Seems to me. There's going to be a big squeeze on living standards. Rather than saying, let's see how we can spread the pain equitably, Sunak reaches for the smoke and mirrors and makes everything worse.
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.
Blair and Brown had a policy for a windfall tax, so Starmer and Reeves have one too.
Paint-by-numbers Opposition to a paint-by-numbers Chancellor.
Really poor all round. There doesn't seem to be anyone who is thinking about new interesting answers. Our politics is moribund.
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?
Thanks for the help re. inflation earlier. Pay review for me this month. Will need at least 5.3% to keep pace with inflation since when I joined, apparently. I wonder what employers are thinking.
Described myself yesterday as workload being akin to being drowned in a bucket. Have now realised the bucket is being held suspended in a waterfall. Yes things will ease as my status changes and a team is formed over the next few months.
Until then need to keep a close eye on things. Getting to "swaying tired" and having work dreams every night doesn't feel particularly sustainable.
Not a fact, but an observation of my younger colleagues in a city outside London. Few of them have cars and quite a lot of them don't have driving licences (other ways to spend £1000). That is a big change from when I was one of those younger colleagues
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.
But there are fundamental imbalances in the economy which result in carpeting the South East in executive homes whilst towns in the rest of the country, which could house many, as well as take more expansion, are looking very down at heel.
Surprising only to those that don't realise that the government, over a period of decades, has tried to replace as much car commuting in London as possible with public transport.
Mind you, there might be surprise at a government policy that has achieved the stated objectives...
Thanks for the help re. inflation earlier. Pay review for me this month. Will need at least 5.3% to keep pace with inflation since when I joined, apparently. I wonder what employers are thinking.
If I were you, I'd also look at how much more valuable you are now with several months' experience, and also (see @MISTY's post) how the market for whatever it is you are has developed.
But I have zero experience in negotiating pay rises so take this with a pinch of salt.
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.
Your latter point is the crux of the problem. We are building the *wrong* homes in the wrong places. Most big developers like Barretts have a huge land bank. They only start building when they can release the executive shoe boxes for maximum profits.
Thanks for the help re. inflation earlier. Pay review for me this month. Will need at least 5.3% to keep pace with inflation since when I joined, apparently. I wonder what employers are thinking.
Given you’ve had a few gripes about them here like asking you to go back early during convalescing and being made to work in a slightly cold office then good luck.
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.
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.
True.
An interesting feature, by the way, of housing in this country is that we don't have that much of a shortage of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms per person in the country has risen gradually over the last 60 years (it's not yet clear what the 2021 census will show in this regard but I don't expect the trend to go into massive reverse). The average number of bedrooms per person is 1.1. This is a reasonably good discussion of the issue:
The reason we have a housing shortage is that these are increasingly poorly distributed with shrinking household sizes and longer lives - the classic example being the family of 5 which bought a four bedroomed house in the early 90s but which is now two pensioners with a lot of spare bedrooms for when the family visits. And I certainly don't begrudge them that: I am describing members of my own family here, as well as who I want to be in twenty years. But we must recognise that there is a cost to this. Perhaps incentives to downsize? I recognise that a call for lower house prices is exactly the opposite of 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.
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.
But there are fundamental imbalances in the economy which result in carpeting the South East in executive homes whilst towns in the rest of the country, which could house many, as well as take more expansion, are looking very down at heel.
Shit loads of homes being built around Tyneside also
Thanks for the help re. inflation earlier. Pay review for me this month. Will need at least 5.3% to keep pace with inflation since when I joined, apparently. I wonder what employers are thinking.
If I were you, I'd also look at how much more valuable you are now with several months' experience, and also (see @MISTY's post) how the market for whatever it is you are has developed.
But I have zero experience in negotiating pay rises so take this with a pinch of salt.
I’m lucky that I get a significant pay-rise in any event in September when I start my training contract, so its not a deal breaker for me. However for others it certainly will be!
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.
Speak for yourself!
Well we all know you will be too far up your own arse to notice or care.
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.
True.
An interesting feature, by the way, of housing in this country is that we don't have that much of a shortage of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms per person in the country has risen gradually over the last 60 years (it's not yet clear what the 2021 census will show in this regard but I don't expect the trend to go into massive reverse). The average number of bedrooms per person is 1.1. This is a reasonably good discussion of the issue:
The reason we have a housing shortage is that these are increasingly poorly distributed with shrinking household sizes and longer lives - the classic example being the family of 5 which bought a four bedroomed house in the early 90s but which is now two pensioners with a lot of spare bedrooms for when the family visits. And I certainly don't begrudge them that: I am describing members of my own family here, as well as who I want to be in twenty years. But we must recognise that there is a cost to this. Perhaps incentives to downsize? I recognise that a call for lower house prices is exactly the opposite of 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.
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.
But there are fundamental imbalances in the economy which result in carpeting the South East in executive homes whilst towns in the rest of the country, which could house many, as well as take more expansion, are looking very down at heel.
Shit loads of homes being built around Tyneside also
Bishop Auckland and south Durham area too.
None are what you’d call cheap either. Even for this area.
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.
True.
