary people don’t watch and disconnected itself from the pulse of American life. Closing note: everything will be okay, if you listen to the message voters have just sent.

I may have included some song references in this blog post. See if you can spot them.

Politics

Polling and the Weather Forecast: A Lesson in Uncertainty

| admin

Polling and the Weather Forecast: A Lesson in Uncertainty

Polling is like the weather forecast: it offers a range of outcomes. It may seem unlikely to rain where you are, but it’s still possible, just as somewhere nearby could stay completely dry. Polling models work the same way, providing a range of possibilities, with the most likely outcome somewhere in the middle. However, journalists often don’t report or explain this range, and some polling companies don’t fully address it either.

When the herd (the electorate) moves, it usually moves together—yet occasionally, it splinters, adding layers of uncertainty. This unpredictability is what allows people to sometimes defy the odds and come out on top. The margin of error means the actual result could land on either side of the median outcome or even on the outer edges of what’s possible. Think of it as science fiction: in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, when travelling across space, you might theoretically turn into an apple. Highly unlikely, but technically possible!

What Do the Current US Election Models Tell Us?

So, how does this translate to the current U.S. election landscape?

The current model from FiveThirtyEight has Harris at 268 electoral votes and Trump at 270. Just a few days ago, it was the other way around. It’s a remarkably close race, one we haven’t seen for decades. In practice, this means the herd is taking different paths, with some states following separate trajectories from others. Why? This could be due to local issues or unique demographics at play, which are often difficult to model accurately.

Certain demographic and local factors influence swing states differently, adding complexity to polling models. For example, Arizona’s growing Latino voter base leans conservative in some areas, potentially benefiting Trump. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s situation is unique, with its declining manufacturing jobs and large Arab population possibly making it more competitive. In other states, recent events or changing demographics play a big role; a hurricane’s impact on voters or a high Black population could sway support towards Harris, especially given her profile as a Black female candidate. Each of these factors highlights why swing states can defy broader polling expectations and swing differently depending on local issues.

The Swing State Landscape and Possible Outcomes

Based on current numbers, swing states could align—or they might diverge entirely. Swing voters typically follow similar trends, but today’s models suggest they’re all over the place. The final result could be a landslide, a narrow victory, or a razor-thin margin. The most unlikely outcome is a tie, which would be decided by Congress. The only time this happened was in 1800, between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

In practical terms, we could see anything between 320 and 270 electoral votes for either side, making predictions a toss-up due to how close it is. And despite the possible range of outcomes, most commentary doesn’t explore these diverse possibilities in-depth, though they should.

Swing states, which often switch between the two main parties, are pivotal in deciding elections. These states can shift as demographics evolve—much like music tastes changing over time. Currently, there are seven key swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Nevada. Pennsylvania holds the biggest prize in terms of electoral college votes, which is why it’s often rated the most crucial.

At the moment, Harris has more paths to the White House than Trump. In fact, nine out of twenty-one possible routes for Harris don’t require Pennsylvania, whereas only five out of twenty-one for Trump don’t need Pennsylvania. Care to guess the tipping point state?

Current polls suggest a 51-56% chance of Trump winning and a 49-45% chance for Harris. This modelling assumes only seven states are in play. I’d say Harris has the advantage based on the seven swing states, yet betting on either side winning is difficult due to the close margins. The only thing we know for certain is that results may not be known for days if trends follow recent averages. The final outcome will either take one candidate to the White House or the jailhouse—but we’re likely heading to the courtroom first.

In a race this close, every voice truly counts. So, whatever the forecast, cast your vote—because, in the end, even a small shift in the herd can tip the balance.

Politics

America and British politics what the differences?

| admin

America and British politics what the differences?

American politics feels rather alien to me, with extreme levels of partisanship. Cooperation is dying, replaced by a desire to vote only along party lines. Why is that? I’ll come back to that later. The total control of two parties over the political system makes it nearly impossible for anyone else to break in. Political appointments cover every level of the executive, including the courts. The Supreme Court now has a Christian conservative supermajority, and courts overall lean conservative, shaping the justice system in profound ways. Not only that, but the parties also control the writing of election rules and, by design, make it difficult for anyone outside the two main parties to get on the ballot. This level of control lets them game the system in their favour, using gerrymandering to manipulate district boundaries. It’s all about packing voters who don’t support you into one district while splitting others to maximise your own chances. Urban and city areas, which should have more representation due to larger populations, are ignored. As a result, more attention is given to the small minority who could deselect you rather than the loyal base who will vote for you anyway.

Given the size of America, the amount of money spent on election cycles is staggering. Both Harris and Trump combined are projected to spend somewhere around $15.9 billion. Then there’s the religious influence, which holds considerable power in what’s supposed to be a secular country. Christian conservatives on the Supreme Court are pushing their ideological views, particularly on issues like abortion. Christian nationalism has gone mainstream on the right side of American politics. Some are pushing to change that, linking the church to the state and dismantling the secular order. Briefly, these are some of the things that make the system feel strange and distant to me.

Compared to British politics, while the two main parties hold sway, it’s not total control. The number of voters with strong partisan views is declining rapidly. Cooperation still exists, even in a winner-takes-all system, and people don’t always vote along party lines. Other parties have a real shot—currently, the UK has four major political parties. The last election saw a range of parties perform well across the country. There are far fewer barriers stopping new parties or individuals from standing. In the last hundred years, we’ve gone from two major parties to three, then four, and arguably five if you count certain regional parties. You could even say we have five and a half major players now. These include the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Reform, and the Greens, plus regional parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymru. The last two are nationalist parties with significant regional influence. After the 2024 election, independent candidates have risen due to the cynicism embedded in politics. While smaller parties still struggle with funding, local campaigns have been successful.

