I wouldn't envy the load in its economic in-tray either. We have two self-inflicted wounds - the long legacy of Brownomics that stopped productivity growth dead and Brexit. Trussonomics can be discounted as a short-lived blip. Covid and Ukraine are a problem shared with other governments but those two are our own.

" the long legacy of Brownomics"

The Tories had 14 years to undo that, and didn't, you say? So I doubt that's even real.

You can't undo some things, like Brown selling our gold reserves or raiding the pension pot. Sure, you can start rebuilding our gold reserves, and you can strive to regrow the pension pot, but that'll take money, and Brown left the country rather short on that, thanks.

So yes, it is real. The effects of the Boom-boom-boom-CRASH of Brownomics is also something that takes a long time to recover from.

Same way that Labour have the challenge of sorting out the mess the Tories have made. The question is: Are they going to do a better job, make an equal mess of it, ignore it, or make it worse. That's the problem with politics: We don't know until they've tried.

"Brown selling our gold reserves or raiding the pension pot. Sure, you can start rebuilding our gold reserves, and you can strive to regrow the pension pot, but that'll take money, and Brown left the country rather short on that, thanks."

Not that old trope again! Fuckwit Brown sold ~$3B of gold reserves. Which is about 0.1% of GDP. That barely counts as a rounding error in the public finances. It's roughly the amount of money the government spends in a few hours. When the last Liebour government got kicked out, the national debt was around $1.3T. That included the bank bail-outs. Today, it's almost doubled: $2.3T.

Is it cliché o'clock?

"Not that old trope again" - followed up by your own tired cliché that is "Liebour"...

They've got the majority in Parliament to do something about the problems arising from Brexit.

I'm not talking about re-joining the EU, but being some part of the single market to boost trade would bring real results.

I'm not talking about re-joining the EU, but being some part of the single market to boost trade would bring real results.

I doubt that would be offered, and any attempt to rejoin the EU would be unpopular and probably punitive. It would probably be better to work on boosting trade with Commonwealth and former Commonwealth countries instead. But that's also part of our wider economic and industrial policy, ie if we want to boost trade, we need things to trade. Services only get us so far. But like the article says-

On data policy, Labour will be tempted to gently align with the EU. Despite the passions surrounding Brexit, it's difficult to see the detail of UK data protection law swinging votes one way or another.

I think last night's results show the votes have thoroughly swung, and they have whips for Commoners. I also think they won't need much temptation. After all, one of the benefits of Brexit was an ability to simply copy parts of EU legislation, and add any opt-outs or carve-outs we want. So as a minimum, we'll need to comply with EU data policy given trade and data sharing, but could also strengthen (or more likely weaken) parts we don't like. And it'll be 5yrs before we can do anything about that.

I also think incoming cabinet ministers and HoDs have more than enough on their plates sorting out all that IT mess. Plus some other potential EU fun. So re-constituting British Rail by nationalising rail franchises as those expire. Given the number owned by EU entities, that'll probably raise state aid complaints as gravy trains get derailed. Shame Labour isn't talking about going further and renationalising other utilities, but it's potentially got Thames Water as a starter.

I'm not saying this based on my view of whether the EU is a good thing or not: I will be interested to see if the EU survives the next 10 years.

Presently, given what's happening across the EU politically, I wouldn't be surprised if there is no EU for the UK to rejoin/align/trade with, by the end of the next (2029->) government term.

I always wondered how the Roman Empire, and all the other empires which "ruled the world" came to be nothing but memories - perhaps I'm witnessing one such means.

There's a habit of them getting complacent, then decadent, and then they start to crumble.

It's the adage of Bad times make strong people. Strong people make times good. Good times make weak people. Weak people make bad times. Basically it's a cycle.

Starmer won't renationalise anything. He will just set up some complex scam to redirect public money to his mates. It is easy to see how they lost over 3 million votes compared to 2017 with populist claptrap like GB Energy.

On behalf of Michelle Mone, Lord Ashcroft and Matt Hancocks's publican, I would like to suggest: right conclusion, wrong party.

Well the EU were very clever and have tied up all the loose ends via the TCA (trade and co-op agreement). Remember the photo of Michel Barnier and David Davis? Barnier had a huge pile of papers coz he knows how complex things are, and Davis had nowt coz, well ... muppet is my take.