An interesting feature, by the way, of housing in this country is that we don't have that much of a shortage of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms per person in the country has risen gradually over the last 60 years (it's not yet clear what the 2021 census will show in this regard but I don't expect the trend to go into massive reverse). The average number of bedrooms per person is 1.1. This is a reasonably good discussion of the issue:
The reason we have a housing shortage is that these are increasingly poorly distributed with shrinking household sizes and longer lives - the classic example being the family of 5 which bought a four bedroomed house in the early 90s but which is now two pensioners with a lot of spare bedrooms for when the family visits. And I certainly don't begrudge them that: I am describing members of my own family here, as well as who I want to be in twenty years. But we must recognise that there is a cost to this. Perhaps incentives to downsize? I recognise that a call for lower house prices is exactly the opposite of this.
Oldies monopolise wealth. Tell us something we don’t know.
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.
True.
An interesting feature, by the way, of housing in this country is that we don't have that much of a shortage of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms per person in the country has risen gradually over the last 60 years (it's not yet clear what the 2021 census will show in this regard but I don't expect the trend to go into massive reverse). The average number of bedrooms per person is 1.1. This is a reasonably good discussion of the issue:
The reason we have a housing shortage is that these are increasingly poorly distributed with shrinking household sizes and longer lives - the classic example being the family of 5 which bought a four bedroomed house in the early 90s but which is now two pensioners with a lot of spare bedrooms for when the family visits. And I certainly don't begrudge them that: I am describing members of my own family here, as well as who I want to be in twenty years. But we must recognise that there is a cost to this. Perhaps incentives to downsize? I recognise that a call for lower house prices is exactly the opposite of this.
Absolutely spot on: stamp duty, which was designed to prevent prices increases too quickly, discourages people from trading down, therefore worsening the problem.
I would abolish all stamp duty for people moving to cheaper properties. (This would also act as a spur to people in the South moving North.)
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.
But there are fundamental imbalances in the economy which result in carpeting the South East in executive homes whilst towns in the rest of the country, which could house many, as well as take more expansion, are looking very down at heel.
Shit loads of homes being built around Tyneside also
Bishop Auckland and south Durham area too.
None are what you’d call cheap either. Even for this area.
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.
Your latter point is the crux of the problem. We are building the *wrong* homes in the wrong places. Most big developers like Barretts have a huge land bank. They only start building when they can release the executive shoe boxes for maximum profits.
As unDictator of Britain, I shall implement the minimum 5m rule. All rooms in all properties to be built must have minimum dimension of 5m x 5m. Yes, even... make every throne room a true throne throne room.
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.
Speak for yourself!
In that you won't find it gut-wrenching? Surely you aren't the "you" in the Pet Shop Boys song The Theatre "we're the bums you step over as you leave the theatre". You're more nuanced than that.
Watching people work their arse off and still drown in debt is not something any of us should be able to just ignore. Its an economy with massive structural problems that hits every one of us.
How is it manifesting itself here in sunny Cyaak? Theft from heating oil tanks.
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.
True.
An interesting feature, by the way, of housing in this country is that we don't have that much of a shortage of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms per person in the country has risen gradually over the last 60 years (it's not yet clear what the 2021 census will show in this regard but I don't expect the trend to go into massive reverse). The average number of bedrooms per person is 1.1. This is a reasonably good discussion of the issue:
The reason we have a housing shortage is that these are increasingly poorly distributed with shrinking household sizes and longer lives - the classic example being the family of 5 which bought a four bedroomed house in the early 90s but which is now two pensioners with a lot of spare bedrooms for when the family visits. And I certainly don't begrudge them that: I am describing members of my own family here, as well as who I want to be in twenty years. But we must recognise that there is a cost to this. Perhaps incentives to downsize? I recognise that a call for lower house prices is exactly the opposite of this.
Bedroom tax for owners?
There are enormous costs on selling and moving. Stamp duty is a tax on moving house.
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.
True.
An interesting feature, by the way, of housing in this country is that we don't have that much of a shortage of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms per person in the country has risen gradually over the last 60 years (it's not yet clear what the 2021 census will show in this regard but I don't expect the trend to go into massive reverse). The average number of bedrooms per person is 1.1. This is a reasonably good discussion of the issue:
The reason we have a housing shortage is that these are increasingly poorly distributed with shrinking household sizes and longer lives - the classic example being the family of 5 which bought a four bedroomed house in the early 90s but which is now two pensioners with a lot of spare bedrooms for when the family visits. And I certainly don't begrudge them that: I am describing members of my own family here, as well as who I want to be in twenty years. But we must recognise that there is a cost to this. Perhaps incentives to downsize? I recognise that a call for lower house prices is exactly the opposite of this.
Absolutely spot on: stamp duty, which was designed to prevent prices increases too quickly, discourages people from trading down, therefore worsening the problem.
I would abolish all stamp duty for people moving to cheaper properties. (This would also act as a spur to people in the South moving North.)
Excellent idea. I’d love to scrap it entirely, but this is v good.
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.
But there are fundamental imbalances in the economy which result in carpeting the South East in executive homes whilst towns in the rest of the country, which could house many, as well as take more expansion, are looking very down at heel.