The newest party on the block runs in as many constituencies as possible to maximise funding and target winnable seats. Speaking of funding, the UK has strict limits—you can only spend around £34 million ($44 million). Political appointments are often cross-party, and the courts maintain their independence. Privately educated individuals do make up the majority in certain professions like the courts or media. Certain areas remain separate from the executive altogether. When it comes to writing the rules for elections, parties actually talk to each other and reach an agreement. And on that note, electoral boundaries are out of politicians’ hands, managed by independent bodies. Boundaries are based on population size and are equalised across the board.

We Brits have a sense of fair play, though I’ll admit there have been recent attempts to undermine that, with tactics like voter ID. Voters will remember rule-breaking and breaching that spirit of fair play. As for religious influence, the only real presence left is in the House of Lords, and even that’s weakening. Some on the right have tried to push a Christian viewpoint, but that largely goes against public opinion. The UK is largely secular these days, with the number of people identifying with religion in steady decline. Bishops in the Lords act as a moral voice, but in practice, they don’t have enough votes to swing decisions.

We may share the same language (sort of), but the differences in how we approach politics even show in how we run elections. In the US, elections seem like an unending cycle. Campaigning starts years in advance, dominating political life. Debates, attack ads, constant rallies, and endless streams of fundraising—it’s like a political marathon that never ends. In contrast, here in the UK, elections are much more condensed and far less consuming. Campaigns last about six weeks from the moment Parliament is dissolved to election day. None of this dragging it out for two years or more. It’s a sprint, not a marathon, and frankly, I think most of us prefer it that way.

And then there’s how we count votes. In the US, it’s like a patchwork quilt—some states use electronic voting, others rely on paper ballots, and each state seems to have its own rules on how and when to count them. Here, it’s much simpler. Everyone follows the same rules: paper ballots, counted on the night, with results typically announced by the next morning. None of this drawn-out waiting, recounts, or legal battles that drag on for weeks. We’ve streamlined it to the point that the system, while not flawless, works efficiently. Results are declared on the night, with no provisional votes hanging over our heads for days.

There’s even a sense of theatre when it comes to declaring results. Unlike in the US, where numbers trickle in and results are announced gradually, here, all the candidates stand together on stage as the result is read out. It makes for some pretty unforgettable moments in British political history—triumph and defeat all wrapped up in a single scene. You’d be hard-pressed to find an American election night with quite that much drama in one room.

I know one American friend will be reading this and spilling their coffee! But honestly, the differences are staggering. Small, minor differences add up pretty quickly to a completely different climate. That leaves us with two final differences: first, the timing of elections in the UK is in the hands of the prime minister, compared to the US presidential election being locked in place and unable to be changed. The final point is how centralised the UK system is—local government is far weaker compared to America. They lack the ability to raise revenue and so many other powers. In America, even cities can borrow money and raise taxes. After decades of weak local government, this is slowly starting to change in the UK.

So why did I write this blog? Well, I wanted to expand on a conversation I had with a friend and reflect on the nuanced differences between both systems. Often, these differences are missing in American and British media analysis. It comes from a point of view that ignores the contrasts, trying to make the systems mirror images of one another. That’s what I would consider lazy journalism and uninformed. Like in America, it’s still a rich man’s game in politics, but we’re just less flashy with the cash.

Politics

US presidential election 2024

| admin

US Presidential Election 2024

The US presidential election is only 17 days away. Polls show the race is neck and neck, but it could go either way within the margin of error. It’s shaping up to be one of the closest elections in history, with just seven swing states — the lowest number in recent memory — determining the outcome.

Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

AZ, GA, and NC lean towards Republicans, while MN, NV, PA, and WI lean towards Democrats.

America is deeply polarised between the two major parties, which hold an unbreakable majority. The result has been a dysfunctional executive, with Congress deadlocked and unable to fulfil its role. Other parts of the executive branch have become increasingly important.

Why is the race so close?

The aftereffects of the COVID pandemic have made Biden unpopular. The economic impact has resulted in higher inflation due to pent-up demand, and the Federal Reserve’s response has been to raise interest rates in an effort to curb inflation. Money given to people during the pandemic helped boost demand, further driving inflation. The economy was booming, with employment near record highs, when these factors began to take effect.

Biden has become unpopular due to the rise in inflation and interest rates, both of which are being blamed on him. Harris, as his vice president, is also being held accountable. She is positioning herself as the candidate for change, and with good reason. Trump, on the other hand, is benefiting from voters’ frustration and anger. However, he faces challenges regarding his age, his felony charges, and his continued claims that the 2020 election was stolen. His behaviour and mental capacity are causing him difficulties when compared to a much younger Harris.

In the background, demographic changes across various states are having an impact. People are moving to red states and turning them blue, and the opposite is happening elsewhere. Certain ethnic groups of voters have shifted their voting patterns. These small changes in polarised American politics are enough to create significant waves. It’s worth briefly noting that polarised politics means less crossover voting, which causes huge problems for control of the Senate and Congress, especially when combined with gerrymandering to favour one party. Who controls the executive at state levels has become hugely significant. The result is that American politics has become deeply dysfunctional, and major problems remain unsolved. As it stands right now, the race is too close to call.

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. So far, Europe and the rest of the world are not preparing, instead choosing to ignore the situation. A few of Trump’s comments should be raising alarm bells, particularly his unwillingness to commit to defending NATO countries — a serious concern. European security is at genuine risk, and that’s just the beginning of the problems. His comments about starting a trade war with Europe should be ringing alarm bells as well. Everything he’s been saying should be cause for concern. Not just concern but making him unfit to be president.

The world waits for the outcome of the November election, and the result will be historic: the first female Black president or a felon entering the White House.

