If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
What are you talking about? Most young people drive.
Its the primary means of having your own transport for the overwhelming majority of the country, young and old.
No, CHB is correct. In 2020, just 28 per cent of men and women aged 17 – 20 held a full licence. This was down 7 per cent from the previous year and is the lowest percentage figure since 2004.
If the NIC floor is going up by £3,000, doesn't that mean earners between the current threshold and approximately the higher rate tax threshold will benefit net?
It should be fairly easy to graph this
What as the previous threshold, what's the new threshold - for both NI and IT. What's the NI rate increase ?
Increase is for 1.25 percentage points from 12% to 13.25%. Current floor is £9,568, to rise to £12,570.
I think I was slightly optimistic, but not much.
I make the crossover £41k so a bit less than the higher rate threshold (because I did my maths wrong).
Under the old rates, you would have paid £3,771 (at the 12% level) and you will now pay £3766 (at the 13.25% level).
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
What are you talking about? Most young people drive.
Its the primary means of having your own transport for the overwhelming majority of the country, young and old.
No, CHB is correct. In 2020, just 28 per cent of men and women aged 17 – 20 held a full licence. This was down 7 per cent from the previous year and is the lowest percentage figure since 2004.
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
What are you talking about? Most young people drive.
Its the primary means of having your own transport for the overwhelming majority of the country, young and old.
No, CHB is correct. In 2020, just 28 per cent of men and women aged 17 – 20 held a full licence. This was down 7 per cent from the previous year and is the lowest percentage figure since 2004.
I imagine that very few young people in London have a car.
Nick what an absolutely ridiculous and stupid statistic to use. 17-20 year olds proportionately don't have a full licence because they need to learn to drive and pass their test to get their licence. In fact if its your 17th birthday today its all but impossible (if not impossible) to have passed your test and gained your full licence already. 🙄
However those on a provisional licence learning to drive still drive and do you think 21 year olds are not young people anymore?
For 21-30 (Ie after having time to pass their test) 74% I believe is the accurate figure.
So yes most young people drive. Unless for some reason you only want to look at those who are at the age of being learners and then exclude learners from your data. 🙄
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
What are you talking about? Most young people drive.
Its the primary means of having your own transport for the overwhelming majority of the country, young and old.
No, CHB is correct. In 2020, just 28 per cent of men and women aged 17 – 20 held a full licence. This was down 7 per cent from the previous year and is the lowest percentage figure since 2004.
I imagine that very few young people in London have a car.
See official UK government stats I posted below. 21-30 its the highest its been for 20 years.
Clear that with the big increase in people doing to uni, and pretty much every uni makes it extremely difficult to own a car (or drive it onto campus), there is very little incentive to learn to drive when a teenager. And its expensive to do so. So it doesn't surprise me that 17-20 is very low.
However, it as go through 20s and hit 30, then very high levels nationally. It depends how you are arguing "young people". If you are saying teenagers, OK. But people in their 20s are by most still deemed as young. And I would be interested to know what rates are if you strip out London (as my comment said), and perhaps a couple of other major urban hubs of Manchester / Birmingham.
Erh, because I can't afford to buy? Have you seen house prices?
On yer bike - I know you have no car - lots of cheap properties in Hartlepool, Sunderland..... and the air is much cleaner in the beautiful north-east of England. Presumably with your IT skills you have no actual need to work in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
If the NIC floor is going up by £3,000, doesn't that mean earners between the current threshold and approximately the higher rate tax threshold will benefit net?
It should be fairly easy to graph this
What as the previous threshold, what's the new threshold - for both NI and IT. What's the NI rate increase ?
Off the top of my head 27 something thousand?
One thing I don’t get, they have cut off points, big losers close to the point all the time in everything from rates to benefits. Why not zones of influence rather than harsh red lines. Widen that harsh line into zones of influence, so you don’t benefit fully till out the other side of zone, but you start to benefit some of it earlier rather than go up to a line getting nothing.
That’s my big idea for when I take control of the country, history books will proclaim it “Jade’s zones of influence” masterpiece.
I suppose it is too much to hope that the equalisation of allowances for NICs is a step towards the combination of IT and NI? That would spread the load more fairly.
As Barty noted earlier, the likely combination would be by abolishing income tax and loading all the required tax take onto NICs - so completely opposite to what you want, but currently looks politically advantageous.
Regardless of the merits or otherwise of an income tax cut, it doesn't seem to me to be wise to promise a cut in two years' time given the huge level of global instability at the moment. Who knows where we'll be in 2024?
With so much announced in previous statements, and some of this statement being about 2024, it's not easy to tell the overall effect of a given package; what's the right baseline to use?
Though I suspect most of us will follow the "can I afford to order a pizza at the end of the month" test, which Rishinomics looks like failing.
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
Or emigrating? When I look around at my mates, the ones with no money worries have wealthy parents or went abroad to work and save some cash.
I’m in my 40s, and emigrated, effectively.
I still own two houses in London though which renters are paying for.
From a personal pov, ongoing reductions in IT are fantastic.
Yes. UK has become a place where it makes sense to leave to get on in life. Go to Singapore, Dubai, US, Australia and do the same job but take home a lot more of your money.
Reeves pathetic Alice in Sunak land is like a bad joke Labour offers fook all
It's maybe not easy to accept but she is much better when she stays away from humour and concentrates on the numbers.
Her points on defence spending were well made. She should have made far more about the payment of benefits, shameful they were ignored. Her critique of tax rises over the last several years was good, although who doesn't believe that this was a floor for Labour and not a ceiling? The growth figure is of course a consequence of the biggest bubble in UK history bursting and bringing down the Labour government with it.
Anything for anyone under 30 trying to get on the housing ladder?
Nope, no surprises there then.
Helping people buy houses simply helps them get more expensive
Perhaps the Tories should try building some.
They wanted to change the planning system to allow more housebuilding where houses were needed.
However NIMBYism and cynical politics stopped it.
Thank labour, the Lib Dems and boomers not wanting people to buy a new house by them.
They should use the brownfield sites and empty houses first, before flattening more farm land, unless destroying our farming industry by lopsided trade deals is linked to this.
Anything for anyone under 30 trying to get on the housing ladder?
Nope, no surprises there then.
Helping people buy houses simply helps them get more expensive
Perhaps the Tories should try building some.
They wanted to change the planning system to allow more housebuilding where houses were needed.
However NIMBYism and cynical politics stopped it.
Thank labour, the Lib Dems and boomers not wanting people to buy a new house by them.
They should use the brownfield sites and empty houses first, before flattening more farm land, unless destroying our farming industry by lopsided trade deals is linked to this.
And they should use unicorns, pixies and fairy dust because that is just as real as the "brownfield and empty housing" that you reckon exists in the volumes needed.
The population of this country has grown by 20% in a generation, so we need the land for housing to have expanded by 20% just to keep up with population growth. It hasn't done so.
Unless you want to deport ten million people we need more greenfield construction just to cope with the population growth that has already happened.
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
Do most young people not drive cars in the UK? That's a big change since I moved to Spain. Uk roads must be very safe ... and quiet.
I think there has been a trend away, particularly with things like Uber. My son is 26 and doesn't drive and most of my son's and daughter's friends don't. I had a car (if you can call it that) in my 2nd year of uni.
Sunak's package may be politically astute in his campaign to replace Johnson if/when that comes to pass.
However, there's virtually nothing for the bottom 10%: those on benefits, and the lowest earners. Many of these don't have cars. They spend the highest proportion of their income on food, clothes, essential goods and energy bills, the cost of all of which is increasing faster than any growth in wages, let alone benefits. The increase in the support fund is chicken feed. Life is going to be extraordinarily difficult for them. But, they're only 10% and not many of them vote Tory anyway.
A cynical package from a cynical government. But it will help Sunak.
Regardless of the merits or otherwise of an income tax cut, it doesn't seem to me to be wise to promise a cut in two years' time given the huge level of global instability at the moment. Who knows where we'll be in 2024?
Even if he triple locked it, he himself a chancellor who dismantled triple lock.
Newspapers will be wise enough to steer away from this one misstep in Sunak’s speech, as it’s a long off pledge not worth the paper it’s written on.