Shit loads of homes being built around Tyneside also
Bishop Auckland and south Durham area too.
None are what you’d call cheap either. Even for this area.
Exeter is a vast expanse of new suburban housing.
Eastleigh is covered in new housing, its hard to imagine how they could build more round here
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.
Not only that, but the short term effect of dramatically lower house prices will be an increase in the household savings rate, as homeowners spend less to compensate for having less money in the bank of bricks and mortar.
In what sense? London’s public transport system is leagues above anywhere else. Why would you use public transport if its dogshit?
I drive into Newcastle city daily for work because I can park for 40p per hour and the bus back turns into once per hour after 6pm (Thats if they actually turn up).
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.
As I keep repeating it is not ridiculous as such given the mechanism already exists. The Petroleum Revenue Tax dates all the way back to 1980 and was introduced by the Thatcher Government to make sure the country benefitted from higher oil and gas prices. It can be varied according to circumstance needing no additional laws, just the Chancellor choosing to increase or decrease it. Sunak could have done that today. Since 2016 it has been zero rated due to the low oil price but any sane Chancellor would have seen this as the perfect time to increase it.
In what sense? London’s public transport system is leagues above anywhere else. Why would you use public transport if its dogshit?
I drive into Newcastle city daily for work because I can park for 40p per hour and the bus back turns into once per hour after 6pm (Thats if they actually turn up).
I know a couple of people in suburban greater Manchester who rely on public transport. Their tweeted experiences of an evening make me realise how its really impossible to get by without a car even in sprawling suburbia like that.
Is there any more dishonest tax policy than a cut in the rate of taxation paid for (more than paid for) by the non-indexation of tax brackets? Apart from anything else, it is a tax increase on middle income earners to pay for a tax cut for the highly paid. Perhaps understandable when the Chancellor is a squillionaire, but is it good politics?
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.
True.
An interesting feature, by the way, of housing in this country is that we don't have that much of a shortage of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms per person in the country has risen gradually over the last 60 years (it's not yet clear what the 2021 census will show in this regard but I don't expect the trend to go into massive reverse). The average number of bedrooms per person is 1.1. This is a reasonably good discussion of the issue:
The reason we have a housing shortage is that these are increasingly poorly distributed with shrinking household sizes and longer lives - the classic example being the family of 5 which bought a four bedroomed house in the early 90s but which is now two pensioners with a lot of spare bedrooms for when the family visits. And I certainly don't begrudge them that: I am describing members of my own family here, as well as who I want to be in twenty years. But we must recognise that there is a cost to this. Perhaps incentives to downsize? I recognise that a call for lower house prices is exactly the opposite of this.
Oldies monopolise wealth. Tell us something we don’t know.
I think you mentioned earlier, how many houses do you own?
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.
Speak for yourself!
In that you won't find it gut-wrenching? Surely you aren't the "you" in the Pet Shop Boys song The Theatre "we're the bums you step over as you leave the theatre". You're more nuanced than that.
Watching people work their arse off and still drown in debt is not something any of us should be able to just ignore. Its an economy with massive structural problems that hits every one of us.
How is it manifesting itself here in sunny Cyaak? Theft from heating oil tanks.
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.
Speak for yourself!
In that you won't find it gut-wrenching? Surely you aren't the "you" in the Pet Shop Boys song The Theatre "we're the bums you step over as you leave the theatre". You're more nuanced than that.
Watching people work their arse off and still drown in debt is not something any of us should be able to just ignore. Its an economy with massive structural problems that hits every one of us.
How is it manifesting itself here in sunny Cyaak? Theft from heating oil tanks.
No, I just felt like posting an opaque, meaningless reply to a somewhat over-wrought comment
To be more serious, I do wonder what inflation of near 10% will do to the nation. If it is sustained over a few years: fuckety fuck
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.
As I keep repeating it is not ridiculous as such given the mechanism already exists. The Petroleum Revenue Tax dates all the way back to 1980 and was introduced by the Thatcher Government to make sure the country benefitted from higher oil and gas prices. It can be varied according to circumstance needing no additional laws, just the Chancellor choosing to increase or decrease it. Sunak could have done that today. Since 2016 it has been zero rated due to the low oil price but any sane Chancellor would have seen this as the perfect time to increase it.
But as you have also rightly said, the worst thing a government can do is keep changing the rules. A 'windfall tax' sends entirely the wrong message on that score, especially now.
Seems to me. There's going to be a big squeeze on living standards. Rather than saying, let's see how we can spread the pain equitably, Sunak reaches for the smoke and mirrors and makes everything worse.
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.
True.
An interesting feature, by the way, of housing in this country is that we don't have that much of a shortage of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms per person in the country has risen gradually over the last 60 years (it's not yet clear what the 2021 census will show in this regard but I don't expect the trend to go into massive reverse). The average number of bedrooms per person is 1.1. This is a reasonably good discussion of the issue:
The reason we have a housing shortage is that these are increasingly poorly distributed with shrinking household sizes and longer lives - the classic example being the family of 5 which bought a four bedroomed house in the early 90s but which is now two pensioners with a lot of spare bedrooms for when the family visits. And I certainly don't begrudge them that: I am describing members of my own family here, as well as who I want to be in twenty years. But we must recognise that there is a cost to this. Perhaps incentives to downsize? I recognise that a call for lower house prices is exactly the opposite of this.
