Best Of

The Atlantic reports Trump is ‘disappointed’ with Zelensky & Europe, calling their demands unrealistic. He just wants the war over ‘no matter how’, even if it means Ukraine losing land. Now he pushes for a Putin-Zelensky summit only if he’s at the table.
To me, Trump is openly aligning with Putin, eroding any trust in the US government.
https://x.com/olddog100ua/status/1961295032167629191

A Ukraine peace deal was too hard, he got bored and has moved onto other topics.

It's shameful he is so neutral on this while civilians are targeted by Russia in Kyiv.

Who the fuck do you think works at that refinery in Saratov that Ukraine droned last week? Spetsnaz?

There is a difference between hitting workers at a plant that is intimately connected with Russia's war economy, and hitting tower blocks where people are sleeping.

The Atlantic reports Trump is ‘disappointed’ with Zelensky & Europe, calling their demands unrealistic. He just wants the war over ‘no matter how’, even if it means Ukraine losing land. Now he pushes for a Putin-Zelensky summit only if he’s at the table.
To me, Trump is openly aligning with Putin, eroding any trust in the US government.
https://x.com/olddog100ua/status/1961295032167629191

A Ukraine peace deal was too hard, he got bored and has moved onto other topics.

It's shameful he is so neutral on this while civilians are targeted by Russia in Kyiv.

Who the fuck do you think works at that refinery in Saratov that Ukraine droned last week? Spetsnaz?

False equivalence there. Russia has very clearly been a lot more indiscriminate in its targeting of civilians than Ukraine has.

I have to apologise to Luckyguy.
While his suggestions regarding QE were economically eccentric, and essentially ignored the costs of what he was proposing, the recent sharp rise in interest rates has somewhat changed the situation. And while his remedy might well have been as bad as the problem he was seeking to address, he was quite right to identify a large problem which the rest of us really didn't.

In the environment, the BoE continuing its program of steadily unwinding QE (something which theEU and the US aren't doing) effectively means that it takes very large losses on its continuing gilt sales - which also help depress market prices, and create something of a downward spiral.
Also the banks are now making outsize profits (something never intended) by virtue of the scheme.

The IPPR has a report out which makes some much more sensible, and quite simple suggestions to address those two things.

You can download the full report here:

https://www.ippr.org/articles/fixing-the-leak
..after a period of making significant profits on this programme, the Bank of England is now making record losses, which is historically very unusual for central banks. The Treasury is paying for these losses, making the UK an international outlier, and the sums involved are staggering: Bank of England losses will cost the taxpayer £22 billion a year in every year of this parliament.
These losses come from two sources: valuation losses from selling government bonds below purchase value; and interest rate losses.
In this report we recommend a two-pronged approach to address this issue.
First, to recoup interest rate losses for the taxpayer currently occurring at the Bank of England, the government should implement a ‘QE reserves income levy’ on commercial banks.
Second, the government should urge the Bank of England to review and better manage the fiscal implications of its policies, in particular slowing the pace of the unwinding of quantitative easing – so-called quantitative tightening – and any future quantitative easing.

Seems like a no brainer for a Chancellor desperate for cash.
With very little downside.

On other local news:

The UK government did not do its own analysis of the cost of the biggest reorganisation of councils in England for decades, the BBC has learned.

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said "a significant amount of money" could be saved by merging councils in 21 areas into single authorities.

Rayner's department, the ministry of local government, based its cost estimates on a 2020 report commissioned by the County Council Network (CCN) that said £2.9bn could be saved over five years.

But the CCN has since revised its analysis and now says the reorganisation could make no savings and actually cost money in some scenarios.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9wxnlnrxdo

I wonder how much time Rayner spends doing her job compared to her own housing dealings:

Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, has been accused of avoiding £40,000 in stamp duty on her new flat by the sea after she told authorities it was her primary residence.

Rayner, who is also the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, was said to have removed her name from the official deed to her house in Greater Manchester weeks before buying an £800,000 flat in Hove, East Sussex.

According to The Telegraph, Rayner would have had to pay £70,000 in stamp duty on a second property, so the change saved her £40,000. She is thought to have paid only £30,000.

She also told Tameside council in Greater Manchester that the house in her constituency was still her main home, before telling Brighton and Hove council that her new flat was her second home, which would change her status for council tax.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/angela-rayner-avoided-40000-stamp-duty-on-new-seaside-flat-76m7g6zkb

As we know Rayner has a long history of dubious housing transactions.

The CCN based their
projections on single unitary
authorities replacing county
council areas and the district
councils in those areas.

However it looks like up to
three unitary councils per
county council area and
district councils pushing for at least that

I prefer this to anything by Gerard Manley Hopkins.

I don’t understand your weird rules re stamp duty. It is reported that Angela Rayner has declared her new pad in Hove as her main residence in order to reduce the potential stamp duty amount.

How is it that the tax authorities do not reject this as they could make the argument that she owns a house in her constituency, where her job is tied to, represents as an MP and the other part of her job is covered by work provided accommodation and so there is no argument that can reasonably be used to say that the Hove apartment is her main home.

And if she argued that she will be spending most of her time in Hove then surely her constituents/employers should have a say if they are happy with that.

I’m guessing loads of MPs of all stripes do this.

Do HMRC not question this? Is it a rule that needs fixing? It might be that it’s a good thing as it greases the wheels of the market and economy but seems a bit odd that you can just change which is your main home and HMRC have to accept it when it’s very questionable.

I like to support journalism but this feels like a silly waste of money when locals will do it for free on social media

Like they did in Dundee...

And they are still doing it, and digging out the real story, right now. Go have a look

Can you summarise or provide links so I can understand what the “real story” is?

The "real story" is how a minor incident that would barely reach a local newspaper in decades past became a worldwide moral panic about asylum seekers attacking young Scottish girls (despite the fact no asylum seekers was involved, and the male involved was a Christian).

It has all the features of how international Social Media controlled by the algorithms of the Nerd Reich values clicks over truth, and why we need proper journalism.