But Mike Smithson is right again, Sunak and a certain 150-1 bet is back in the game, he is ready to walk into number ten tomorrow and lead a far better Conservative government than this. This is going to get fantastic coverage in the papers, and go down well with voters. Tory poll bounce incoming!
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
Or emigrating? When I look around at my mates, the ones with no money worries have wealthy parents or went abroad to work and save some cash.
I’m in my 40s, and emigrated, effectively.
I still own two houses in London though which renters are paying for.
From a personal pov, ongoing reductions in IT are fantastic.
Yes. UK has become a place where it makes sense to leave to get on in life. Go to Singapore, Dubai, US, Australia and do the same job but take home a lot more of your money.
Yet lots of people seem to want to immigrate here.
OBR says worse year for living standards since 1956
Tory living standards crisis is going to hit hard
Todays Statement
Your on your own folks
Since at least 1956, which is as far back as their data go. Check out Chart 1.3 on p9 of the Economic and Fiscal Outlook, it is quite startling, not least how declines in real incomes, which were previously extremely rare, have become commonplace under the 2010-22 Tory governments. You've Necer Had It So Good it ain't.
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
Do most young people not drive cars in the UK? That's a big change since I moved to Spain. Uk roads must be very safe ... and quiet.
I think there has been a trend away, particularly with things like Uber. My son is 26 and doesn't drive and most of my son's and daughter's friends don't. I had a car (if you can call it that) in my 2nd year of uni.
Costs, especially insurance.
Most of the young people I know are riding bikes as much as possible - the fitness and green thing is a bonus for them.
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
Do most young people not drive cars in the UK? That's a big change since I moved to Spain. Uk roads must be very safe ... and quiet.
I think there has been a trend away, particularly with things like Uber. My son is 26 and doesn't drive and most of my son's and daughter's friends don't. I had a car (if you can call it that) in my 2nd year of uni.
Yes, the age at which people pass a driving test has been trending upwards for some time. Can't find the figures at the drop of a hat - if I do I will post them. Reasons include cost and increasing tendency for twenty-somethings to live in highly accessible locations like city centres (where, incidentally, car parking tends to be at a premium).
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
Do most young people not drive cars in the UK? That's a big change since I moved to Spain. Uk roads must be very safe ... and quiet.
I think there has been a trend away, particularly with things like Uber. My son is 26 and doesn't drive and most of my son's and daughter's friends don't. I had a car (if you can call it that) in my 2nd year of uni.
Yes, the age at which people pass a driving test has been trending upwards for some time. Can't find the figures at the drop of a hat - if I do I will post them. Reasons include cost and increasing tendency for twenty-somethings to live in highly accessible locations like city centres (where, incidentally, car parking tends to be at a premium).
My youngest applied for a provisional on his 17th birthday. Didn't receive it till 13 months later! That will account for some of it.
No, CHB is correct. In 2020, just 28 per cent of men and women aged 17 – 20 held a full licence. This was down 7 per cent from the previous year and is the lowest percentage figure since 2004.
I imagine that very few young people in London have a car.
Nick what an absolutely ridiculous and stupid statistic to use. 17-20 year olds proportionately don't have a full licence because they need to learn to drive and pass their test to get their licence. In fact if its your 17th birthday today its all but impossible (if not impossible) to have passed your test and gained your full licence already. 🙄
However those on a provisional licence learning to drive still drive and do you think 21 year olds are not young people anymore?
For 21-30 (Ie after having time to pass their test) 74% I believe is the accurate figure.
So yes most young people drive. Unless for some reason you only want to look at those who are at the age of being learners and then exclude learners from your data. 🙄
I was replying to your original post saying (IIRC) that the majority across every part of the population drive. My point was thar the proprtion of the youngest group is small and substantially falling (which shows it's not just about the licence). I'd also think that the London figures in general are quite low. But I do agree that outside the big cities, the vast majority of people drive until they're too old to do it safely.
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
Do most young people not drive cars in the UK? That's a big change since I moved to Spain. Uk roads must be very safe ... and quiet.
I think there has been a trend away, particularly with things like Uber. My son is 26 and doesn't drive and most of my son's and daughter's friends don't. I had a car (if you can call it that) in my 2nd year of uni.
Yes, same here. Only one of my extended family of the younger generation (12 in their 30s) has a car. The determining factor is that they all live in London or other cities with good public transport. The cost of a car is just not worth it.
The Kyiv Independent are reporting the encirclement of Russian forces NW of Kyiv, quoting a local council. So seems like that's a reality. Looks like a major turning point in the war.
No, CHB is correct. In 2020, just 28 per cent of men and women aged 17 – 20 held a full licence. This was down 7 per cent from the previous year and is the lowest percentage figure since 2004.
I imagine that very few young people in London have a car.
Nick what an absolutely ridiculous and stupid statistic to use. 17-20 year olds proportionately don't have a full licence because they need to learn to drive and pass their test to get their licence. In fact if its your 17th birthday today its all but impossible (if not impossible) to have passed your test and gained your full licence already. 🙄
However those on a provisional licence learning to drive still drive and do you think 21 year olds are not young people anymore?
For 21-30 (Ie after having time to pass their test) 74% I believe is the accurate figure.
So yes most young people drive. Unless for some reason you only want to look at those who are at the age of being learners and then exclude learners from your data. 🙄
I was replying to your original post saying (IIRC) that the majority across every part of the population drive. My point was thar the proprtion of the youngest group is small and substantially falling (which shows it's not just about the licence). I'd also think that the London figures in general are quite low. But I do agree that outside the big cities, the vast majority of people drive until they're too old to do it safely.
And quite often sometime beyond that, too. I remember my grandfather asking his doctor if he was safe to drive, and his doctor told him he had patients who still drove despite being registered blind...
No, CHB is correct. In 2020, just 28 per cent of men and women aged 17 – 20 held a full licence. This was down 7 per cent from the previous year and is the lowest percentage figure since 2004.
I imagine that very few young people in London have a car.
Nick what an absolutely ridiculous and stupid statistic to use. 17-20 year olds proportionately don't have a full licence because they need to learn to drive and pass their test to get their licence. In fact if its your 17th birthday today its all but impossible (if not impossible) to have passed your test and gained your full licence already. 🙄
However those on a provisional licence learning to drive still drive and do you think 21 year olds are not young people anymore?
For 21-30 (Ie after having time to pass their test) 74% I believe is the accurate figure.
So yes most young people drive. Unless for some reason you only want to look at those who are at the age of being learners and then exclude learners from your data. 🙄
I was replying to your original post saying (IIRC) that the majority across every part of the population drive. My point was thar the proprtion of the youngest group is small and substantially falling (which shows it's not just about the licence). I'd also think that the London figures in general are quite low. But I do agree that outside the big cities, the vast majority of people drive until they're too old to do it safely.
I think the numbers going to university have something to do with it - Universities are generally setup so that walking/cycling makes sense....
By the way, those of you who are actually Labour members are welcome to a session that I'm hosting online with Rachel Reeves tomorrow - PM me if interested. My CLP do a monthly online discussion with someone interesting (not always Labour) as a perk for members, and obviously it's nice to share with other CLPs.
No, CHB is correct. In 2020, just 28 per cent of men and women aged 17 – 20 held a full licence. This was down 7 per cent from the previous year and is the lowest percentage figure since 2004.
I imagine that very few young people in London have a car.
Nick what an absolutely ridiculous and stupid statistic to use. 17-20 year olds proportionately don't have a full licence because they need to learn to drive and pass their test to get their licence. In fact if its your 17th birthday today its all but impossible (if not impossible) to have passed your test and gained your full licence already. 🙄
However those on a provisional licence learning to drive still drive and do you think 21 year olds are not young people anymore?
For 21-30 (Ie after having time to pass their test) 74% I believe is the accurate figure.
So yes most young people drive. Unless for some reason you only want to look at those who are at the age of being learners and then exclude learners from your data. 🙄
I was replying to your original post saying (IIRC) that the majority across every part of the population drive. My point was thar the proprtion of the youngest group is small and substantially falling (which shows it's not just about the licence). I'd also think that the London figures in general are quite low. But I do agree that outside the big cities, the vast majority of people drive until they're too old to do it safely.