The problem is particularly acute in social housing. Pensioners, sometimes alone in desperately needed 3/4 bed houses. No bedroom tax for the oldies, natch. We could do with incentives for them to move out.
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.
True.
An interesting feature, by the way, of housing in this country is that we don't have that much of a shortage of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms per person in the country has risen gradually over the last 60 years (it's not yet clear what the 2021 census will show in this regard but I don't expect the trend to go into massive reverse). The average number of bedrooms per person is 1.1. This is a reasonably good discussion of the issue:
The reason we have a housing shortage is that these are increasingly poorly distributed with shrinking household sizes and longer lives - the classic example being the family of 5 which bought a four bedroomed house in the early 90s but which is now two pensioners with a lot of spare bedrooms for when the family visits. And I certainly don't begrudge them that: I am describing members of my own family here, as well as who I want to be in twenty years. But we must recognise that there is a cost to this. Perhaps incentives to downsize? I recognise that a call for lower house prices is exactly the opposite of this.
Oldies monopolise wealth. Tell us something we don’t know.
I think you mentioned earlier, how many houses do you own?
I’m don’t believe in voting for my personal interests, rather for the whole economy’s.
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.
But there are fundamental imbalances in the economy which result in carpeting the South East in executive homes whilst towns in the rest of the country, which could house many, as well as take more expansion, are looking very down at heel.
Shit loads of homes being built around Tyneside also
Bishop Auckland and south Durham area too.
None are what you’d call cheap either. Even for this area.
Exeter is a vast expanse of new suburban housing.
Hartlepool is too along the A689 and all ‘executive’ housing too. No shortage of buyers too
Thanks for the help re. inflation earlier. Pay review for me this month. Will need at least 5.3% to keep pace with inflation since when I joined, apparently. I wonder what employers are thinking.
They're wondering whether they can recruit staff without putting up pay by at least inflation, how many staff they will lose if they impose a real-terms pay cut, how much of the cost increase they can pass on to customers without losing business, what other costs can be cut in the short term, and how they might reconfigure the business to deal with several years of inflation above 5%.
And, because they're human, what they're having for dinner.
In what sense? London’s public transport system is leagues above anywhere else. Why would you use public transport if its dogshit?
I drive into Newcastle city daily for work because I can park for 40p per hour and the bus back turns into once per hour after 6pm (Thats if they actually turn up).
I meant grim because driving every day must be horrible. I cycle into work from South East London to Mayfair or take the train, it's a decent enough service at half hourly intervals from 6am until midnight although at about £3 for a 15-20 minute journey hardly cheap. It's sad that public transport in Newcastle is so bad. When I lived there as a child the council had just built the Metro as part of an integrated public transport system which linked up with buses, with cheap through ticketing and a regular service. Then Thatcher privatised the buses and it all went to shit. You can't trust the Tories not to fuck up anything.
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.
As I keep repeating it is not ridiculous as such given the mechanism already exists. The Petroleum Revenue Tax dates all the way back to 1980 and was introduced by the Thatcher Government to make sure the country benefitted from higher oil and gas prices. It can be varied according to circumstance needing no additional laws, just the Chancellor choosing to increase or decrease it. Sunak could have done that today. Since 2016 it has been zero rated due to the low oil price but any sane Chancellor would have seen this as the perfect time to increase it.
But as you have also rightly said, the worst thing a government can do is keep changing the rules. A 'windfall tax' sends entirely the wrong message on that score, especially now.
It isn't changing the rules. It is a known feature that has been in place for more than 40 years and makes no difference to the underlying viability of fields. It is a tiny blip compared to the continuing meddling and changes all previous Governments have indulged in and which this one is still doing through changes to the licencing rules.
The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reports that Russia tried to attack Teterivske, which implies Ukraine holds it. This is really bad news for the Russian forces west and north west of Kyiv. Now Ukraine might totally cut their supply lines.
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
A challenging one for the head-hunters.
"Required: senior military officer to turn around Special Military Operation. Performance related pay. (Non-performance - and pay will be the least of your worries.) Perks: own bunker, use of bosses super yacht (around St Petersburg only). Will be expected to work in the field, at least once."
In what sense? London’s public transport system is leagues above anywhere else. Why would you use public transport if its dogshit?
I drive into Newcastle city daily for work because I can park for 40p per hour and the bus back turns into once per hour after 6pm (Thats if they actually turn up).
That's why it's grim. It shows how shit the public transport system is everywhere else. I would expect high car usage in the South West or Scottish Highlands, but it's pretty telling that it manages to be so low even in the Midlands and North West.
Suggests there's a lot of opportunity to take cars off the road and reduce emissions simply by bringing public transport usage in the regions up to the levels of equivalent areas on the continent.
Isn’t that just a consequence of the public transport provision in London, which can make living without a car much easier?
Yes, see post from @Gallowgate and @RochdalePioneers for more info. I’m in the north east in south Durham and transport links are really poor. It just holds us back as a region.
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.
True.