Politics

Israel and Palestine Conflict Revisited: One Year After October 7th

| admin

Israel and Palestine Conflict Revisited: One Year After October 7th

The Israel and Palestine conflict rages on without a solution. The war against Hamas, in response to the October 7th attacks, has devastated Gaza, while violence in the West Bank remains underreported. The Palestinian people have suffered greatly, not just in Gaza but also in the West Bank. Gaza is under a blockade, with 60% of its buildings destroyed or damaged. Core infrastructure, including water supplies, has been severely affected, further restricting essential services. The risk of famine in Gaza remains high. The situation in the West Bank, while less severe, is still alarming. Jewish settlers have been attacking defenseless villagers, sabotaging farms, engaging in harassment and violence, and attempting to displace people from their homes. This violence includes the murder of civilians and the demolition of homes with state approval. Despite these issues, global attention has largely focused on Gaza, leaving the West Bank’s struggles unnoticed.

The humanitarian impact breaks my heart. Hearing stories of people unable to feed themselves, lacking shelter, or of how people were injured is devastating. Children playing in the streets have been hit by sniper fire. Entire families have been wiped out by airstrikes. The reports are horrifying, and I’ve started to grow numb to them. Journalists and aid workers have been murdered for reporting on the war. The conflict remains largely closed off, with very few granted free access.

Gaza

The aim to destroy Hamas has failed, as Israel has leveled Gaza, yet Hamas remains. Its leadership has hidden within a vast tunnel network, making them moving targets that can’t easily be found. It’s a game of cat and mouse, with guerrilla warfare being waged against Israeli troops trying to clear the tunnels. It has been clear for some time that hostages are no longer the primary concern, and the threshold for acceptable civilian damage has shifted. Hostages are now leverage, not to be given away without something significant in return. A two-state solution seems impossible when everyone is moving the goalposts, and trust is at an all-time low. After so much blood has been spilled, no one is willing to make a deal.

The only bit of good news is that a regional war has been avoided so far. Hamas leadership hoped that, after October 7th, Hezbollah and other allies would launch a full-scale war against Israel, yet only minor escalations have occurred. Everyone seems to be responding in some way but avoiding an all-out war. The situation feels like a powder keg, with everyone lighting matches and setting off fireworks at each other. While the state of Israel is unlikely to be destroyed, it has become increasingly isolated on the global stage.

Hezbollah and the North

Attention has now shifted north toward Hezbollah, another Iranian-backed group in Lebanon. Unable to fully defeat Hamas, Israel has degraded them enough that its next focus appears to be Hezbollah. Rocket strikes into northern Israel have caused people to flee border areas. Despite Lebanon’s status as a failed state, Hezbollah is considered the strongest and most well-armed threat. Israel has targeted Hezbollah leadership by sabotaging their communication network and following up with airstrikes. The aim is to escalate in order to de-escalate, forcing Hezbollah into a deal. The goal seems to be dismantling Iran’s “axis of resistance” one group at a time. It’s unclear whether Iran itself will be the next target, possibly with Trump’s return to influence. Israel’s actions have left it isolated, as international opinion continues to turn against it.

Arab states have refused to work on normalizing relations until the war is over. European allies have strongly condemned Israel, and in some cases, voted to recognize the state of Palestine. Only the Americans have remained firmly on Israel’s side, though even they are questioning and growing frustrated. Some, including the British, have blocked arms exports to Israel. All sides are increasingly concerned about post-war plans, with ideas floated such as displacing people into the Egyptian desert.

Iran

Iran’s long-term goal is to reduce or remove American influence from the region. Over the last couple of decades, Iran has targeted American allies, and it also wants to destroy the state of Israel, which has aggressively pushed back. For now, Iran has kept its distance from the conflict. Both are powerful actors, but neither has the ability to destroy the other outright. They are trading blows using proxy forces under the united banner of the “axis of resistance.” However, the groups within this axis have different goals and ideas.

If tensions with Iran escalate further, we could see Israel and Iran engaging in more direct attacks. The risk of a war between the two sides looms, with the possibility of a single miscalculation setting off a conflict. It’s hard to predict what that would look like. A war would put the U.S. in a tricky position, especially since Trump has unfinished business with Iran. Trump, entangled in legal battles, has revealed Pentagon plans to attack Iran, and Iranian hackers have targeted his campaign as an act of vengeance for the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, which Trump ordered.

When you consider the geopolitical complexities, the situation becomes even more tangled. Powers in the Middle East—America, Russia, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar—all have different views and goals. Arab states are divided on how to act, especially those allied with the U.S., who fear Iran’s growing influence.

The interconnected conflicts of the Middle East have added yet another chapter to this war. A year after October 7th, we have seen one deadly gamble after another. The conflict in Gaza has turned into a stalemate, while in the West Bank, Israel has the upper hand with settlers driving people out. Peace is a distant dream, and the Palestinian people are being forgotten. Now, as attention shifts toward Hezbollah, the biggest threat to Israel may lie within, as extremist settlers appear to have gained control of the nation’s future. This paints a bleak picture for both Israel and the Middle East, leaving me feeling uncomfortable and deeply sad.

Economics, Politics

Labour budget dilemma

| admin

Labour’s Budget Dilemma

The UK Labour Party is grappling with a significant budgetary challenge. While there is widespread agreement on the need to increase public spending to repair public services, there is no consensus on who should bear the cost. The economy is currently operating at maximum capacity, meaning any increase in spending without corresponding tax hikes would lead to inflation. Higher taxes are not just about raising revenue but are necessary to free up resources. However, this solution is unpopular and risks destroying jobs. It could also reduce consumer spending, particularly in sectors with high productivity growth due to intense competition for labour. Redirecting that labour towards the public sector, which has struggled with low productivity in recent years, is a troubling prospect given the UK’s lacklustre productivity growth.