The claim was that most young people don't drive. Its not true, most young people do drive.
Young doesn't end at 20 as far as I'm concerned, nor are learner-drivers non-drivers either. The reason young people are learning to drive, is because they want to drive and when they're learning ... they're driving.
So to look at a learner-driver dominated age-group and to exclude learner-drivers is just plain dodgy data.
Indeed this is one thing that is more young-people dominated I expect since young people will overwhelmingly drive in most of the nation but as you say old people who can't safely do so are much more likely not to do so anymore.
I simply cannot believe that inflation at these levels is not going to drive huge wage increase demands across the economy giving us another round of cost push inflation into next year. We have had 14 years of very low inflation since 2008 but that period and the deflationary pressures that caused it are now at an end. Inflation is back, big time, and politics will change with it. I have real doubts about whether those changes are going to be to the Conservative's advantage.
To take a simple example, most pensions in payment have a cap in them limiting the indexation allowance to a number between 2 and 4%, depending on the generosity of the scheme. This has been almost entirely academic for the last 14 years. Now, all those in receipt of such pensions will now face real terms reductions such as the present, cosseted, generation of pensioners have never seen. And they won't be happy.
Shoigu is about as close as it gets. If he's under house arrest that really is serious.
That account is normally dedicated to making fun of people's credulity...
It's not the first report that something is amiss with Shoigu. He hasn't been seen in public for some time, and was mysteriously declared "ill" by his family just a few days ago. Alongside varied, possibly more reliable twitter sources about it, over the last few days, the Mail also had something on it today :
This sort of thing matters, because Shoigu was Putin's absolutely right-hand man ; even tipped as the most likely personally anointed to replace him over many years.
Whatever's happened, it seems to point to some real tensions operating within the regime.
Anything for anyone under 30 trying to get on the housing ladder?
Nope, no surprises there then.
Helping people buy houses simply helps them get more expensive
Perhaps the Tories should try building some.
They wanted to change the planning system to allow more housebuilding where houses were needed.
However NIMBYism and cynical politics stopped it.
Thank labour, the Lib Dems and boomers not wanting people to buy a new house by them.
They should use the brownfield sites and empty houses first, before flattening more farm land, unless destroying our farming industry by lopsided trade deals is linked to this.
And they should use unicorns, pixies and fairy dust because that is just as real as the "brownfield and empty housing" that you reckon exists in the volumes needed.
The population of this country has grown by 20% in a generation, so we need the land for housing to have expanded by 20% just to keep up with population growth. It hasn't done so.
Unless you want to deport ten million people we need more greenfield construction just to cope with the population growth that has already happened.
i leave the unicorns to the former brexiteers. there are still large areas of boarded up and abandoned retail etc which can be used. have a look at some urbex youtube vids for the growing numbers of derelict sites about.
Sunak's package may be politically astute in his campaign to replace Johnson if/when that comes to pass.
However, there's virtually nothing for the bottom 10%: those on benefits, and the lowest earners. Many of these don't have cars. They spend the highest proportion of their income on food, clothes, essential goods and energy bills, the cost of all of which is increasing faster than any growth in wages, let alone benefits. The increase in the support fund is chicken feed. Life is going to be extraordinarily difficult for them. But, they're only 10% and not many of them vote Tory anyway.
A cynical package from a cynical government. But it will help Sunak.
The next year or two are going to be extraordinarily tough for some people. I think we are going to see a degree of poverty and hunger in Britain that will be gut-wrenching to witness.
Helen Whately struggling to explain the contradictions between the approach to NI and IT on BBC politics. The interviewer is on the button and of course realises that the only reason the NI increase isn’t being abandoned is the fear of the u-turn.
Anything for anyone under 30 trying to get on the housing ladder?
Nope, no surprises there then.
Helping people buy houses simply helps them get more expensive
Perhaps the Tories should try building some.
They wanted to change the planning system to allow more housebuilding where houses were needed.
However NIMBYism and cynical politics stopped it.
Thank labour, the Lib Dems and boomers not wanting people to buy a new house by them.
They should use the brownfield sites and empty houses first, before flattening more farm land, unless destroying our farming industry by lopsided trade deals is linked to this.
And they should use unicorns, pixies and fairy dust because that is just as real as the "brownfield and empty housing" that you reckon exists in the volumes needed.
The population of this country has grown by 20% in a generation, so we need the land for housing to have expanded by 20% just to keep up with population growth. It hasn't done so.
Unless you want to deport ten million people we need more greenfield construction just to cope with the population growth that has already happened.
i leave the unicorns to the former brexiteers. there are still large areas of boarded up and abandoned retail etc which can be used. have a look at some urbex youtube vids for the growing numbers of derelict sites about.
And retail isn't always suitable for residential, but either way there isn't ten million homes worth of retail boarded up.
The population of this country has grown by ten million people - and its still most years going up by hundreds of thousands of people. If you don't want to have greenfield construction then what's your viable alternative? Forced deportation of hundreds of thousands per annum? A complete and total halt of immigration?
Anything for anyone under 30 trying to get on the housing ladder?
Nope, no surprises there then.
Helping people buy houses simply helps them get more expensive
Perhaps the Tories should try building some.
They wanted to change the planning system to allow more housebuilding where houses were needed.
However NIMBYism and cynical politics stopped it.
Thank labour, the Lib Dems and boomers not wanting people to buy a new house by them.
They should use the brownfield sites and empty houses first, before flattening more farm land, unless destroying our farming industry by lopsided trade deals is linked to this.
And they should use unicorns, pixies and fairy dust because that is just as real as the "brownfield and empty housing" that you reckon exists in the volumes needed.
The population of this country has grown by 20% in a generation, so we need the land for housing to have expanded by 20% just to keep up with population growth. It hasn't done so.
Unless you want to deport ten million people we need more greenfield construction just to cope with the population growth that has already happened.
i leave the unicorns to the former brexiteers. there are still large areas of boarded up and abandoned retail etc which can be used. have a look at some urbex youtube vids for the growing numbers of derelict sites about.
Part of the problem is a semi-religious belief in retail, by councils.
Near me, a bunch of town houses and flats was finished 5 years ago. The retail at the bottom - which was mandated by the council, in return for planning permission, is empty and has *never been filled*.
Locally, the shopping areas are okish, though there are always empty units.
Laura Trott struggling to explain the contradictions between the approach to NI and IT on BBC politics. The interviewer is on the button and of course realises that the only reason the NI increase isn’t being abandoned is the fear of the u-turn.
The interviewer is wrong - the reason NI increase isn't being abandoned is workers money is being redistributed to non-working people.
Shoigu is about as close as it gets. If he's under house arrest that really is serious.
Reports now that this man Sergei Shoigu, General of the Army and Russian Minister of Defence has been relieved of command and is under house arrest accused of corruption and "unauthorized contact with the enemies of the Russian Federation"
"unauthorized contact with the enemies of the Russian Federation" umm would that include talking to Putin? LOL
Shoigu is about as close as it gets. If he's under house arrest that really is serious.
That account is normally dedicated to making fun of people's credulity...
It's not the first report that something is amiss with Shiogu. He hasn't been seen in public for some time, and was mysteriously declared "ill" by his family just a few days ago. Alongside varied, possibly more reliable twitter sources about it, over the last few days, the Mail also had something on it today :
This sort of thing matters, because Shiogu was Putin's absolutely right-hand man ; even tipped as the most likely annointed to personally replace him for many years.
Whatever's happened, it seems to show up some real tensions within the regime.
Yes, I agree that something is up with Shiogu, but the person behind that account is a high-level troll, not someone with any inside information.
This is a more typical example of his work:
@archer_rs Just spoke to friend who works at the EU, she said,
"I have never seen European unity like this, Ukraine has bought the EU together like nothing before. When this is over the EU is going to be an economic superpower, the UK is irrelevant now"
So people in work see their tax up their energy bills up their fuel up their allowances frozen for 4 years
All in 10 days time this budget does bugger all
Labour offers bugger all alternative to address the Tory Crisis
Is your definition of "Tory Crisis" the fact the Tories happened to be in power during Covid and now war in Ukraine?