An interesting feature, by the way, of housing in this country is that we don't have that much of a shortage of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms per person in the country has risen gradually over the last 60 years (it's not yet clear what the 2021 census will show in this regard but I don't expect the trend to go into massive reverse). The average number of bedrooms per person is 1.1. This is a reasonably good discussion of the issue:
The reason we have a housing shortage is that these are increasingly poorly distributed with shrinking household sizes and longer lives - the classic example being the family of 5 which bought a four bedroomed house in the early 90s but which is now two pensioners with a lot of spare bedrooms for when the family visits. And I certainly don't begrudge them that: I am describing members of my own family here, as well as who I want to be in twenty years. But we must recognise that there is a cost to this. Perhaps incentives to downsize? I recognise that a call for lower house prices is exactly the opposite of this.
Oldies monopolise wealth. Tell us something we don’t know.
I think you mentioned earlier, how many houses do you own?
I’m don’t believe in voting for my personal interests, rather for the whole economy’s.
In what sense? London’s public transport system is leagues above anywhere else. Why would you use public transport if its dogshit?
I drive into Newcastle city daily for work because I can park for 40p per hour and the bus back turns into once per hour after 6pm (Thats if they actually turn up).
Lack of buses at times workers want to use them is a massive problem up here. As well as the cost. Which makes car use cheaper.
The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reports that Russia tried to attack Teterivske, which implies Ukraine holds it. This is really bad news for the Russian forces west and north west of Kyiv. Now Ukraine might totally cut their supply lines.
The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reports that Russia tried to attack Teterivske, which implies Ukraine holds it. This is really bad news for the Russian forces west and north west of Kyiv. Now Ukraine might totally cut their supply lines.
Ukraine seems to be starting to win, and Russian leadership starting to crumble. If Russia didn't have chemical and nuclear weapons we might now be starting to rub our hands and bathe in a feeling of relief that the worse is over. Perversely because they do the emotions are rather different.
“The threshold for paying National Insurance will increase by £3,000 from July. "People will be able to earn £12,570 a year without paying a single penny of income tax or national insurance". Chancellor says it is worth £6bn to 30 million people.” Does this apply to everyone, not just tax cut for those lower earners? Will those on higher earnings benefit from this too not just targeted to those who need it most?
We are being reassured it’s good picture on borrowing going forward, that is how income tax can be cut before end of the electoral period and Rishi doesn’t need to be so cautious. But we are heading towards recession in US and UK aren’t we, that can’t be avoided now, that will certainly send borrowing up? You have to spend what you don’t have in recessions don’t you. Anyone on PB feel we can avoid recession in next couple of years?
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.
True.
An interesting feature, by the way, of housing in this country is that we don't have that much of a shortage of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms per person in the country has risen gradually over the last 60 years (it's not yet clear what the 2021 census will show in this regard but I don't expect the trend to go into massive reverse). The average number of bedrooms per person is 1.1. This is a reasonably good discussion of the issue:
The reason we have a housing shortage is that these are increasingly poorly distributed with shrinking household sizes and longer lives - the classic example being the family of 5 which bought a four bedroomed house in the early 90s but which is now two pensioners with a lot of spare bedrooms for when the family visits. And I certainly don't begrudge them that: I am describing members of my own family here, as well as who I want to be in twenty years. But we must recognise that there is a cost to this. Perhaps incentives to downsize? I recognise that a call for lower house prices is exactly the opposite of this.
Oldies monopolise wealth. Tell us something we don’t know.
I think you mentioned earlier, how many houses do you own?
I’m don’t believe in voting for my personal interests, rather for the whole economy’s.
Perhaps you feel differently.
You’ve forgotten how many houses you own?
I noted it in passing upthread. I don’t owe you a personal bio.
Isn’t that just a consequence of the public transport provision in London, which can make living without a car much easier?
Yes, see post from @Gallowgate and @RochdalePioneers for more info. I’m in the north east in south Durham and transport links are really poor. It just holds us back as a region.
One of Thatchers biggest mistakes was privatising local transport - Tyne & Wear used to have an integrated bus/metro system with the buses serving outlying areas funnelling pax into area metro stations to continue journeys by metro into or through the centre. Short sighted ideological vandalism they didn’t impose on London.
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
A challenging one for the head-hunters.
"Required: senior military officer to turn around Special Military Operation. Performance related pay. (Non-performance - and pay will be the least of your worries.) Perks: own bunker, use of bosses super yacht (around St Petersburg only). Will be expected to work in the field, at least once."
Encouraging thing about these sackings and house arrests (I assume). The more of the inner circle get sidelined and locked up, the less likely they are to:
a. be in a position to protect Putin against a coup b. be in a position to benefit if there is a coup (most of them are just as fascistically irredentist as the man himself).
I imagine Lavrov will remain by Putin's side to the end.
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.
True.