When people shift from consuming goods and services to investing in assets to protect their gains, other negative consequences emerge. A reduction in consumer spending could create economic “doom loops.” There’s already a pervasive sense that high streets are dying, giving many areas a bleak, stagnant vibe. This is dangerous both economically and politically. Economic stagnation breeds intolerance and reactionary politics, fostering support for far-right movements among disillusioned voters. The ability to spend hard-earned money outside the home is a key factor in personal happiness. The post-COVID surge in spending at shops and pubs highlights this, as people sought to regain a sense of normalcy and joy.

This helps explain why the UK has settled on a tax-to-GDP ratio of 37%, with little appetite for increasing it. Higher taxes come with trade-offs that the public has been unwilling to accept. Taxing the rich won’t solve the core issue of freeing up resources for the public sector, though I wish it would, out of a sense of social justice.

But this leads to a critical question: Are we, as a society, ready to make the sacrifices needed for better public services, even if it means paying more in taxes?

The Path Forward

The solutions lie in raising the inflation target to better reflect economic realities and boosting productivity. The public sector, particularly the NHS, needs real capital investment to become more efficient—better computers, rebuilt hospitals, and modern infrastructure. For example, investing in modern healthcare technology could shorten waiting times and improve patient outcomes. Hospitals built with better infrastructure would also become more energy-efficient, saving long-term operational costs.

Planning reform is a good start, but we need to shift taxes from income to land, among other reforms. A land value tax, for example, could encourage the productive use of land and help tackle the housing crisis. However, these changes will be fiercely opposed by vested interests who benefit from the current system.

Another challenge is reallocating labour in a more efficient economy, which could mean the disappearance of tens of thousands of jobs. These workers would need support while transitioning to new employment, and not just “bullshit jobs” created by overly complicated systems propped up by tax breaks. Simplifying the tax code would provoke fierce resistance from those with a stake in the current system. Redirecting labour will require targeted, specific measures—not broad-brush solutions.

How can we ensure that workers in obsolete or inefficient industries are given the support and retraining they need? This is where government policy must be proactive, not reactive. Without adequate support, we risk creating a new wave of economic and political dissatisfaction.

The Core Problem

So far, the government has shown little interest in tackling the vested interests that resist raising productivity. This leaves higher taxes as the only option, with the accompanying risk of fueling far-right sentiment. If Labour is to succeed in its mission and counter the rise of the far right, it must rethink its approach. Addressing the most problematic aspects of capitalism is necessary—not just as a matter of left-wing idealism but as a pragmatic strategy. The political right has been co-opted by landlords and predatory, reactionary capitalism.

While Labour must act decisively, it also needs to frame its efforts as a step toward a more equitable and functional economy. Yes, reform will be difficult, and opposition from powerful vested interests is inevitable, but change is not only possible—it is essential.

Is it not time for a government that puts the long-term well-being of its people above short-term gains?

Conclusion

The UK faces a crossroads. The budget dilemma Labour grapples with is emblematic of deeper systemic issues—stagnant productivity, growing inequality, and a political landscape susceptible to far-right sentiment. Raising taxes, increasing public spending, and improving services aren’t easy choices, but they are necessary steps toward a more sustainable future.

The challenge is not just about managing the economy—it’s about confronting the vested interests that have for too long blocked meaningful reform. Labour must be bold in its vision, but also pragmatic in how it implements change. Tackling inefficiencies in the public sector, reallocating labor, and modernizing the tax system are all achievable with the right political will.

Ultimately, the public must be persuaded that short-term sacrifices, like higher taxes, are worth the long-term benefits—better public services, more meaningful jobs, and a more just society. Failure to act now will only deepen the cycle of stagnation and discontent, further empowering reactionary forces.

As the UK stands at this pivotal moment, the question becomes: Will we choose progress and shared prosperity, or continue down a path of economic decline and political instability?

Labour has the opportunity—and the responsibility—to steer the country toward a more hopeful future. The time to act is now.

Labour, Politics

British general election exit poll/results 2024

| admin

British general election exit poll/results 2024

Conservatives: 131

Labour: 410

Liberal Democrats: 61

SNP: 10

Reform UK: 13

Plaid Cymru: 4

Greens: 2

This is a historic event, marking the worst Conservative result in 190 years. Labour is projected to surge from 202 to over 400 seats in a single electoral cycle. Other notable outcomes include the Liberal Democrats achieving their best result in over a century, and the Greens gaining an additional seat. Reform, a new party, secured 13 seats—a commendable performance. While the exit poll aligns with the average range of pre-election polls, there’s a possibility that seat totals are inaccurate, and the final result could be even worse for the Conservatives. We’ll have to wait until all ballots are counted and declared to determine the true winner. A historic event is unfolding tonight.

I wrote that last night before any results were declared.

Final results

Conservatives: 121

Labour: 411

Liberal Democrats: 72

SNP: 9

Reform UK: 4

Plaid Cymru: 4

Greens: 4

Others: 7

The simple narrative here is the Tory pain everybody gains. Voters decided on mass to tactical vote, not just that but clever targeting yielded big results. Both Labour and Liberal Democrats’ voting efficacy caused major upsets to happen. In some cases, Tories got very lucky because voters did not know who to tactical vote for. Liberal Democrats have returned to being 3rd party, they now have a firm base with more gains in sight. Something much bigger is happening under the surface. Fragmenting of the British electorate, multi-party system trapped in first past the post. Splitting apart slowly, old divides have been exposed, producing a swingy landscape. A European-style electorate with first past the post, anti-politics mood that is alive. In some places turning away from mainstream parties, angry and disengaged.

It will take a while to understand it but the trend is clear. This is the worst result in their 190-year history. Rishi sunak was given a losing hand and played it badly. Records have been broken across the board. Voters have decided on humiliation and punishment after 14 years. Why comes down to three words, incompetence, trust and delivery.

Former prime minister Lizz Truss lost her seat. The only other time that has happened, is in 1906 with Arthur Balfour. Her name is likely to become similar to Portillo, a symbol of defeat and a historic night. Micheal Portillo cabinet member lost his safe seat in 1997.