In 2008/2009 you could argue that Labour should have been building up a surplus in the good years. The Tories this time have not had that opportunity as they had just about finished getting the finances in order again from that before Covid hit.
Unfortunately it is going to be hard times ahead for a very large number of people. I am not entirely sure if there is anything that can be done that will make much difference.
Anything for anyone under 30 trying to get on the housing ladder?
Nope, no surprises there then.
Helping people buy houses simply helps them get more expensive
Perhaps the Tories should try building some.
They wanted to change the planning system to allow more housebuilding where houses were needed.
However NIMBYism and cynical politics stopped it.
Thank labour, the Lib Dems and boomers not wanting people to buy a new house by them.
They should use the brownfield sites and empty houses first, before flattening more farm land, unless destroying our farming industry by lopsided trade deals is linked to this.
And they should use unicorns, pixies and fairy dust because that is just as real as the "brownfield and empty housing" that you reckon exists in the volumes needed.
The population of this country has grown by 20% in a generation, so we need the land for housing to have expanded by 20% just to keep up with population growth. It hasn't done so.
Unless you want to deport ten million people we need more greenfield construction just to cope with the population growth that has already happened.
i leave the unicorns to the former brexiteers. there are still large areas of boarded up and abandoned retail etc which can be used. have a look at some urbex youtube vids for the growing numbers of derelict sites about.
And retail isn't always suitable for residential, but either way there isn't ten million homes worth of retail boarded up.
The population of this country has grown by ten million people - and its still most years going up by hundreds of thousands of people. If you don't want to have greenfield construction then what's your viable alternative? Forced deportation of hundreds of thousands per annum? A complete and total halt of immigration?
Its utterly ridiculous.
its utterly ridiculous not using brownfield sites etc etc. What have you got against them? What makes you think retail isnt convertable? at the worst they can be demolished then rebuilt. whats the difference between that and trashing farmland?
So people in work see their tax up their energy bills up their fuel up their allowances frozen for 4 years
All in 10 days time this budget does bugger all
Labour offers bugger all alternative to address the Tory Crisis
Is your definition of "Tory Crisis" the fact the Tories happened to be in power during Covid and now war in Ukraine?
In 2008/2009 you could argue that Labour should have been building up a surplus in the good years. The Tories this time have not had that opportunity as they had just about finished getting the finances in order again from that before Covid hit.
Unfortunately it is going to be hard times ahead for a very large number of people. I am not entirely sure if there is anything that can be done that will make much difference.
If Labour were in power it would be Labour's crisis and you and I know both know it.
Anything for anyone under 30 trying to get on the housing ladder?
Nope, no surprises there then.
Helping people buy houses simply helps them get more expensive
Perhaps the Tories should try building some.
They wanted to change the planning system to allow more housebuilding where houses were needed.
However NIMBYism and cynical politics stopped it.
Thank labour, the Lib Dems and boomers not wanting people to buy a new house by them.
They should use the brownfield sites and empty houses first, before flattening more farm land, unless destroying our farming industry by lopsided trade deals is linked to this.
And they should use unicorns, pixies and fairy dust because that is just as real as the "brownfield and empty housing" that you reckon exists in the volumes needed.
The population of this country has grown by 20% in a generation, so we need the land for housing to have expanded by 20% just to keep up with population growth. It hasn't done so.
Unless you want to deport ten million people we need more greenfield construction just to cope with the population growth that has already happened.
i leave the unicorns to the former brexiteers. there are still large areas of boarded up and abandoned retail etc which can be used. have a look at some urbex youtube vids for the growing numbers of derelict sites about.
And retail isn't always suitable for residential, but either way there isn't ten million homes worth of retail boarded up.
The population of this country has grown by ten million people - and its still most years going up by hundreds of thousands of people. If you don't want to have greenfield construction then what's your viable alternative? Forced deportation of hundreds of thousands per annum? A complete and total halt of immigration?
Its utterly ridiculous.
its utterly ridiculous not using brownfield sites etc etc. What have you got against them? What makes you think retail isnt convertable? at the worst they can be demolished then rebuilt. whats the difference between that and trashing farmland?
I have absolutely nothing against using brownfield sites and where they exist they should be used as well as using greenfield etc, where available.
What it isn't is an alternative as it simply doesn't exist in the volumes required.
Anything for anyone under 30 trying to get on the housing ladder?
Nope, no surprises there then.
Helping people buy houses simply helps them get more expensive
Perhaps the Tories should try building some.
They wanted to change the planning system to allow more housebuilding where houses were needed.
However NIMBYism and cynical politics stopped it.
Thank labour, the Lib Dems and boomers not wanting people to buy a new house by them.
They should use the brownfield sites and empty houses first, before flattening more farm land, unless destroying our farming industry by lopsided trade deals is linked to this.
And they should use unicorns, pixies and fairy dust because that is just as real as the "brownfield and empty housing" that you reckon exists in the volumes needed.
The population of this country has grown by 20% in a generation, so we need the land for housing to have expanded by 20% just to keep up with population growth. It hasn't done so.
Unless you want to deport ten million people we need more greenfield construction just to cope with the population growth that has already happened.
i leave the unicorns to the former brexiteers. there are still large areas of boarded up and abandoned retail etc which can be used. have a look at some urbex youtube vids for the growing numbers of derelict sites about.
Part of the problem is a semi-religious belief in retail, by councils.
Near me, a bunch of town houses and flats was finished 5 years ago. The retail at the bottom - which was mandated by the council, in return for planning permission, is empty and has *never been filled*.
Locally, the shopping areas are okish, though there are always empty units.
In our area we're having trouble getting retail. The council's obsession is houses and offices. Offices which often remain empty for years...
(What we really need is a small industrial estate.)
Anything for anyone under 30 trying to get on the housing ladder?
Nope, no surprises there then.
Helping people buy houses simply helps them get more expensive
Perhaps the Tories should try building some.
They wanted to change the planning system to allow more housebuilding where houses were needed.
However NIMBYism and cynical politics stopped it.
Thank labour, the Lib Dems and boomers not wanting people to buy a new house by them.
They should use the brownfield sites and empty houses first, before flattening more farm land, unless destroying our farming industry by lopsided trade deals is linked to this.
And they should use unicorns, pixies and fairy dust because that is just as real as the "brownfield and empty housing" that you reckon exists in the volumes needed.
The population of this country has grown by 20% in a generation, so we need the land for housing to have expanded by 20% just to keep up with population growth. It hasn't done so.
Unless you want to deport ten million people we need more greenfield construction just to cope with the population growth that has already happened.
i leave the unicorns to the former brexiteers. there are still large areas of boarded up and abandoned retail etc which can be used. have a look at some urbex youtube vids for the growing numbers of derelict sites about.
Part of the problem is a semi-religious belief in retail, by councils.
Near me, a bunch of town houses and flats was finished 5 years ago. The retail at the bottom - which was mandated by the council, in return for planning permission, is empty and has *never been filled*.
Locally, the shopping areas are okish, though there are always empty units.
In our area we're having trouble getting retail. The council's obsession is houses and offices. Offices which often remain empty for years...
(What we really need is a small industrial estate.)
What we really need is to take the power to decide out of the hand of councils.
Retail, residential or offices - let people build whatever they want, wherever they want to, within parameters. If there's no demand for one of them, it won't be built.
I simply cannot believe that inflation at these levels is not going to drive huge wage increase demands across the economy giving us another round of cost push inflation into next year. We have had 14 years of very low inflation since 2008 but that period and the deflationary pressures that caused it are now at an end. Inflation is back, big time, and politics will change with it. I have real doubts about whether those changes are going to be to the Conservative's advantage.
To take a simple example, most pensions in payment have a cap in them limiting the indexation allowance to a number between 2 and 4%, depending on the generosity of the scheme. This has been almost entirely academic for the last 14 years. Now, all those in receipt of such pensions will now face real terms reductions such as the present, cosseted, generation of pensioners have never seen. And they won't be happy.