An interesting feature, by the way, of housing in this country is that we don't have that much of a shortage of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms per person in the country has risen gradually over the last 60 years (it's not yet clear what the 2021 census will show in this regard but I don't expect the trend to go into massive reverse). The average number of bedrooms per person is 1.1. This is a reasonably good discussion of the issue:
The reason we have a housing shortage is that these are increasingly poorly distributed with shrinking household sizes and longer lives - the classic example being the family of 5 which bought a four bedroomed house in the early 90s but which is now two pensioners with a lot of spare bedrooms for when the family visits. And I certainly don't begrudge them that: I am describing members of my own family here, as well as who I want to be in twenty years. But we must recognise that there is a cost to this. Perhaps incentives to downsize? I recognise that a call for lower house prices is exactly the opposite of this.
Oldies monopolise wealth. Tell us something we don’t know.
I think you mentioned earlier, how many houses do you own?
I’m don’t believe in voting for my personal interests, rather for the whole economy’s.
Perhaps you feel differently.
You’ve forgotten how many houses you own?
I noted it in passing upthread. I don’t owe you a personal bio.
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.
Speak for yourself!
In that you won't find it gut-wrenching? Surely you aren't the "you" in the Pet Shop Boys song The Theatre "we're the bums you step over as you leave the theatre". You're more nuanced than that.
Watching people work their arse off and still drown in debt is not something any of us should be able to just ignore. Its an economy with massive structural problems that hits every one of us.
How is it manifesting itself here in sunny Cyaak? Theft from heating oil tanks.
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.
Speak for yourself!
In that you won't find it gut-wrenching? Surely you aren't the "you" in the Pet Shop Boys song The Theatre "we're the bums you step over as you leave the theatre". You're more nuanced than that.
Watching people work their arse off and still drown in debt is not something any of us should be able to just ignore. Its an economy with massive structural problems that hits every one of us.
How is it manifesting itself here in sunny Cyaak? Theft from heating oil tanks.
No, I just felt like posting an opaque, meaningless reply to a somewhat over-wrought comment
To be more serious, I do wonder what inflation of near 10% will do to the nation. If it is sustained over a few years: fuckety fuck
I'm not sure it's over-wrought to be upset at the thought of many of our neighbours and fellow citizens not being able to afford to feed themselves or heat their homes. I thought that us members of the Liberal Metropolitan Elite didn't care enough about the less well off in this country, with our nasty cosmopolitan ways and disdain for the English working man, but now it seems we care too much. It's so confusing! Let me know when you have figured it out.
“The threshold for paying National Insurance will increase by £3,000 from July. "People will be able to earn £12,570 a year without paying a single penny of income tax or national insurance". Chancellor says it is worth £6bn to 30 million people.” Does this apply to everyone, not just tax cut for those lower earners? Will those on higher earnings benefit from this too not just targeted to those who need it most?
We are being reassured it’s good picture on borrowing going forward, that is how income tax can be cut before end of the electoral period and Rishi doesn’t need to be so cautious. But we are heading towards recession in US and UK aren’t we, that can’t be avoided now, that will certainly send borrowing up? You have to spend what you don’t have in recessions don’t you. Anyone on PB feel we can avoid recession in next couple of years?
On the first question, yes, everyone who earn more than £12,570 will benefit by the same monetary amount (except well-off working pensioners like me, who remain bizarrely mollycoddled and don't pay employees' NI at all). So it is moderately well targeted in the sense that it's most helpful in percentage terms to the lower-paid, but it should have been better targeted so that all the benefit went to the low and moderately paid.
On the second point, who the hell knows? It's completely absurd for Rishi to announce his pre-election 'tax cut' (giving back some of what he took away a few months ago) so far ahead.
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.
Absolutely not.
Then you would have a free for all building all over the greenbelt and countryside with no infrastructure either.
Any question of recession in the US has to be in the context of a much more robust economy than the UK’s over the last few years.
Also: race war, attempted coup, soaring crime, homeless epidemic, rampant drug abuse, and Trump in 2024
Yep, it’s all in the mix. By turns, dazzling and terrifying.
And on the other side of the Atlantic you have continental economies that have laid themselves open to economic blackmail from Putin, and he's certain to try to use that leverage over the coming weeks.
The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reports that Russia tried to attack Teterivske, which implies Ukraine holds it. This is really bad news for the Russian forces west and north west of Kyiv. Now Ukraine might totally cut their supply lines.
Ballpark estimate: how many Russian forces are we looking at that may be encircled?
They may not be uncurled - if fact probably aren't. They seem to be road bound for movement/supply, so if the Ukrainians have made the roads unusable for resupply... The Russians could walk home, cross-country.....
“The threshold for paying National Insurance will increase by £3,000 from July. "People will be able to earn £12,570 a year without paying a single penny of income tax or national insurance". Chancellor says it is worth £6bn to 30 million people.” Does this apply to everyone, not just tax cut for those lower earners? Will those on higher earnings benefit from this too not just targeted to those who need it most?
We are being reassured it’s good picture on borrowing going forward, that is how income tax can be cut before end of the electoral period and Rishi doesn’t need to be so cautious. But we are heading towards recession in US and UK aren’t we, that can’t be avoided now, that will certainly send borrowing up? You have to spend what you don’t have in recessions don’t you. Anyone on PB feel we can avoid recession in next couple of years?
I think we can avoid recession. Wars are usually nowhere near as harmful to the world economy as either credit crises (which inflation helps to ease) or demand shocks like pandemics.