The EU are happy they have the UK where they want them, and now don't really care what happens in the UK as they have other issues they want to progress. That means if the UK wants to be involved in a significant part of the Single Market it will have to do something to attract the attention of the EU. And pissing around at the edges simply won't cut it. What the EU will expect are at least two main things: political stability, perhaps created by a change of our electoral system to avoid the volatility of FPTP, such that it doesn't matter what party is in power, nothing related to the EU will change. Business demands long-term stability, and FPTP is currently not offering that. PR?

And second, it will demand that we accept the four freedoms, and the acquis communitaire . There will be no exception because we don't like Schengen. It will be full Schengen membership (with the corollary that we will have to adopt an ID card system to make that work). Until we are prepared to offer that we will not make big strides to trade again with the EU, and will remain a third country.

Of course here there will be huge opposition, but over time, and if our economy doesn't significantly improve, there will be internal pressure to accept these things.

FPTP is currently not offering that. PR?

Be careful what you wish for. The LibDems got 3.5m votes and 71 seats (interestingly, that almost exactly corresponds to a proportion of the vote), Reform got 4m votes but only 4 seats. PR would have given Reform more seats than the LDs, and the Reform + Tory seat count would far surpass Labour. Is that really what you want?

Is what he wants relevant? Surely it should reflect the will of the people. It does where I live, a country with PR.

Actually yes: Because that's the beauty of PR: Everyone's vote suddenly counts for something. Currently, if you don't vote for the winning candidate, your vote is simply discarded - it's meaningless. That's why people vote not for the party they want as it matches their values or whose policies are ones they support, but for the party most likely to win against the party they don't want, regardless of the policies proposed.

That's why Labour won so many seats: The vast majority of people didn't want the Tories back in power. It also does away with this system of moving electoral ward boundaries to gain an advantage - You only need a majority of 1 vote to win a seat? Anything past that one winning vote only has the value of denying that vote for the other candidates. So better to win several seats by a slim margin and lose the other seat by a massive margin.

Or, to give an example: If you've two parties and three seats, each voted for by 100 people each: If the outcome was Seat 1: 51/49, seat 2: 51/49, Seat 3: 1/99 (party A getting the first number of votes, party B getting the second): Party A wins two seats against 1 seat for Party B, but Party B got 66% of the votes.

And this isn't about Labour v Tory v Reform: It's about people having confidence that their vote actually makes a difference.

Problem is: How would PR look: How would it be impliemented: How can we be sure it'd be fair? And no party wants it when they're in power 'cause they wouldn't have that power without FPTP.

I'm all for PR, but it has to be done right and supported.

They tried[1] this with "Alternative Vote" referendum in 2011. As I recall, the benefits of an alternative to FPTP were not well promoted at all, and voter turnout was pretty low so we just ended up with the same system. In fact in the intervening years it's cropped up in conversation now and again, and several people didn't even know it happened.

[1] I say they tried; it was massively in their interests for it not to change.

Well yeah, that's how PR would work. You don't get just what YOU want. Unless you are suggesting PR, but only for parties that YOU approve of?

We should copy Germany and make extremist partys illegal.

Rejoining the EU is, unfortunately, not likely to be available. The EU would, surely, make dropping the Pound a non-negotiable condition and, although that will happen in a decade or two (specifically so we can rejoin the EU or some differently-named successor) it wouldn't be doable now.

However, some sort of EEA-like deal is perfectly possible.

However, some sort of EEA-like deal is perfectly possible.

Much like the one we have, you mean?

"The EU would, surely, make dropping the Pound a non-negotiable condition"

This is a no-op. Wannabe member states have to agree to adopt the Euro. Which is not the same as actually adopting the Euro. EU member states can't adopt the Euro until they've been in the ERM for 3 years. Entry to the ERM is voluntary and is essentially invitation-only. No country can be made to do enter the ERM. Besides, they can't enter the ERM until their macroeconomic conditions - interest rate, debt, deficit, etc - are aligned with the Eurozone.

How the hell is this Brown’s fault and not the fault of 14 years of austerity rotting the country from the inside out?

A lot of people like to conveniently forget that Brown also planned ten years of austerity is Labour had won (or gone into a coalition with the Lib Dems in 2010)

Two links, just in case there are accusations of BBC bias. Even Labour's friend the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8587877.stm

and then along comes COVID!

