The Prime Minister in waiting, Sir Kier Starmer.

[az city]

People who revelled in the markets dictating what happened after Liz Truss's budget now being upset when politicians propose nothing radical...

Come off it, Truss' plans being totally back-of-the-fag packet unfunded was the problem not their "radical" nature.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Thanks for writing that Jon, it's exactly how i feel

Starmer is a watered down version of the ideal

But as kinnock said you can mess around with student idealistic politics and resolutions all day long but you have to get into power to be able to implement policy

Otherwise we sit at home miserable as sin as the Tories get in yet again

Since I was old enough to remember politics it's been the Tories with one double shift of Blair

And that's it

Surely even the most devoted left winger can see that this country will never elect a socialist type government

It's never going to happen

The best we can hope for is a centrist government with some left leaning social policy

You can still be a left leaning voter without walking around dressed up as Wolfie Smith

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

Starmer is a watered down version of the ideal

But as kinnock said you can mess around with student idealistic politics and resolutions all day long but you have to get into power to be able to implement policy

Otherwise we sit at home miserable as sin as the Tories get in yet again

Since I was old enough to remember politics it's been the Tories with one double shift of Blair

And that's it

Surely even the most devoted left winger can see that this country will never elect a socialist type government

It's never going to happen

The best we can hope for is a centrist government with some left leaning social policy

You can still be a left leaning voter without walking around dressed up as Wolfie Smith

All that is absolutely fair enough. Except Blair and his ilk should have started their own party to do it with rather than hijacking the socialist party that Labour had been.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

All that is absolutely fair enough. Except Blair and his ilk should have started their own party to do it with rather than hijacking the socialist party that Labour had been.

Well I think a mix of moderate labour , liberals and independents is the way to go

Socialism is just pretend politics these days , kinnock saw through them , more interested in fringe meeting speeches and singing the red flag than dealing with the system we have and making the best of it

Renationalising the former state industries is a great idea but if the cost is crippling then forget it

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

Well I think a mix of moderate labour , liberals and independents is the way to go

Socialism is just pretend politics these days , kinnock saw through them , more interested in fringe meeting speeches and singing the red flag than dealing with the system we have and making the best of it

Renationalising the former state industries is a great idea but if the cost is crippling then forget it

Same goes for you then. You shouldn't change the whole nature of a party just because it offers the best means of getting into power. I knew Kinnock reasonably well through a close friendship with Llew Smith MP. He was and remains a snake.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Same goes for you then. You shouldn't change the whole nature of a party just because it offers the best means of getting into power. I knew Kinnock reasonably well through a close friendship with Llew Smith MP. He was and remains a snake.

Well i think kinnock became one of the naughty gang when he cosied up to europe but his criticism of the far left in 1985 at that famous speech was spot on

The same problem arose with Corbyn and his crew

Either we have a moderate opposition to the Tories which can get elected or we have a fractured protest party

It's 2024 and for a lot of people the labour party is dead its the ideas and policies and an opposition to the Tories that people want

This country is never going to vote for a left wing Labour party

If we have one we can sing the red flag .....through gritted teeth ...till the cows come home and tell our mates we are left wing but it will all be hot air and we will all sit on our hands

I certainly don't think starmer is the long term answer and I would love to see the labour and liberals form a proper alliance to keep the Tories out but for that to happen you need a moderate , centre ground opposition

The likes of corbyn , Abbott and Raynor could easily be replaced by a moderate candidate and they would easily get elected and appeal more widely

[goats]

Starmer is a watered down version of the ideal

But as kinnock said you can mess around with student idealistic politics and resolutions all day long but you have to get into power to be able to implement policy

Otherwise we sit at home miserable as sin as the Tories get in yet again

Since I was old enough to remember politics it's been the Tories with one double shift of Blair

And that's it

Surely even the most devoted left winger can see that this country will never elect a socialist type government

It's never going to happen

The best we can hope for is a centrist government with some left leaning social policy

You can still be a left leaning voter without walking around dressed up as Wolfie Smith

So ironic sludge, chatting to a lot of my mates over the weekend, most of whom are far more clued up than me when it comes to politics, some are Labour Party members etc, they jest now that unfortunately Labour, particularly in Wales, is far more akin to a Tory type rule and I don’t think they are wrong. One lives in south Pembs, the guy running for Labour there isn’t from there, no, a massive stately home in the Cotswolds is his usual abode….they don’t listen to the people and they think they can get away with anything as we’ve seen of late. Champagne socialist bla bla, the new Tories…..your welcome to them��

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

So ironic sludge, chatting to a lot of my mates over the weekend, most of whom are far more clued up than me when it comes to politics, some are Labour Party members etc, they jest now that unfortunately Labour, particularly in Wales, is far more akin to a Tory type rule and I don’t think they are wrong. One lives in south Pembs, the guy running for Labour there isn’t from there, no, a massive stately home in the Cotswolds is his usual abode….they don’t listen to the people and they think they can get away with anything as we’ve seen of late. Champagne socialist bla bla, the new Tories…..your welcome to them��

I don't think I am talking to someone who votes labour very often no matter what they are

You seem to be a tory boy if anything

[goats]

I don't think I am talking to someone who votes labour very often no matter what they are

You seem to be a tory boy if anything

Nah, not me I’ve always been a liberal. Your a modern day Tory living in Cowbridge, perfect…..