2 years of covid. A major European war. What do people expect?
If they have alternative ideas for how we should handle such crises let them come forward and tell us.
So people in work see their tax up their energy bills up their fuel up their allowances frozen for 4 years
All in 10 days time this budget does bugger all
Labour offers bugger all alternative to address the Tory Crisis
Is your definition of "Tory Crisis" the fact the Tories happened to be in power during Covid and now war in Ukraine?
In 2008/2009 you could argue that Labour should have been building up a surplus in the good years. The Tories this time have not had that opportunity as they had just about finished getting the finances in order again from that before Covid hit.
Unfortunately it is going to be hard times ahead for a very large number of people. I am not entirely sure if there is anything that can be done that will make much difference.
If Labour were in power it would be Labour's crisis and you and I know both know it.
Yes, but good to have you confirm your view that it is just because the Tories happen to be in government.
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
Do most young people not drive cars in the UK? That's a big change since I moved to Spain. Uk roads must be very safe ... and quiet.
I think there has been a trend away, particularly with things like Uber. My son is 26 and doesn't drive and most of my son's and daughter's friends don't. I had a car (if you can call it that) in my 2nd year of uni.
Yes, the age at which people pass a driving test has been trending upwards for some time. Can't find the figures at the drop of a hat - if I do I will post them. Reasons include cost and increasing tendency for twenty-somethings to live in highly accessible locations like city centres (where, incidentally, car parking tends to be at a premium).
My youngest applied for a provisional on his 17th birthday. Didn't receive it till 13 months later! That will account for some of it.
Well, yes, certainly. But I think (and sorry, I CANNOT find the stats, though I have seen them - I accept this is poor internet form) the average age for passing a test is now somewhere in the late 20s. Learning to drive is not the rite of passage it was when I was that age. And that's just being able to. The average age of people with access to a car is also going up, for the same reasons. Many of those 20-somethings living in city centre locations can drive, legally, but don't.
So people in work see their tax up their energy bills up their fuel up their allowances frozen for 4 years
All in 10 days time this budget does bugger all
Labour offers bugger all alternative to address the Tory Crisis
Is your definition of "Tory Crisis" the fact the Tories happened to be in power during Covid and now war in Ukraine?
In 2008/2009 you could argue that Labour should have been building up a surplus in the good years. The Tories this time have not had that opportunity as they had just about finished getting the finances in order again from that before Covid hit.
Unfortunately it is going to be hard times ahead for a very large number of people. I am not entirely sure if there is anything that can be done that will make much difference.
If Labour were in power it would be Labour's crisis and you and I know both know it.
Yes, but good to have you confirm your view that it is just because the Tories happen to be in government.
COVID isn't caused by the Tories and I don't blame them for COVID. I do blame them for doing sod all for young people.
I simply cannot believe that inflation at these levels is not going to drive huge wage increase demands across the economy giving us another round of cost push inflation into next year. We have had 14 years of very low inflation since 2008 but that period and the deflationary pressures that caused it are now at an end. Inflation is back, big time, and politics will change with it. I have real doubts about whether those changes are going to be to the Conservative's advantage.
To take a simple example, most pensions in payment have a cap in them limiting the indexation allowance to a number between 2 and 4%, depending on the generosity of the scheme. This has been almost entirely academic for the last 14 years. Now, all those in receipt of such pensions will now face real terms reductions such as the present, cosseted, generation of pensioners have never seen. And they won't be happy.
2 years of covid. A major European war. What do people expect?
If they have alternative ideas for how we should handle such crises let them come forward and tell us.
Having a grown up in charge would be a good start.
Anything for anyone under 30 trying to get on the housing ladder?
Nope, no surprises there then.
Helping people buy houses simply helps them get more expensive
Perhaps the Tories should try building some.
They wanted to change the planning system to allow more housebuilding where houses were needed.
However NIMBYism and cynical politics stopped it.
Thank labour, the Lib Dems and boomers not wanting people to buy a new house by them.
They should use the brownfield sites and empty houses first, before flattening more farm land, unless destroying our farming industry by lopsided trade deals is linked to this.
And they should use unicorns, pixies and fairy dust because that is just as real as the "brownfield and empty housing" that you reckon exists in the volumes needed.
The population of this country has grown by 20% in a generation, so we need the land for housing to have expanded by 20% just to keep up with population growth. It hasn't done so.
Unless you want to deport ten million people we need more greenfield construction just to cope with the population growth that has already happened.
i leave the unicorns to the former brexiteers. there are still large areas of boarded up and abandoned retail etc which can be used. have a look at some urbex youtube vids for the growing numbers of derelict sites about.
And retail isn't always suitable for residential, but either way there isn't ten million homes worth of retail boarded up.
The population of this country has grown by ten million people - and its still most years going up by hundreds of thousands of people. If you don't want to have greenfield construction then what's your viable alternative? Forced deportation of hundreds of thousands per annum? A complete and total halt of immigration?
Its utterly ridiculous.
its utterly ridiculous not using brownfield sites etc etc. What have you got against them? What makes you think retail isnt convertable? at the worst they can be demolished then rebuilt. whats the difference between that and trashing farmland?
The way things are going, we'll need as much farmland as possible, and especially the non-flooding, flat land which for some reason HMG is keen to see planted with concrete and brick.
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
Or emigrating? When I look around at my mates, the ones with no money worries have wealthy parents or went abroad to work and save some cash.
I’m in my 40s, and emigrated, effectively.
I still own two houses in London though which renters are paying for.
From a personal pov, ongoing reductions in IT are fantastic.
Yes. UK has become a place where it makes sense to leave to get on in life. Go to Singapore, Dubai, US, Australia and do the same job but take home a lot more of your money.
Yet lots of people seem to want to immigrate here.
There's no doubt the UK offers much better prospects than most of the world.
But we have fallen behind our comparator nations I think. And for younger people, the tax burden (and the lack of wage increases in 10+ years) is a big problem.
I simply cannot believe that inflation at these levels is not going to drive huge wage increase demands across the economy giving us another round of cost push inflation into next year. We have had 14 years of very low inflation since 2008 but that period and the deflationary pressures that caused it are now at an end. Inflation is back, big time, and politics will change with it. I have real doubts about whether those changes are going to be to the Conservative's advantage.
To take a simple example, most pensions in payment have a cap in them limiting the indexation allowance to a number between 2 and 4%, depending on the generosity of the scheme. This has been almost entirely academic for the last 14 years. Now, all those in receipt of such pensions will now face real terms reductions such as the present, cosseted, generation of pensioners have never seen. And they won't be happy.
2 years of covid. A major European war. What do people expect?
If they have alternative ideas for how we should handle such crises let them come forward and tell us.
Having a grown up in charge would be a good start.
Yet parts of Covid were well handled by the government - e.g. vaccines. And before 'look at the mistakes' gets shouted, most other countries made big mistakes as well. We were in unprecedented times.
Then there's the Ukraine crisis, on which I think we've done rather well so far.
So whilst I agree that someone other than Boris might have handled these better - need I say Rory Stewart? - Boris hasn't done a terrible job. And all Labour could put up against him was Corbyn - who I severely doubt would have tackled either Covid or Ukraine any better. In fact, I'd argue he'd have been much, much worse.
I didn't vote for Boris, and think he's unsuitable to be PM. But he hasn't performed as badly as I feared - although that was a low bar.
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
Or emigrating? When I look around at my mates, the ones with no money worries have wealthy parents or went abroad to work and save some cash.
I’m in my 40s, and emigrated, effectively.
I still own two houses in London though which renters are paying for.
From a personal pov, ongoing reductions in IT are fantastic.
Yes. UK has become a place where it makes sense to leave to get on in life. Go to Singapore, Dubai, US, Australia and do the same job but take home a lot more of your money.
Yet lots of people seem to want to immigrate here.
There's no doubt the UK offers much better prospects than most of the world.
But we have fallen behind our comparator nations I think. And for younger people, the tax burden (and the lack of wage increases in 10+ years) is a big problem.
There should be figures for this. What are your comparator countries?
As I always say when people say, “let’s use the greenfield”, British cities are extraordinarily low rise compared with pretty much anywhere else.