5 former prime minister seats have also changed hands.

Lizz Truss South West Norfolk

Boris Johnson old seats, Uxbridge and South Ruislip also Henley and Thame

Theresa May Maidenhead

David Cameron Witney

Only Lizz Truss decided to stick around, otherwise they would have fallen and joined the history books. Record 11 cabinet members lost their seats, with close calls in other seats. It was an end of a era, big defeat for the Tories. It could have been far worse and could get worse before it gets better.

Labour, Politics, Thoughts

British summer generel election

| admin

British summer general election

As the rain pours outside Number 10 Downing Street, the 2024 election campaign kicks off, with a stark contrast to Keir Starmer’s composed appearance in a pre-recorded message. The choice between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer is a choice between maintaining the status quo or opting for change. Despite calling the election, Sunak appears to have little control over unfolding events. After six long weeks, the campaign is nearing its end. The United Kingdom is in a sorry state, with leaky roofs and shattered windows symbolizing better days gone by. Voters are angry as nothing seems to work anymore, stemming from four key themes: broken trust, incompetence, and instability

Summary of the Past 14 Years

Let’s begin with a concise overview of the current situation. The Conservative Party, often nicknamed the Tories, took office in 2010 under a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. They cut public spending, promising to cut waste rather than frontline services—an ideology-driven choice that would define the next decade and have costly consequences. This approach influenced both the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, where the union won, and the 2015 general election, where the Conservatives won an outright majority. David Cameron’s decision to hold a referendum on Britain’s European Union membership led to his resignation in 2016 after the vote to leave the EU, which shattered his authority overnight.”

Theresa May defeat, despair and deadlock

Theresa May succeeded Cameron with the task of healing the country, uniting the party, and managing the EU exit. The issue of Europe had torn the party apart for decades, with toxic campaigns dividing families and nations. Worse, nobody had a clear idea of what leaving the EU would entail. May’s approach involved dealing with the complexities behind closed doors, setting out red lines in speeches but leaving no room for flexibility. Given the party’s deep divisions, this approach was naive. She needed to reach out and build cross-party support, but Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour firebrand socialist leader, made this even harder. British politics became increasingly partisan. Under political pressure, she triggered the process of leaving the EU, and in 2017, one month after starting Article 50, she gambled by calling a snap election. Her botched campaign saw Labour surge during the final weeks, hoping to secure a majority to strengthen her negotiating hand. The gambit failed, and she lost her slim majority. The next two years saw parliamentary deadlock over any Brexit deal. In July 2019, after failing three times to pass her deal, she resigned in tears, worn out by months of drama.

Boris Johnson: Populist Pressure, Partygate, and Pandemic

Boris Johnson, the charismatic yet controversial figure, succeeded Theresa May, promising to “Get Brexit Done.” His bold, populist approach resonated with many voters frustrated by the prolonged Brexit process. Johnson’s leadership was marked by a mix of flamboyance and controversy. His ability to connect with the electorate secured a decisive victory in the 2019 general election, delivering the largest Conservative majority since Margaret Thatcher.

However, Johnson’s tenure was far from smooth. The COVID-19 pandemic tested his government’s resilience and decision-making skills. While the early handling of the pandemic faced criticism for delays and mixed messaging, the rapid rollout of the vaccine was seen as a significant achievement. Despite these successes, Johnson’s leadership faced severe scrutiny during the “Partygate” scandal, where allegations of lockdown breaches at Downing Street gatherings damaged his reputation and trust with the public. The pressures of governance during unprecedented times, coupled with internal party conflicts and growing dissatisfaction, eventually led to his resignation in July 2022.

Liz Truss: A Turbulent Tenure

Liz Truss’s short-lived tenure as Prime Minister was marked by economic turmoil and political instability. Inheriting a party and country reeling from the pandemic and Brexit’s aftermath, her bold economic policies, particularly the controversial mini-budget, aimed at stimulating growth but instead triggered financial market chaos. The proposed tax cuts, unfunded spending, and regulatory changes led to a sharp increase in borrowing costs and a plunge in the pound’s value.

Truss’s inability to stabilize the economy or garner support from her party and the public resulted in a dramatic loss of confidence. Her leadership faced mounting criticism from within her party, the opposition, and financial experts. After just 44 days in office, Truss resigned, marking one of the shortest premierships in British history. Her brief and turbulent tenure underscored the deep-seated issues within the Conservative Party and the challenges facing any leader in the current political climate.

Rishi Sunak: Stability Amidst Uncertainty

Rishi Sunak’s rise to the premiership came with a promise of stability and competence. Known for his tenure as Chancellor, where he played a pivotal role in navigating the economic challenges of the pandemic, Sunak was seen as a steady hand capable of steering the country through turbulent times. His leadership focused on economic recovery, addressing inflation, and managing the cost-of-living crisis that had gripped the nation.

Sunak’s approach emphasized fiscal responsibility and pragmatic solutions to the pressing issues facing the country. However, his premiership was not without challenges. The lingering effects of Brexit, geopolitical tensions, and the ongoing economic difficulties required careful and strategic governance. Sunak’s ability to deliver on his promises and restore public trust was critical as the country approached the 2024 general election.

Keir Starmer: The Labour Alternative

Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, presented himself as a stark contrast to the Conservative leadership. A former lawyer with a reputation for meticulousness and integrity, Starmer aimed to rebuild Labour’s credibility and appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. His leadership focused on addressing the issues of inequality, public services, and the need for political integrity.

Starmer’s strategy involved distancing Labour from the far-left elements that had defined the party under Jeremy Corbyn and positioning it as a pragmatic and responsible alternative to the Conservatives. His emphasis on rebuilding the NHS, investing in education, and addressing climate change resonated with many voters disillusioned by years of Conservative rule. As the 2024 general election approached, Starmer’s challenge was to unite his party, present a compelling vision for the future, and convince the electorate that Labour was ready to govern.