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Nah, not me I’ve always been a liberal. Your a modern day Tory living in Cowbridge, perfect…..

Oh don't be grumpy

I vote Labour, I vote Liberal

Anything but tory

Where do you live ?

[goats]

Oh don't be grumpy

I vote Labour, I vote Liberal

Anything but tory

Where do you live ?

In a nice liberal area….

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

In a nice liberal area….

Monmouth ?

[Keyser Soze]

Come off it, Truss' plans being totally back-of-the-fag packet unfunded was the problem not their "radical" nature.

Most modern economics is done based on “fag packet” assumptions. Examples:

1. Gordon Brown: We’ll borrow to “invest” (Brown code language for “current spend”) on the assumption of “Growth”. Growth which never matched his predictions post 2005, hence the debt spiral.

2. Starmer’s assumptions is also supposing “growth” at assumed levels. Those levels are untested and impossible to know. So we should base them on a GDP level less than current, to be cautious. Any upside is a gain. This is just basic, prudent, financial planning assumptions

3. The OBR and Treasury equally make such assumptions on growth. 40-50% of the time they are crap, and based on crude linear analysis, which any baboon armed with a spreadsheet and a GCSE could knock up.

4. Liz Truss was all about changing direction and making mostly Laffer Curve assumptions on corporation tax rates, which again are unknowable. Keynesians say Laffer Curve theory is rubbish, because they have a natural envy of tax cuts on high earners. It is political. Laffer Curve proponents (such as Patrick Minford) argue that it will work, because it worked under Reagan and Thatcher. But that was because corporation tax rates were coming down from an egregiously, evil, glutenous, and envious 1970s high level set by Wilson, Heath and Callaghan - it stimulated inward investment and creates a broader tax base.

Truss’s idea would have likely failed, but not because of Keynesians were right, and not because Minford’ is wrong. Empirical analysis (free of doctrine/ideology) shows that The Laffer Curve does work, but only at a certain point in the cycle (recession or post-recession) and only when pulling it down from much higher corporation tax rate bounds. That has been statistically proven, althought the IFS and BBC still preach the same outdated guff. At the time, as it now, it would not work because the tax rates are already low, and Ireland is already a tax competitor. The marginal gains would be questionable

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Most modern economics is done based on “fag packet” assumptions. Examples:

1. Gordon Brown: We’ll borrow to “invest” (Brown code language for “current spend”) on the assumption of “Growth”. Growth which never matched his predictions post 2005, hence the debt spiral.

2. Starmer’s assumptions is also supposing “growth” at assumed levels. Those levels are untested and impossible to know. So we should base them on a GDP level less than current, to be cautious. Any upside is a gain

3. The OBR and Treasury equally make such assumptions on growth. 50% of the time they are crap, and based on crude linear analysis.

4. Liz Truss was all about changing direction and making mostly Laffer Curve assumptions on corporation tax rates, which again are unknowable. Keynesians say Laffer Curve theory is rubbish, because they have a natural envy of tax cuts on high earners. It is political. Laffer Curve proponents (such as Patrick Minford) argue that it will work, because it worked under Reagan and Thatcher. But that wS because corporation tax rates were coming down from high level - it stimulated inward investment and creates a broader tax base.

Truss’s idea would have likely failed, but not because of Keynesians were right, and not because Minford’ is wrong. Empirical analysis (free of doctrine/ideology) shows that The Laffer Curve does work, but only at a certain point in the cycle (recession or post-recession) and only when pulling it down from much higher corporation tax rate bounds. That has been statistically proven, althought the IFS and BBC still preach the same outdated guff. At the time, as it now, it would not work because the tax rates are already low, and Ireland is already a tax competitor. The marginal gains would be questionable

Minford is a cock

Imagine having that idiot as your first year economics tutor at Cardiff uni

[Keyser Soze]

Minford. Interesting choice of topic. Around 1982 or 1983, something like 367 Keynesian economists made shocking predictions of doom off the back of the the Geoffrey Howe budget. Patrick Minford was one of two mainstream economists to get it right, with his knowledge of the Laffer Curve.