From a spatial perspective, the options are
1. Go out (“greenfield”) 2. Go up 3. Make it hard to do anything.
Government policy seems pretty much 3 to me, and to the extent we do build —- for every policy to encourage brownfield development in London, there also seem to be acres of indenturing rabbit-hutch “executive homes” by Barrett etc.
Rishi is turning out to be a pretty poor Chancellor. This is a chaotic mess heaped upon previous mistakes, and he can't be helping his leadership chances with his silly hubristic claims ("biggest net cut to personal taxes in over a quarter of a century") and childish presentation (''Not 1p, not even 2p, but FIVE P" - I mean, really...). His March 2019 budget - given when it was already obvious that Covid was going to be a major disruptor - lasted barely two weeks, and this one looks similarly temporary.
Anything for anyone under 30 trying to get on the housing ladder?
Nope, no surprises there then.
Helping people buy houses simply helps them get more expensive
Perhaps the Tories should try building some.
They wanted to change the planning system to allow more housebuilding where houses were needed.
However NIMBYism and cynical politics stopped it.
Thank labour, the Lib Dems and boomers not wanting people to buy a new house by them.
They should use the brownfield sites and empty houses first, before flattening more farm land, unless destroying our farming industry by lopsided trade deals is linked to this.
And they should use unicorns, pixies and fairy dust because that is just as real as the "brownfield and empty housing" that you reckon exists in the volumes needed.
The population of this country has grown by 20% in a generation, so we need the land for housing to have expanded by 20% just to keep up with population growth. It hasn't done so.
Unless you want to deport ten million people we need more greenfield construction just to cope with the population growth that has already happened.
This is how the NIMBYs position themselves to appear to be in favour of expanding house building and ownership when all they want to do is protect what they have.
Just imply all you need to do to solve the issue is use brownfield and existing housing.
As I always say when people say, “let’s use the greenfield”, British cities are extraordinarily low rise compared with pretty much anywhere else.
From a spatial perspective, the options are
1. Go out (“greenfield”) 2. Go up 3. Make it hard to do anything.
Government policy seems pretty much 3 to me, and to the extent we do build —- for every policy to encourage brownfield development in London, there also seem to be acres of indenturing rabbit-hutch “executive homes” by Barrett etc.
The unexplored option is to go *down*. If you can't do anything about the looming threat of thermonuclear war you may as well try to turn it to your advantage.
So people in work see their tax up their energy bills up their fuel up their allowances frozen for 4 years
All in 10 days time this budget does bugger all
Labour offers bugger all alternative to address the Tory Crisis
Is your definition of "Tory Crisis" the fact the Tories happened to be in power during Covid and now war in Ukraine?
In 2008/2009 you could argue that Labour should have been building up a surplus in the good years. The Tories this time have not had that opportunity as they had just about finished getting the finances in order again from that before Covid hit.
Unfortunately it is going to be hard times ahead for a very large number of people. I am not entirely sure if there is anything that can be done that will make much difference.
If Labour were in power it would be Labour's crisis and you and I know both know it.
Yes, but good to have you confirm your view that it is just because the Tories happen to be in government.
COVID isn't caused by the Tories and I don't blame them for COVID. I do blame them for doing sod all for young people.
Don't agree with you about much, Horse, but agree with you about this. (I am defining young people here as 16-34 year olds, to pluck an age range out of thin air.) I am not in this age bracket myself, but my children soon will be. And I worry for their future. If government could achieve three things for young people, what would it be?
Mine would be: - Housing: Home ownership needs to be within reach of the majority. Home occupancy needs to be within the reach of all. Houses are too expensive. Rents are too expensive. The only way I can think to address this is mass housebuilding. Bart is right that this will include building on green land; everyone else is right that this also needs to include brownfield and densification. Design of cities and suburbs is very important, and there is a surprisingly large degree of consensus in what good looks like, if not how to achieve it. This will mean that those of us whose main asset are our houses become, on paper, poorer. This is a price well worth paying. - Higher education: What we have at the moment isn't a great deal either for those who use it or the country as a whole. We need a system which delivers people with skills and without a mountain of debt. No easy fixes, but the following are part of the mix: more vocational training and apprenticeships, shorter courses, better targeted education, better funding for STEM subjects (e.g. you can choose to study maths or Eng Lit at uni - but more state funding for fees for the former than the latter). - Taxation: a tax structure which places comparatively less burden on the working poor and middle income earners, among whom the young are disproportionately spread.
None of these things can be achieved quickly. But we need to make a start on them now.
Anything for anyone under 30 trying to get on the housing ladder?
Nope, no surprises there then.
Helping people buy houses simply helps them get more expensive
Perhaps the Tories should try building some.
They wanted to change the planning system to allow more housebuilding where houses were needed.
However NIMBYism and cynical politics stopped it.
Thank labour, the Lib Dems and boomers not wanting people to buy a new house by them.
They should use the brownfield sites and empty houses first, before flattening more farm land, unless destroying our farming industry by lopsided trade deals is linked to this.
And they should use unicorns, pixies and fairy dust because that is just as real as the "brownfield and empty housing" that you reckon exists in the volumes needed.
The population of this country has grown by 20% in a generation, so we need the land for housing to have expanded by 20% just to keep up with population growth. It hasn't done so.
Unless you want to deport ten million people we need more greenfield construction just to cope with the population growth that has already happened.
This is how the NIMBYs position themselves to appear to be in favour of expanding house building and ownership when all they want to do is protect what they have.
Just imply all you need to do to solve the issue is use brownfield and existing housing.
The housing "deficit" is hundreds of thousands of properties per year. You are talking about building a fair sized town each year.
Anything for anyone under 30 trying to get on the housing ladder?
Nope, no surprises there then.
Helping people buy houses simply helps them get more expensive
Perhaps the Tories should try building some.
They wanted to change the planning system to allow more housebuilding where houses were needed.
However NIMBYism and cynical politics stopped it.
Thank labour, the Lib Dems and boomers not wanting people to buy a new house by them.
They should use the brownfield sites and empty houses first, before flattening more farm land, unless destroying our farming industry by lopsided trade deals is linked to this.
And they should use unicorns, pixies and fairy dust because that is just as real as the "brownfield and empty housing" that you reckon exists in the volumes needed.
The population of this country has grown by 20% in a generation, so we need the land for housing to have expanded by 20% just to keep up with population growth. It hasn't done so.
Unless you want to deport ten million people we need more greenfield construction just to cope with the population growth that has already happened.
i leave the unicorns to the former brexiteers. there are still large areas of boarded up and abandoned retail etc which can be used. have a look at some urbex youtube vids for the growing numbers of derelict sites about.
Part of the problem is a semi-religious belief in retail, by councils.
Near me, a bunch of town houses and flats was finished 5 years ago. The retail at the bottom - which was mandated by the council, in return for planning permission, is empty and has *never been filled*.
Locally, the shopping areas are okish, though there are always empty units.
In our area we're having trouble getting retail. The council's obsession is houses and offices. Offices which often remain empty for years...
(What we really need is a small industrial estate.)
What we really need is to take the power to decide out of the hand of councils.
Retail, residential or offices - let people build whatever they want, wherever they want to, within parameters. If there's no demand for one of them, it won't be built.
It's often more complex than that. I'll give you an example. Cambourne has an area near the supermarket that was always meant to be a 'High Street'. It sits opposite the doctors' surgery and the library, and is currently an expanse of unkempt grass.
Construction on the town started in 1997, and a few years ago people finally started looking into building the 'High Street'., Holes appeared across the grass, after which tumbleweeds blew.
It turns out that the people who first built the town routed the services - I think gas, water and sewage - down across the grassland rather than under the road. Apparently this means that all those services need moving before the shops can be built, and this makes the shops uneconomic to build. The developers want the council to move them; the council say its the developers' responsibility.
I have no way of verifying their figures, but the council are not going forward with the shops. Which would be very handy.
In the meantime, the council are shoehorning more houses onto an area that was supposed to be an extension to the business park, but could equally be shops (handy for the new development) or industrial units.