Nice to see Osborne complain about austerity, then bring in a facsimile of austerity with all the punishment for the little people but none of actual paying off of debt.

Adding to andy gibson's comment, what austerity? Spending kept increasing, tax is at an all time high and the gov had a huge blow out of borrowing not typically seen outside of war time. That of course followed the Labour years of unsustainable spending and borrowing.

Austerity does not mean keep spending more but a little less than the spendthrift were

"what austerity?"

Your privilege is showing.

Paul Krugman noticed it, and he's widely considered to know a thing or two about economics: [1]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jun/28/how-the-unforced-error-of-tory-austerity-wrecked-britain

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jun/28/how-the-unforced-error-of-tory-austerity-wrecked-britain

A period of low interest is a good time to get a move on and pay down debt, not create more. Japan is in some major trouble due to their decades long plan to borrow their way to prosperity.

@Androgynous Cupboard

"Paul Krugman noticed it"

Ok I am reading this but I dont yet see where there is anything about austerity (reduced spending). Instead they kept increasing spending (not austerity) but it was less of an increase than would have happened before? I noticed this bit-

"While Britain had low borrowing costs like the US, its government was not divided. The Cameron executive could have chosen to maintain spending. Why did it turn to austerity?"

The simple answer is Cameron didnt turn to austerity, he borrowed less after a financial crash instead of maintaining the crazy spending before. Still borrowing, still spending more.

Amusingly the article does say at the time the Greek debt crisis was hitting (that would be the Eurozone crashing out and almost going under).

The only times the national debt has gone down has been under Labour administrations.

The notion that spending goes up under Labour and down under the Tories is a complete lie, the opposite is actually the case but hey, this is politics where facts are just an annoying irrelevance.

The important thing about borrowing is not the amount but what you do with it. The Tories largely borrow to cut taxes and to service existing loans which is a sure fire recipe for an economic death spiral while Labour mainly borrow for development which helps the economy.

"Labour mainly borrow for development which helps the economy"

Citation needed. Blair followed on from Major with the public private finance scams for most of the development.

@DJO

"The only times the national debt has gone down has been under Labour administrations."

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-and-conservative-records-national-debt/

We all know who runs the country, the politcal descendants of Sir Humphrey Appleby and co, Starmer, Reeves and co can bleat all they like about this or that but nothing gets done or signed off unless Sir Humphrey and his cronies say so.

Good luck Sir Kier, I do sincerely wish him well, it's just he's yet another puppet in a long line of 'em!

I am pretty sure that it was not the politcal descendants of Sir Humphrey Appleby and co that decided to create a Brexit referendum as a means to alleviate inner-party strife,

I am also pretty sure that it was not the politcal descendants of Sir Humphrey Appleby and co that decided that an advisory Brexit referendum that would have been anulled as illegal if it had been binding, was actually binding and that it involved leaving both the customs union AND the single market.

Yes Minister is funny, but do not underestimate the effect that the Tory's hands both on the tiller and in the cookie-jars has had.

a interesting article in the FT yesterday on how the brexit shit show was just about to consume all the architects of it, and looking at the Tories that have lost their seats the article was spot on. Karma. BUT we all still have to suffer from their idiotic Brexit vote. To think the only reason the shyster Cameron called it was to unite the Tory party! Now more disjointed than it has ever been/ What a total c u next tuesday

TBF the parliamentary Conservative Party is probably more united now than it's ever been, given that there's a lot less of them.

good point well made hahahahaha

Yup,

They cancelled all sane cooperative conservatives, leaving only the swivel-eyed loons to run around and complain about cancel-culture.

Especially with Reece=Mogg retired. He's as bad as his mate Farage. Traitors both of them.

Yep. Mogg- fifth columnist in plain sight. Best result from this election- I'd take Farage over Mogg any day.

But each of them can start a fight in an empty room. And probably will.

Please remember that Cameron was against Brexit and was backed into a corner to call that vote.

It was not a party line vote, either: You had MP's from all sides supporting and opposing it. And when the vote came in, Cameron threw his toys out the pram and stormed off in a huff as he had NO plan for Brexit: He'd only considered that we'd stay in, so no need for any plan at all.

Hence the mess.