It was front page of the FT, and it was mass hysteria from people quoting the “experts”. The 357 Keynesian “experts” were wrong. Minford and the other guy were correct. I only care about merit and track record. In my world the “cocks” are the ones screaming in a state of groupthink hysteria that they are so correct, only to be proven wrong. The good ones get it right. Especially when more modern economists and revised data proves you are wrong.

Professor Patrick Minford and Tim Congdon were leading proponents of the Truss budget. They was guilty of making bad assumptions on the Truss budget, but not out of poor theory. Theoretically they were reasonable enough, but this time his gap was a lack of applied economics and a lack of understanding of who was manipulating the bond and sterling markets. Market structure had changed a lot since 1983, and in my view what happened in the month around the Truss budget was ethically shocking, although Truss was seemingly unaware. Because of where I was consulting at the time, I would like to write a book or a series of articles on the Truss events, and the political and financial market chicanery on the month around it, but I think I need to be near my death bed before I publish it, if I ever do. I suspect I will never scribe about it and remain quiet.

The guy who was better at the time than Patrick Minford and more accurate more often was Sir Alan Walters, who MT sacked in order to back Lawson. Whereas Minford was more theoretical, Alan Walters was from the more respected area of Applied Economics (always testing theory with real data). More importantly, unlike the kooks from Harvard and LSE, Walters was schooled at Johns Hopkins University. They are leading lights on Applied Econ and Systems Thinking / Complexity Theory. Sadly, Walters recently died.

There are probably only two economists I would pay attention to these days who have called the interest rate cycle, debt cycles, inflation cycle and supply shocks almost perfectly for years. One works inside a Western central bank, and I have attended her lectures. The other is based at Johns Hopkins University and was a peer of Alan Walters, who worked on similar economics models. I would also say that there only three central bankers are worth listening to due to their track record on getting things right. The ECB, BoE and Fed are not the ones I have in mind.

[goats]

Monmouth ?

Ironic you should say that another Tory hotspot, or should I just say new Welsh Labour hotspot….
The new Tories, I love it, so apt, exactly what they are. And don’t get me wrong the current lot in Westminster have to go, they are as deluded as the w anchors we have here in Cardiff bay.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Ironic you should say that another Tory hotspot, or should I just say new Welsh Labour hotspot….
The new Tories, I love it, so apt, exactly what they are. And don’t get me wrong the current lot in Westminster have to go, they are as deluded as the w anchors we have here in Cardiff bay.

I wasn't being ironic , I was taking the piss

Monmouth is about as tory as Wales gets

[az city]

Most modern economics is done based on “fag packet” assumptions. Examples:

1. Gordon Brown: We’ll borrow to “invest” (Brown code language for “current spend”) on the assumption of “Growth”. Growth which never matched his predictions post 2005, hence the debt spiral.

2. Starmer’s assumptions is also supposing “growth” at assumed levels. Those levels are untested and impossible to know. So we should base them on a GDP level less than current, to be cautious. Any upside is a gain. This is just basic, prudent, financial planning assumptions

3. The OBR and Treasury equally make such assumptions on growth. 40-50% of the time they are crap, and based on crude linear analysis, which any baboon armed with a spreadsheet and a GCSE could knock up.

4. Liz Truss was all about changing direction and making mostly Laffer Curve assumptions on corporation tax rates, which again are unknowable. Keynesians say Laffer Curve theory is rubbish, because they have a natural envy of tax cuts on high earners. It is political. Laffer Curve proponents (such as Patrick Minford) argue that it will work, because it worked under Reagan and Thatcher. But that was because corporation tax rates were coming down from an egregiously, evil, glutenous, and envious 1970s high level set by Wilson, Heath and Callaghan - it stimulated inward investment and creates a broader tax base.

Truss’s idea would have likely failed, but not because of Keynesians were right, and not because Minford’ is wrong. Empirical analysis (free of doctrine/ideology) shows that The Laffer Curve does work, but only at a certain point in the cycle (recession or post-recession) and only when pulling it down from much higher corporation tax rate bounds. That has been statistically proven, althought the IFS and BBC still preach the same outdated guff. At the time, as it now, it would not work because the tax rates are already low, and Ireland is already a tax competitor. The marginal gains would be questionable

I think you'll find Minford has the same standing as Rogoff. You're clearly not having a very good day.

Have you ever met Minford? I have.

[goats]

I wasn't being ironic , I was taking the piss

Monmouth is about as tory as Wales gets

I know you were, so was I.

[North Cardiff Blue]

He won't last long the unions and Corbinites will be looking to take over once they are in, and it will be worse than the Tories with the right when trying to resolve Brexit.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

He won't last long the unions and Corbinites will be looking to take over once they are in, and it will be worse than the Tories with the right when trying to resolve Brexit.

You are a desperate man

You are going to get hammered on July 4th