The State of the Nation

As the 2024 general election loomed, the United Kingdom faced a critical juncture. The past decade had been marked by political upheaval, economic challenges, and societal divisions. Voters were weary of broken promises, incompetence, and instability. The choice between Sunak and Starmer symbolized a broader decision about the country’s direction: continuity or change.

The upcoming election would be pivotal in determining the future path of the UK. It was not just a contest between two leaders but a reflection of the nation’s desire for effective governance, stability, and a hopeful vision for the future. As the campaign drew to a close, the stakes could not be higher, and the outcome would shape the UK for years to come.

Polling and priorities

Dozens of poll trackers, static Labour leads between 10-20%. Poll tracker electionmaps, BBC, Politico, Sky, all show the same thing. Taken from my blog post on 30th of April I said the following.

Polls show that the Labour Party maintains a 14-20% lead over the Conservatives. That trend, started in late 2021, has persisted for the past two years. Source for that claim, politico, BBC, Guardian, Sky news.  With other polling data also indicating negative sentiment toward the Conservative party. Approval of government here from YouGov. Here Ipsos tracking how approvals for various issues. Point is these numbers are not good news, once trust is gone voters don’t listen. No party has recovered while being this far behind on all the important measures. Even if you assume the best-case recovery happens, the Labour lead would still be 4-6%. All these numbers point towards defeat. Yet, we don’t know what sort of defeat is going to happen. Four possible outcomes here, small defeat, big defeat, wipe out and extinction event.

The current situation is dire, large defeat looms and a wipeout looks possible. The best case is 1997 style defeat, the worst case ranges from 100 to 20 seats. Dangerous close if current polling models are correct to a wipeout. Rock solid safe seats now look like they are competitive. Yet to dawn on many Tory Members of Parliament, how screwed they are. Until the last couple of weeks when they rushed to defend their seats. This message has finally seen the message change, almost conceding defeat. Mixed messaging will cause alarm in the party ranks. Polls are static with little to no real movement. The smallest movement in support could see more seats fall.

Now it’s time to look at voters’ priorities Ipsos, YouGov.

Top 5

  1. NHS

  2. Inflation

  3. Economy

  4. Immigration

  5. Housing

Party priorities

Tories

  1. National service

  2. Scrapping national insurance

  3. Scrapping the planned tax rise for pensioners, pensions triple lock plus

  4. Punitive welfare reforms

  5. Cutting something

  6. Rwanda deportation going ahead

  7. Cap on visa numbers

  8. Equality Act changed

  9. Stamp duty cut extended for first time buyers

These bold policies grab the attention of a narrow group. Low trust has shaken even the core bedrock of support. That is a problem, promise a moon on a stick. The second problem is does not match voter’s concerns at all. The third problem is trust, nobody believes you can do it. The fourth problem is priorities aimed at the core base to avoid that disappearing.

Labour 6

  1. Deliver economy stability

  2. Cut NHS waiting times

  3. Launch a new border security command

  4. Setup great British energy

  5. Crackdown on anti-social behaviour

  6. Recruit 6,5000 new teachers

Labour aiming at issues voters care about. The heart of the labour plan is reform, repair, renewal and rebuild. Everything Labour wants to do is simple and easy to understand. Delivery is crucial, especially given the current low levels of trust.

Campaign and strategy

Most people no longer consume news the old way. On average 5 minutes of news content a day. How we consume news has changed, read notifications and headlines. Short-form video clips of the news are normal. You watch a video and look up the story. WhatsApp groups between families sharing these clips. Thus making it difficult to track what gets attention. Focus groups can give you insight, playground too. So disinformation and misinformation can spread fast.

Air war and ground war but Labour has the advantage in both. The party has a media team that understands the platforms. Plus a far bigger activist base to campaign for it. The traditional campaign feels old-fashioned compared to the world now. Even the TV debate format feels old and not fit for purpose. Party loyalty disappears moving towards much higher levels of volatility. Even the manifesto is changing, digital over paper copies.

Tory party has reduced resources, after losing so many councillors, and members. Thus a diminished force, after awful local election results. The timing of the election further reduced its capacity, due to the summer holidays. Rishi declared they could go on holiday but called an election days later. Mad rush for candidates when it called the election, makes it look unprepared.

Labour Party spent months preparing, candidates in place and more ready to go. Prerecorded messages are ready with a different background and suit. Bigger membership is hungry for power, coming off a series of successful campaigns. Fresh data ready to door knock. Activist base that is willing to door knock. With a war chest of donation money to spend.

Tory’s strategy has been appeasing, the “Right” of the party who come back for more and more. Stuck in internal fights, drifting away from matters at hand. Purity above all else with no desire to compromise. Thus, the result squeezed from all directions. Arrogance has fostered a sense of self-indulgence. The party has compliancy winning against Labour and Lib dems for so long. Instead, it has ignored the threat from both, focusing on reform. It has been a total failure, Eurosceptics still demand more even after winning.

The weak leadership is unable to confront their internal opponents. It has been a disaster, turning activist issues into major ones. So the cycle repeats until you’re forced into an impossible position. The focus has been on reform voters, not labour or lib dem switchers. Swing voters are now your base, that is an awkward spot. The self-defeating strategy that Nigel Farage is happy to exploit. His goal is to remake the Tory party in his image. Yet they keep giving him air and he keeps reinventing himself.

Rishi Sunak’s slogan has been sticking to the plan. Most people don’t want to stick to the plan. Keir Starmer’s slogan is change, a similar vibe to what most people think. Rishi has made various mistakes, the biggest one cutting short D-Day 80th. That story is now cut through into people’s minds. Risks reinforce an image problem, graffs are adding up. Mistakes could cost seats as people feel disrespected. Rishi Yorkshire seat has one of the biggest military bases in the UK. A safe seat which has seen Rishi campaign in, showing some concern about it. Yet another scandal around betting on the timing of the election. After 2 weeks both candidates saw themselves dropped. Police suspended one of his security detail for betting on the date within 24 hours.