Fetishizing an aspiration to cut 1p off the basic rate of income tax whilst going ahead with the bigger NI increase. Nothing radical to tackle a cost of living crisis that's going to mean lots of people falling into poverty. This is setting the bar quite low for Labour imo.
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
Do most young people not drive cars in the UK? That's a big change since I moved to Spain. Uk roads must be very safe ... and quiet.
I think there has been a trend away, particularly with things like Uber. My son is 26 and doesn't drive and most of my son's and daughter's friends don't. I had a car (if you can call it that) in my 2nd year of uni.
Yes, the age at which people pass a driving test has been trending upwards for some time. Can't find the figures at the drop of a hat - if I do I will post them. Reasons include cost and increasing tendency for twenty-somethings to live in highly accessible locations like city centres (where, incidentally, car parking tends to be at a premium).
My youngest applied for a provisional on his 17th birthday. Didn't receive it till 13 months later! That will account for some of it.
Well, yes, certainly. But I think (and sorry, I CANNOT find the stats, though I have seen them - I accept this is poor internet form) the average age for passing a test is now somewhere in the late 20s. Learning to drive is not the rite of passage it was when I was that age. And that's just being able to. The average age of people with access to a car is also going up, for the same reasons. Many of those 20-somethings living in city centre locations can drive, legally, but don't.
I was 26 when I passed my driving test in the mid-80s. Lived in a city, couldn't really afford a car (bought a house a couple of years earlier, so that took up my very modest salary then).
Fetishizing an aspiration to cut 1p off the basic rate of income tax whilst going ahead with the bigger NI increase. Nothing radical to tackle a cost of living crisis that's going to mean lots of people falling into poverty. This is setting the bar quite low for Labour imo.
It is, but unfortunately they are managing to miss it with their ludicrous 'windfall tax' nonsense. It would be nonsense at any time (are they proposing to pay oil companies zillions when oil prices fall more than expected?), but it is quite spectacularly nonsensical at a time when we want to find alternatives to Russian oil and gas, and limit price rises.
I've got the future Conservative solution to all our problems: abolish income tax and employee's national insurance and replace it with a 60% base employer's NI rate and 70% higher employer's NI rate.
If you're young and don't drive as most of us don't, this announcement did very little to help.
We really need to start voting, for goodness sake.
Or emigrating? When I look around at my mates, the ones with no money worries have wealthy parents or went abroad to work and save some cash.
I’m in my 40s, and emigrated, effectively.
I still own two houses in London though which renters are paying for.
From a personal pov, ongoing reductions in IT are fantastic.
Yes. UK has become a place where it makes sense to leave to get on in life. Go to Singapore, Dubai, US, Australia and do the same job but take home a lot more of your money.
Yet lots of people seem to want to immigrate here.
There's no doubt the UK offers much better prospects than most of the world.
But we have fallen behind our comparator nations I think. And for younger people, the tax burden (and the lack of wage increases in 10+ years) is a big problem.
There should be figures for this. What are your comparator countries?
The financial services outfit I work for are battling to keep younger (Under 40) staff right now. Anecdotally salaries are rising and in some cases substantially. There was a one off interim six month pay hike, but it wasn't totally successful. Some still leaving.
So people in work see their tax up their energy bills up their fuel up their allowances frozen for 4 years
All in 10 days time this budget does bugger all
Labour offers bugger all alternative to address the Tory Crisis
Is your definition of "Tory Crisis" the fact the Tories happened to be in power during Covid and now war in Ukraine?
In 2008/2009 you could argue that Labour should have been building up a surplus in the good years. The Tories this time have not had that opportunity as they had just about finished getting the finances in order again from that before Covid hit.
Unfortunately it is going to be hard times ahead for a very large number of people. I am not entirely sure if there is anything that can be done that will make much difference.
If Labour were in power it would be Labour's crisis and you and I know both know it.
Yes, but good to have you confirm your view that it is just because the Tories happen to be in government.
COVID isn't caused by the Tories and I don't blame them for COVID. I do blame them for doing sod all for young people.
Don't agree with you about much, Horse, but agree with you about this. (I am defining young people here as 16-34 year olds, to pluck an age range out of thin air.) I am not in this age bracket myself, but my children soon will be. And I worry for their future. If government could achieve three things for young people, what would it be?
Mine would be: - Housing: Home ownership needs to be within reach of the majority. Home occupancy needs to be within the reach of all. Houses are too expensive. Rents are too expensive. The only way I can think to address this is mass housebuilding. Bart is right that this will include building on green land; everyone else is right that this also needs to include brownfield and densification. Design of cities and suburbs is very important, and there is a surprisingly large degree of consensus in what good looks like, if not how to achieve it. This will mean that those of us whose main asset are our houses become, on paper, poorer. This is a price well worth paying. - Higher education: What we have at the moment isn't a great deal either for those who use it or the country as a whole. We need a system which delivers people with skills and without a mountain of debt. No easy fixes, but the following are part of the mix: more vocational training and apprenticeships, shorter courses, better targeted education, better funding for STEM subjects (e.g. you can choose to study maths or Eng Lit at uni - but more state funding for fees for the former than the latter). - Taxation: a tax structure which places comparatively less burden on the working poor and middle income earners, among whom the young are disproportionately spread.
None of these things can be achieved quickly. But we need to make a start on them now.
For housing limit mortgage lending to 1 income only whoever in the couple has the highest income...that would immediately bring prices down....of course the pensioners wont be happy
On a macro level, yes. But while prices readjust you are going to have literally millions of people whose hopes of home ownership and now dashed.
Comments
https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility?msclkid=1b904df3aaad11eca269f3a6ebb776a8#a18
I imagine that very few young people in London have a car.
I still own two houses in London though which renters are paying for.
From a personal pov, ongoing reductions in IT are fantastic.
Under the old rates, you would have paid £3,771 (at the 12% level) and you will now pay £3766 (at the 13.25% level).
Erh, because I can't afford to buy? Have you seen house prices?
Tory living standards crisis is going to hit hard
Todays Statement
Your on your own folks
However those on a provisional licence learning to drive still drive and do you think 21 year olds are not young people anymore?
For 21-30 (Ie after having time to pass their test) 74% I believe is the accurate figure.
So yes most young people drive. Unless for some reason you only want to look at those who are at the age of being learners and then exclude learners from your data. 🙄
Clear that with the big increase in people doing to uni, and pretty much every uni makes it extremely difficult to own a car (or drive it onto campus), there is very little incentive to learn to drive when a teenager. And its expensive to do so. So it doesn't surprise me that 17-20 is very low.
However, it as go through 20s and hit 30, then very high levels nationally. It depends how you are arguing "young people". If you are saying teenagers, OK. But people in their 20s are by most still deemed as young. And I would be interested to know what rates are if you strip out London (as my comment said), and perhaps a couple of other major urban hubs of Manchester / Birmingham.
Those millennials will be laughing on the other
side of their face when they’re restricted to one caramel latte a week.
Poor people don't vote.
Cant you move to a cheaper area?
Renting is a mugs game and Labours plans to hit Landlords will be passed on straight onto your rent.
One thing I don’t get, they have cut off points, big losers close to the point all the time in everything from rates to benefits. Why not zones of influence rather than harsh red lines. Widen that harsh line into zones of influence, so you don’t benefit fully till out the other side of zone, but you start to benefit some of it earlier rather than go up to a line getting nothing.
That’s my big idea for when I take control of the country, history books will proclaim it “Jade’s zones of influence” masterpiece.
https://twitter.com/archer_rs/status/1506594600626106380?s=20&t=BIy5FQI2jHWdeIW9ZWd7RQ
Shoigu is about as close as it gets. If he's under house arrest that really is serious.
Even worse from Sunak. Disgraceful. 👎👎👎
With so much announced in previous statements, and some of this statement being about 2024, it's not easy to tell the overall effect of a given package; what's the right baseline to use?
Though I suspect most of us will follow the "can I afford to order a pizza at the end of the month" test, which Rishinomics looks like failing.
Go to Singapore, Dubai, US, Australia and do the same job but take home a lot more of your money.
Her points on defence spending were well made.
She should have made far more about the payment of benefits, shameful they were ignored.