I'll let Sir Humphrey Appleby explain why not [1]Yes Minister — Why Britain Joined the European Union ( YouTube)

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE

"the politcal descendants of Sir Humphrey Appleby"

That's a fictional character.

Perhaps use real life example instead? Especially for the benefit of non-UK readers.

I don't know.

I am personally rather familiar with Sir Humphrey. I absolutely love Yes Minister and its sequel, and I personally consider that it should be mandatory watching for every political student.

Then they can go on to House of Cards, which I abandoned after season 1 because wayyy too plausible and not funny at all.

"We all know who runs the country, the politcal descendants of Sir Humphrey Appleby and co, Starmer, Reeves and co can bleat all they like about this or that but nothing gets done or signed off unless Sir Humphrey and his cronies say so."

What complete fucking garbage. I'm a mid-to-senior civil servant, and I can assure you that we decide nothing, we do our utmost for any government to offer policy options to meet the objectives ministers say they want. We don't control agendas, we don't push them to conclusions we want. If they want some policy like Rwanda or pints of wine, it is not our job to argue against it, but to give them a view of how we think it could operate in practice, including whether it will work and possible consequences, offer options to implement, and then when a decision has been made we offer proposals to amend legislation that once approved by the minister go before Parliament. If a policy seems doomed to failure, but a minister insists it goes ahead, we keep going, that's our job - we're there to administer the business of government, not to decide it, influence it, or comment upon it. The UK has a very effective split between the executive branch of government (ministers, accountable to Parliament), and the administrative branch (the Civil Service). Unfortunately most of the British population are so dim they think that "Yes, Minister" was a documentary. People often say "******* civil servants, they can't make a decision on anything!" and they're right - because this is how democracy works - you don't want unelected officials making decisions do you? But the price of that is that every decision has to go up the tree to ministers.

And in terms of Civil Service capability, I've work the vast majority of may career in the private sector for very large businesses, I'm on the right of the political spectrum. Over the past few years I've been a civil servant, and I can assure you that any preconceptions you have formed by some lightweight BBC comedy are wrong. The efficiency and effectiveness of Civil Service corporate processes is on a par most large orgnisations - some areas better, some worse, overall par for the course. My colleagues are committed, well trained professionals, who work as civil servants because they believe in the concept of public service. There's bad apples, there's big projects that go wrong (as they do in the private sector, but without public knowledge), and then there's the things that go right day in day out, and people give the civil service and government in general no credit for. In terms of net effeciency, government spends £1,200 billion each year. The Civil Service costs about £12bn a year, so the administration costs are almost exactly 1% of spending. Take any large complex orgnisation in the private sector, and you'll find that it's nearest equivalent (SG&A) is wildly higher - the average for larger companies is around 14%, and for companies of first quartile efficiency it is about 7%. The UK Civil Service was independently benchmarked against a whole load of other countries' administrations a few years back, and the UK came out remarkably well - a net win, allowing some particular areas needing improvement such as data and digital.

The sad thing about all of this is that my comments won't make a blind bit of difference. You'll still believe that "the Blob" is frustrating the will of ministers, that "Yes, Minister" is how government works, that civil servants are lazy, incompetent, feckless work dodgers.

that civil servants are lazy, incompetent, feckless work dodgers.

Well, to be fair, most of the ones that the general public comes into direct contact with (on the rare occasions when they actually answer their phone) are.

The media’s love affair with farage is very dangerous right now.

I doubt Farage will go anywhere much. The Reform vote was primarily a "who can we pick to kick Sunak, but not by voting Labour" one, I seriously doubt if many of those who voted for Farage would expect, or want, to see Reform anywhere near power. A bit like UKIP/Brexit parties, as soon as they'd had their single-issue impact, their votes evaporated.

It is interesting to see that Labour's share of the vote barely changed, except in Scotland. Their landslide was almost entirely down to the core Tory vote going to Reform or the LibDems. This was an anti-Tory vote, largely by Tory voters, not really pro-Reform or pro-Labour.

The big question now is how long Starmer can hang on for before the Labour left get the knives out, especially since Corbyn survived. Starmer doesn't have either the personality or the ego of Tony Blair, so seems much less likely to be able to hold the party together now that they don't have to worry about another election for 5 years. I'd give him a year during which he can still blame the Tories for everything, then internal Labour politics and factional fighting will get tricky.