Campaign tail can be unpredictable, no matter how hard you try to control it. Events can happen that throw you off. That makes the D-day story so remarkable, it is an important event yearly. Downing Street feels like a bunker, deep in panic mode. Initially, the Tories focused on defending at-risk seats while gaining more. Later, they shifted tactics—rallying the core vote and pleading for survival. Now, they’re zeroing in on ultra-safe seats and supporting ministers. Labour is aiming for a massive 200+ seat majority.

Struggling to describe how it feels, the mood for change is real. Voters are frustrated by broken promises, non-functioning services, and a lack of trust. As polling day approaches scepticism about the Labour remain. Despite its faults, Labour continues to be ambitious and grounded in reality.

Challenges ahead

Labour has a risk register of challenges facing it which include.

Potential collapse of Thames Water

Public sector pay negotiations

Overcrowding in prisons

Universities going under

NHS funding shortfall

Failing local councils

Labour will inherit significant, crisis-laden economic challenges on top. Electoral volatility generated by weakening partisan allegiance. How long do voters give the party the benefit of the doubt nobody knows yet. Decade of crises and shocks with weaken UK state limits the future govt. Which is what my introduction hinted at. What economic challenges?

UK faces three problems lack of labour, lack of skills, lack of capital. Heart of the problem is failure to build and invest in the future. Faced with higher borrowing costs it has wasted lower borrowing costs. High inflation has reduced public services spending power. Services already dealing with higher demand and less money. Decade or more of spending cuts finally showing it effects. Aging population means the UK needs a higher birthrate. Cost of public services goes up with an older population too. Failure to build enough housing has reduced that birth rate as people can’t start a family. Older people can’t downsize, higher rents reduce demand. Poor growth for wages, productivity for 14 years. Government has failed to invest; private companies have failed to invest. With labour being so cheap no need for automatic car washes. Which means the UK needs some painful reforms. Public services cut to the bone need a major cash injection to avoid collapse.

Labour has a big task ahead, rebuild, repair, reform and renewal. Needs to be honest about the inherited mess.

Labour manifesto – Change

You can read it here, gives a clue about the direction of travel. Manifesto is the start not the end of the process. The House of Lords can’t block anything in the manifesto. I do have some concerns and worries but some promising signs.

5 missions 

This forms the backdrop to the Labour manifesto.

1) Kickstart economic growth to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 – with good jobs and productivity growth in every part of the country making everyone, not just a few, better off.

2) Make Britain a clean energy superpower to cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero.

3) Take back our streets by halving serious violent crime and raising confidence in the police and criminal justice system to its highest levels.

4) Break down barriers to opportunity by reforming our childcare and education systems, to make sure there is no class ceiling on the ambitions of young people in Britain.

5) Build an NHS fit for the future that is there when people need it; with fewer lives lost to the biggest killers; in a fairer Britain, where everyone lives well for longer.

Delivering the change Britain needs will require perseverance. The starting point for delivering these missions is to ensure the foundations of good government are right. Labour will make sure we have strong national security, secure borders, and economic stability. Building on these secure foundations, we have already set out the first steps for change. Today we present further policies in this manifesto, as part of the journey of rebuilding our country.

I have bolded a couple of words here which are important or repeated.

Economic stability

Our fiscal rules are that:

  • The current budget moves into balance, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues

  • Debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecast.

Labour plans to keep fiscal rules and remove investment from the rules. Less rules more guidelines or framework. Debt falling stays due to high interest rates. A restraint on public borrowing comes down to gaming forecasts.

 Labour will strike a balance between prioritising investment and the urgent need to rebuild our public finances. There will be no return to austerity.

Square the circle, falling debt, no spending cuts, no tax increases. Labour assumes that OBR upgrades growth forecasts which reduces debt.  That a risky gamble leaves public services in trouble until the Labour budget. Another explanation is Labour resets the narrative in power. Using the benefit of the doubt to do massive tax increases blaming the Tories. Meaning the party can borrow more to spend on public services. Putting faith in stability will yield growth. The danger here is not being honest with low trust asking for trouble. My worry is reform, and improved forecasts won’t lead to growth quickly enough. Public services need extra cash now not later. There are no plans to increase taxes for working people, ruling out the big taxes. That boxes the party in, leaving tax system in a mess. Tax reform is long undue but unpopular.

Rishi keeps pushing the lie about Labour increasing taxes by £2,000 which is a lie. Members of the public have noticed that and listened. Most people understand taxes have to go up to improve public services. Labour signed up to the current impossible plan of £19 billion cuts to public services. Most people only want to pay £10 more which won’t be enough. The danger here of not being honest breaks trust even more. Voters are not stupid they understand public services are in trouble. Due to how low info and disengaged people are you can understand why people are dodging it. Classic line about making tax system fairer and reforming it.

Kickstart growth

Most important point here is the different approaches to markets. Quite a radical shift compared to what came before. Which means more active government. One word that keeps appearing is partnership.  Planning reform and devolution are two key elements here. Focus on industrial strategy, aligned with other priorities. National Wealth Fund to help boost investment in a couple areas. Mixing private and public investment working together. Getting pension funds to invest in UK and review of the returns is good policy. Roadmap of business taxes, along with replacing business rates system.

The next big point is infrastructure which gets it own section. A strategy and planning reform are in the pipeline. National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority will bring together everybody and deliver. The biggest reform is planning, faster and cheaper.