Her critique of tax rises over the last several years was good, although who doesn't believe that this was a floor for Labour and not a ceiling?
The growth figure is of course a consequence of the biggest bubble in UK history bursting and bringing down the Labour government with it.
And you’ve doxxed yourself as a property baron!
This government is all about winning elections, zero to do with fairness.
All in 10 days time this budget does bugger all
Labour offers bugger all alternative to address the Tory Crisis
The population of this country has grown by 20% in a generation, so we need the land for housing to have expanded by 20% just to keep up with population growth. It hasn't done so.
Unless you want to deport ten million people we need more greenfield construction just to cope with the population growth that has already happened.
However, there's virtually nothing for the bottom 10%: those on benefits, and the lowest earners. Many of these don't have cars. They spend the highest proportion of their income on food, clothes, essential goods and energy bills, the cost of all of which is increasing faster than any growth in wages, let alone benefits. The increase in the support fund is chicken feed. Life is going to be extraordinarily difficult for them. But, they're only 10% and not many of them vote Tory anyway.
A cynical package from a cynical government. But it will help Sunak.
Newspapers will be wise enough to steer away from this one misstep in Sunak’s speech, as it’s a long off pledge not worth the paper it’s written on.
But Mike Smithson is right again, Sunak and a certain 150-1 bet is back in the game, he is ready to walk into number ten tomorrow and lead a far better Conservative government than this. This is going to get fantastic coverage in the papers, and go down well with voters. Tory poll bounce incoming!
Most of the young people I know are riding bikes as much as possible - the fitness and green thing is a bonus for them.
*It's not really a grammar school despite the name, but he did attend the same college as Robert.
Didn't receive it till 13 months later! That will account for some of it.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1506601245573849095
Young doesn't end at 20 as far as I'm concerned, nor are learner-drivers non-drivers either. The reason young people are learning to drive, is because they want to drive and when they're learning ... they're driving.
So to look at a learner-driver dominated age-group and to exclude learner-drivers is just plain dodgy data.
Indeed this is one thing that is more young-people dominated I expect since young people will overwhelmingly drive in most of the nation but as you say old people who can't safely do so are much more likely not to do so anymore.
To take a simple example, most pensions in payment have a cap in them limiting the indexation allowance to a number between 2 and 4%, depending on the generosity of the scheme. This has been almost entirely academic for the last 14 years. Now, all those in receipt of such pensions will now face real terms reductions such as the present, cosseted, generation of pensioners have never seen. And they won't be happy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10642949/Furious-Putin-begins-witch-hunt-inner-circle-growing-wary-close-allies.html
This sort of thing matters, because Shoigu was Putin's absolutely right-hand man ; even tipped as the most likely personally anointed to replace him over many years.
Whatever's happened, it seems to point to some real tensions operating within the regime.
By keeping tax bands starting point the same your annual inflation only pay rise will one day be taxed on 40%, not 20%...
The population of this country has grown by ten million people - and its still most years going up by hundreds of thousands of people. If you don't want to have greenfield construction then what's your viable alternative? Forced deportation of hundreds of thousands per annum? A complete and total halt of immigration?
Its utterly ridiculous.
Near me, a bunch of town houses and flats was finished 5 years ago. The retail at the bottom - which was mandated by the council, in return for planning permission, is empty and has *never been filled*.
Locally, the shopping areas are okish, though there are always empty units.
Disgraceful.
"unauthorized contact with the enemies of the Russian Federation" umm would that include talking to Putin? LOL
This is a more typical example of his work:
@archer_rs
Just spoke to friend who works at the EU, she said,
"I have never seen European unity like this, Ukraine has bought the EU together like nothing before. When this is over the EU is going to be an economic superpower, the UK is irrelevant now"
https://twitter.com/archer_rs/status/1502301824518348807
In 2008/2009 you could argue that Labour should have been building up a surplus in the good years. The Tories this time have not had that opportunity as they had just about finished getting the finances in order again from that before Covid hit.
Unfortunately it is going to be hard times ahead for a very large number of people. I am not entirely sure if there is anything that can be done that will make much difference.
What it isn't is an alternative as it simply doesn't exist in the volumes required.
(What we really need is a small industrial estate.)
Retail, residential or offices - let people build whatever they want, wherever they want to, within parameters. If there's no demand for one of them, it won't be built.
If they have alternative ideas for how we should handle such crises let them come forward and tell us.
But I think (and sorry, I CANNOT find the stats, though I have seen them - I accept this is poor internet form) the average age for passing a test is now somewhere in the late 20s. Learning to drive is not the rite of passage it was when I was that age.
And that's just being able to. The average age of people with access to a car is also going up, for the same reasons. Many of those 20-somethings living in city centre locations can drive, legally, but don't.
EDIT: Neither up-to-date nor raw data, but I have found this: https://www.journalism.co.uk/press-releases/average-age-to-start-driving-now-26-as-younger-adults-put-off-learning-and-car-buying-/s66/a657725/
But we have fallen behind our comparator nations I think. And for younger people, the tax burden (and the lack of wage increases in 10+ years) is a big problem.
Then there's the Ukraine crisis, on which I think we've done rather well so far.
So whilst I agree that someone other than Boris might have handled these better - need I say Rory Stewart? - Boris hasn't done a terrible job. And all Labour could put up against him was Corbyn - who I severely doubt would have tackled either Covid or Ukraine any better. In fact, I'd argue he'd have been much, much worse.
I didn't vote for Boris, and think he's unsuitable to be PM. But he hasn't performed as badly as I feared - although that was a low bar.
From a spatial perspective, the options are
1. Go out (“greenfield”)
2. Go up
3. Make it hard to do anything.
Government policy seems pretty much 3 to me, and to the extent we do build —- for every policy to encourage brownfield development in London, there also seem to be acres of indenturing rabbit-hutch “executive homes” by Barrett etc.
Just imply all you need to do to solve the issue is use brownfield and existing housing.
What is fiscal drag, and how does it relate to this situation.
Nothing for schools and hospitals who will see inflation maul them.
Thanks to Brexit skill shortages across the economy, hurting hospitals and care industry.
Rishi put himself ahead of country.
Davey on top form!
Income tax cuts benefits property barons, like Gardenwalker, NI rises hurts workers. It’s a Tory swindle.
I am not in this age bracket myself, but my children soon will be. And I worry for their future.
If government could achieve three things for young people, what would it be?
Mine would be:
- Housing: Home ownership needs to be within reach of the majority. Home occupancy needs to be within the reach of all. Houses are too expensive. Rents are too expensive. The only way I can think to address this is mass housebuilding. Bart is right that this will include building on green land; everyone else is right that this also needs to include brownfield and densification. Design of cities and suburbs is very important, and there is a surprisingly large degree of consensus in what good looks like, if not how to achieve it. This will mean that those of us whose main asset are our houses become, on paper, poorer. This is a price well worth paying.
- Higher education: What we have at the moment isn't a great deal either for those who use it or the country as a whole. We need a system which delivers people with skills and without a mountain of debt. No easy fixes, but the following are part of the mix: more vocational training and apprenticeships, shorter courses, better targeted education, better funding for STEM subjects (e.g. you can choose to study maths or Eng Lit at uni - but more state funding for fees for the former than the latter).
- Taxation: a tax structure which places comparatively less burden on the working poor and middle income earners, among whom the young are disproportionately spread.
None of these things can be achieved quickly. But we need to make a start on them now.
How much "brown field" is there?
Construction on the town started in 1997, and a few years ago people finally started looking into building the 'High Street'., Holes appeared across the grass, after which tumbleweeds blew.
It turns out that the people who first built the town routed the services - I think gas, water and sewage - down across the grassland rather than under the road. Apparently this means that all those services need moving before the shops can be built, and this makes the shops uneconomic to build. The developers want the council to move them; the council say its the developers' responsibility.
I have no way of verifying their figures, but the council are not going forward with the shops. Which would be very handy.
In the meantime, the council are shoehorning more houses onto an area that was supposed to be an extension to the business park, but could equally be shops (handy for the new development) or industrial units.
Market it as a huge tax cut, of course.