That said high oil prices do tend to presage global recessions, almost like clockwork. In this case I think their chilling effect will be offset by the pent up demand post-Covid.
A Chinese Omicron wave and lockdowns could be the joker here. Might take the edge off commodity prices though.
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
Pensioner buy to letters might be happy. You'd be making in one stroke it much harder for those applying for a mortgage to get a property but much easier for cash purchasers to do so.
Most buy to let properties are bought for cash. So anything that only targets mortgages allows the parasites off free.
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.
Absolutely not.
Then you would have a free for all building all over the greenbelt and countryside with no infrastructure either.
No, no, no!!!!
Something should be done about landbanking. Use it or lose it. Builders buying land and sitting on it for years when they could put it into use.
Good budget overall by Sunak especially for average and low income earners and drivers.
A cut in the basic rate of income tax, a rise in the NI threshold and a cut in fuel tax
The cut in basic rate income tax may never happen.
That's obviously what Rishi thinks, or maybe he thinks there will be a leadership contest soon so he needs to get his tax-cut kudos bagged before it happens.
Something should be done about landbanking. Use it or lose it. Builders buying land and sitting on it for years when they could put it into use.
A tax on land in general balanced by a reduction in council tax would be sensible - it would concentrate minds of land bankers to do something with the land. You'd need the council tax reduction to avoid a backlash about a tax on homes.
Good budget overall by Sunak especially for average and low income earners and drivers.
A cut in the basic rate of income tax, a rise in the NI threshold and a cut in fuel tax
There has been no such cut has there? There has been a 'promise' of a cut at some vaguely defined point in the future assuming a whole bunch of equally vague criteria are met. Twelfth of Never Pledge.
On the topic of brownfield. Stack Newcastle will close to make way for HMRC offices. Bang go dozens of funky small businesses and my favourite hang out area. To make way for more office space. Whose workers will be patronising chain stores.
Good budget overall by Sunak especially for average and low income earners and drivers.
A cut in the basic rate of income tax, a rise in the NI threshold and a cut in fuel tax
The cut in basic rate income tax may never happen.
That's obviously what Rishi thinks, or maybe he thinks there will be a leadership contest soon so he needs to get his tax-cut kudos bagged before it happens.
I think its sticking flag in the ground for leadership contest and to try and sell the idea that the Conservatives are still the party wanting to lower taxation for their own base upset by the introduction of NI+.
On the topic of brownfield. Stack Newcastle will close to make way for HMRC offices. Bang go dozens of funky small businesses and my favourite hang out area. To make way for more office space. Whose workers will be patronising chain stores.
“The threshold for paying National Insurance will increase by £3,000 from July. "People will be able to earn £12,570 a year without paying a single penny of income tax or national insurance". Chancellor says it is worth £6bn to 30 million people.” Does this apply to everyone, not just tax cut for those lower earners? Will those on higher earnings benefit from this too not just targeted to those who need it most?
We are being reassured it’s good picture on borrowing going forward, that is how income tax can be cut before end of the electoral period and Rishi doesn’t need to be so cautious. But we are heading towards recession in US and UK aren’t we, that can’t be avoided now, that will certainly send borrowing up? You have to spend what you don’t have in recessions don’t you. Anyone on PB feel we can avoid recession in next couple of years?
If you take the two things together - the higher threshold and the higher rate - then lower earners will benefit and there’ll be a break even point, fairly easy to calculate, above which higher earners pay more. Only relevant to income from employment, of course.
The markets seem fairly oblivious to the fact that, fairly soon (since we’re still in the post-pandemic spending spree), families are going to be cutting back on a lot of ‘discretionary’ spending in order to cover the costs of rising food, energy and fuel. That is going to hit a lot of sectors hard, and could easily lead to a recession.
If Putin is increasingly isolated, and seen to be so, would his minions do his bidding if he did press the big red button?
I'm finding news coverage of the war very poor now. I want to know whether the Russians are gaining or losing ground...what their strategy is etc.. instead its pictures of bombed buildings and emoting about refugees
This guy, ex US military sniper, does daily videos on this. It is very informative, 20 mins each day where he annotates maps of the current territory and fighting. That is if you can put up with a Yank butchering Eastern European town names.
Comments
How many Tories in the chamber heard only 1p off income tax before their Pavlovian reaction?
Paint-by-numbers Opposition to a paint-by-numbers Chancellor.
Really poor all round. There doesn't seem to be anyone who is thinking about new interesting answers. Our politics is moribund.
Rachel Reeves' line was good: "He's not Nigel Lawson, he's Ted Heath with an Instagram account."
https://twitter.com/gabrielmilland/status/1506625835100516354?s=21
% workers usually travelling to work by car:
London: 26%
Lowest In rUK: 70%
Until then need to keep a close eye on things. Getting to "swaying tired" and having work dreams every night doesn't feel particularly sustainable.
Mind you, there might be surprise at a government policy that has achieved the stated objectives...
But I have zero experience in negotiating pay rises so take this with a pinch of salt.