Transport follows talking about potholes and car insurance. The insurance point is about reducing the rising costs nothing firm on how. Commitment to the transition to electric cars by 2030. Not only that but standardising second hand sales of them. Railways into public ownership, along with Great British Railways. New body to drive up standards. Buses franchise local bus services, lifting the ban on public owned. Powers so more can have unified and integrated transport systems.

Innovation a new body National Data Library, along with safeguarding. R&D institutions to get 10 year budgets. Working with universities, simplify the procurement process overall. Also AI regulation over model and more. The biggest change is co-operative and mutuals sector doubling it in size. Late payments for small businesses and median. Removing barriers and improving access to money. Post office gets banking hubs.  The active state is here, that theme of plans so far but no extra cash yet.

Improving public services is essential to growing our economy across the country. Public service workers have a criticaWhl role to play, but services are suffering from recruitment and retention crises. Labour will act to improve public service workers’ living standards throughout the parliament, and ensure any independent mechanisms have the confidence of all involved.

Vague but dealing with public sector pay issues. Immigration and skill policy, jointed up thinking here to upskill and improve conditions. How they deal with public sector pay will decide how quickly waiting lists can decline.

Conclusion

As the 2024 British summer general election draws to a close, the political landscape reveals a stark contrast between the Conservative and Labour parties. Over the past 14 years, the Conservative Party’s tenure has been marked by a series of tumultuous events and leadership changes, from the austerity measures under David Cameron’s coalition to the Brexit debacles under Theresa May and Boris Johnson, and the economic missteps under Liz Truss. Rishi Sunak’s efforts to restore stability and credibility have been overshadowed by the lasting impacts of his predecessors’ policies and the external challenges facing the nation.

The voters’ frustration is palpable, with the country grappling with high inflation, stagnating economic growth, and public services in disarray. The Conservative Party’s internal conflicts and focus on appeasing its right-wing factions have only exacerbated its decline in popularity. In contrast, the Labour Party, under Keir Starmer, presents a vision of change, addressing key voter concerns such as economic stability, NHS reform, and a renewed focus on education and public safety.

Polling data consistently shows a significant lead for Labour, indicating a strong possibility of a historic victory. However, the challenges awaiting Labour are formidable. The party will inherit a nation in crisis, with economic instability, a strained public sector, and a populace weary of broken promises. Delivering on their ambitious plans will require navigating these immediate crises while rebuilding trust and ensuring long-term growth and stability.

As the UK stands on the brink of potential political transformation, the need for competent governance and effective delivery has never been more critical. The coming months will test Labour’s ability to rise to the occasion and prove that their promises of reform, repair, renewal, and rebuilding can indeed lead the nation towards a brighter future.

Politics

Pre general election period

| admin

The next United Kingdom general election must be held no later than 28th January 2025. However, this timeline presents a unique challenge: campaigning over Christmas and into the last possible date. As a result, it’s unlikely that the election will occur during that period, leaving us with October or November as more feasible options. Additionally, the party conferences scheduled for September further complicate the timing. Useful explainer, When will the next UK general election be? | Institute for Government

Polls consistently show that the Labour Party maintains a 14-20% lead over the Conservatives. That trend, started in late 2021, has persisted for the past two years. Source for that claim, politico, BBC, Guardian, Sky news.  With other polling data also indicating negative sentiment toward the Conservative party. Approval of government can be found here from YouGov. Here Ipsos tracking how approvals for various issues. Point is these numbers are not good news, once trust is lost voters don’t listen. No party has recovered while being this far behind on all the important measures. Even if you assume the best-case recovery happens, the Labour lead would still be 4-6%. All these numbers point towards defeat. However, we don’t know what sort of defeat is going to happen. Four possible outcomes here, small defeat, big defeat, wipe out and extinction event.

Voters have lost trust in the Conservatives across various measures, largely due to a series of supply shocks, scandals, and questionable political decisions. Supply shocks talking about brexit, COVID, Russia war in Ukraine and oil price jumps caused by conflict. As for scandals, ‘party gate’ scandal involving Boris Johnson, and the crash of Liz Truss’s mini budget. Mixed with a string of smaller scandals, but these two caused the biggest drop in support. Questionable choices long list from housing, planning, and lack of investment. Against the record of stagnant wages over the past 14 years is not good. The self-imposed supply shock of leaving the European Union has not helped matters, acting like a slow puncture on the UK economy.

The power to call an election lies with the Prime Minister, and timing is a crucial decision. We find ourselves in the final months of a government that appears to have run out of fresh ideas. The Conservative party is hopelessly divided, and external shocks have exposed deep fault lines within its ranks. The upcoming local elections on 2nd May add further pressure to announce a date, and the anticipated losses may lead to panic as reality sets in.

From the outside, Rishi Sunak seems to believe he can still win. Despite the polling, he has made the right choices and deserves reward, public opinion remains unswayed. At times still chaotic moments but nothing compared to what came before. We are now in an extended campaign period before any general election is officially called. Unfortunately, there seem to be no more “rabbits in the hat” left to shift the dial. Local elections normally don’t tell you much but give you an idea of the direction of travel. Showing you who is up and down.

The nationalist conservatism in the UK mirrors trends seen in Europe, but it has not yet found a winning formula. To make matters worse, trends along with fringe ideas, like leaving the European Court of Human Rights, have now become mainstream. That has me worrying about the future. Fringe ideas in the past have now become mainstream, and what worries me is what is to come. Furthermore, the influence of Russian and Chinese interests has been pushing their world view. Both are trying to weaken the Western world and view democracy as an inferior system of government.

As the campaign machinery gears up, the echoes of supply shocks, scandals, and questionable decisions reverberate through the political landscape. The Conservative party, once a formidable force, now grapples with internal divisions and external pressures. Trust, once squandered, is a fragile commodity. Next the government is going to inherit an awful outlook, economy in bad shape and low trust. Generation who have no experience of power, going to face similar divisions and pressures. No transition of power makes that even harder to deal with.