An interesting feature, by the way, of housing in this country is that we don't have that much of a shortage of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms per person in the country has risen gradually over the last 60 years (it's not yet clear what the 2021 census will show in this regard but I don't expect the trend to go into massive reverse). The average number of bedrooms per person is 1.1. This is a reasonably good discussion of the issue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45098321#:~:text=The average number of bedrooms,of 1.1 bedrooms per person.
The reason we have a housing shortage is that these are increasingly poorly distributed with shrinking household sizes and longer lives - the classic example being the family of 5 which bought a four bedroomed house in the early 90s but which is now two pensioners with a lot of spare bedrooms for when the family visits. And I certainly don't begrudge them that: I am describing members of my own family here, as well as who I want to be in twenty years. But we must recognise that there is a cost to this. Perhaps incentives to downsize? I recognise that a call for lower house prices is exactly the opposite of this.
None are what you’d call cheap either. Even for this area.
Tell us something we don’t know.
I would abolish all stamp duty for people moving to cheaper properties. (This would also act as a spur to people in the South moving North.)
Watching people work their arse off and still drown in debt is not something any of us should be able to just ignore. Its an economy with massive structural problems that hits every one of us.
How is it manifesting itself here in sunny Cyaak? Theft from heating oil tanks.
I’d love to scrap it entirely, but this is v good.
I drive into Newcastle city daily for work because I can park for 40p per hour and the bus back turns into once per hour after 6pm (Thats if they actually turn up).
To be more serious, I do wonder what inflation of near 10% will do to the nation. If it is sustained over a few years: fuckety fuck
No bedroom tax for the oldies, natch.
We could do with incentives for them to move out.
Perhaps you feel differently.
And, because they're human, what they're having for dinner.
It's sad that public transport in Newcastle is so bad. When I lived there as a child the council had just built the Metro as part of an integrated public transport system which linked up with buses, with cheap through ticketing and a regular service. Then Thatcher privatised the buses and it all went to shit. You can't trust the Tories not to fuck up anything.
https://twitter.com/andersostlund/status/1506621140998963204?s=21
"Required: senior military officer to turn around Special Military Operation. Performance related pay. (Non-performance - and pay will be the least of your worries.) Perks: own bunker, use of bosses super yacht (around St Petersburg only). Will be expected to work in the field, at least once."
Suggests there's a lot of opportunity to take cars off the road and reduce emissions simply by bringing public transport usage in the regions up to the levels of equivalent areas on the continent.
As well as the cost. Which makes car use cheaper.
“The threshold for paying National Insurance will increase by £3,000 from July. "People will be able to earn £12,570 a year without paying a single penny of income tax or national insurance". Chancellor says it is worth £6bn to 30 million people.”
Does this apply to everyone, not just tax cut for those lower earners? Will those on higher earnings benefit from this too not just targeted to those who need it most?
We are being reassured it’s good picture on borrowing going forward, that is how income tax can be cut before end of the electoral period and Rishi doesn’t need to be so cautious. But we are heading towards recession in US and UK aren’t we, that can’t be avoided now, that will certainly send borrowing up? You have to spend what you don’t have in recessions don’t you. Anyone on PB feel we can avoid recession in next couple of years?
I don’t owe you a personal bio.
Go troll someone else.
a. be in a position to protect Putin against a coup
b. be in a position to benefit if there is a coup (most of them are just as fascistically irredentist as the man himself).
I imagine Lavrov will remain by Putin's side to the end.
Writes the man with two houses.
By turns, dazzling and terrifying.
On the second point, who the hell knows? It's completely absurd for Rishi to announce his pre-election 'tax cut' (giving back some of what he took away a few months ago) so far ahead.
Then you would have a free for all building all over the greenbelt and countryside with no infrastructure either.
No, no, no!!!!
Total losses -including wounded, captured or missing- could be in the 30,000-40,000 range
Estimates based on #Ukraine intel, observations
https://twitter.com/jseldin/status/1506646337856675842
That said high oil prices do tend to presage global recessions, almost like clockwork. In this case I think their chilling effect will be offset by the pent up demand post-Covid.
A Chinese Omicron wave and lockdowns could be the joker here. Might take the edge off commodity prices though.
A cut in the basic rate of income tax, a rise in the NI threshold and a cut in fuel tax
Most buy to let properties are bought for cash. So anything that only targets mortgages allows the parasites off free.
The German software company SAP, still operating in Russia.
Is it as utterly shite as it appears?
Wouldn't that be at least one positive to come out of this? We've needed a house price correction for years.
Stack Newcastle will close to make way for HMRC offices.
Bang go dozens of funky small businesses and my favourite hang out area. To make way for more office space.
Whose workers will be patronising chain stores.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/stack-newcastle-close-office-plans-23475299.amp
A cut in the basic rate of income tax is one thing, wibble about a possible cut in the basic rate of income tax in 2024 is another.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOiiRUYXIAAbIej?format=jpg&name=900x900
The markets seem fairly oblivious to the fact that, fairly soon (since we’re still in the post-pandemic spending spree), families are going to be cutting back on a lot of ‘discretionary’ spending in order to cover the costs of rising food, energy and fuel. That is going to hit a lot of sectors hard, and could easily lead to a recession.
https://www.youtube.com/c/SpeakTheTruth1