There is nothing that this or any government can do to stop us having 6-9 months of misery. Inflation is going to remain high until the new year. Unemployment will edge up. A technical recession is very likely. There are going to be masses of public sector strikes and vain attempts by the government to restrain public sector pay. We are all getting poorer, fast and it is not much fun.
By 2023 Q2 things might start to improve. But until then we all need to buckle down and brace ourselves. A government with a sense of direction and a sense of priorities would help but only at the edges. The biggest problem we have are fuel prices because the delivery costs drive the cost of everything else. Rishi took 5p off duty, it turned out to be less than a week's increase. That shows how futile the government's efforts are in the face of the tsunami. Brace, brace and think of the most vulnerable.
Over half the price of petrol goes to the government, it is absurd to suggest they cannot influence the price significantly.
But the government's portion is not going up, indeed it came down. The cost of petrol is being driven by a market distorted by Russian sanctions which has put the 3rd largest producer on the planet largely out of play.
Second largest, surely?
I may be wrong but I think it is Saudi, the US and then Russia.
You are wrong: the US is comfortably the largest oil producer in the world, at about 11.2m b/d (2021 numbers). Russia is number two (10.1m), and Saudi third (9.3m).
Edit to add: I think you were thinking of oil exporters, where Saudi is clearly the largest exporter of oil
About a decade ago the second largest oil exporter in the world was little old Norway. They were well down the list of producers but they basically exported just about everything.
Mind you huge oil reserves do not mean great wealth. Or even any wealth. Just look at the country with the largest reserves in the world - poor old Venezuela.
The worst economic performance in the G20 excluding Russia. They're discussing it on C4 News.
Is it Brexit they want to know?
Interesting that the BBC are more balanced about this than Channel 4. A few points from the BBC report.
These are just predictions not actual measures. This year the UK will have the fastest growth in the G7 so 'worst performance' is frankly bollocks. Next year we are predicted to have the worst performance in the G7. So if that comes true then they will have a point. Until the it is nothing more than a prediction and, as the BBC says, there are a huge number of variables that could change it quite considerably.
As I understand the report it is because taxes are too high and a tax cutting budget is needed including vat, corporation tax, and increase personal allowances
Fascinating.
Is this all to be paid for with another thirty trillion quid in borrowing, or are we going back to austerity - in which case, what is the Government going to stop paying for this time?
Paid for by generating growth
That's just the Tory version of the magic money tree. We can spend what we like because for every pound less we raise in tax we'll get two more back through the proceeds of growth.
If it were that simple the Government could just cut taxes to zero and abolish itself. We'd all be millionaires.
People forget that there's the Laffer Curve isn't a straight line to zero, it has an upwards and downwards slope. You could be on the left of the peak, or the right of it, its like a bell curve.
If you're aiming to raise tax revenues, then raise taxes too much and its counterproductive. Cut taxes too much and its also counterproductive. The difficult question to answer is what is the optimal point, or points if its a curve with multiple peaks.
So difficult that nobody can get it right. So we end up with tax cuts for the already well off, fuelling asset price inflation, which benefits the already well off yet further. Meanwhile, tax cuts fail to compensate for the falling living standards of the already struggling, and do naff all for the very poor who already pay very little tax.
Oh, and the tax take won't magically increase, it will go down, and there will be cuts, and austerity, and they'll be heaped on the heads of those who can least afford them - mainly through yet more benefit freezes for the poor (working or otherwise) and yet more pay freezes for public sector workers.
We all know how the Conservative solution to hardship works - or, more accurately, doesn't. We've been there before and that's where they want to go again. Singing the same old tired songs, over and over again.
Except it has been got right in the past. Cutting taxes that were too high in the 80s led to serious economic growth that repaid the lower tax rates many times over.
The problem is that presently this Government is doing things all wrong. You need to cut taxes on the things you want to incentivise, like work, while taxing things you want to discourage, like smoking. This government is increasing taxes on working, while giving tax breaks to the retired. All that's going to do is give even more unearned money to the richest who aren't doing anything to work for it, while reducing the incentives to work for those who actually do something and generate for the economy and on who's backs the rest of society rests.
The taxes on those who work are far too high and need to be reduced. The taxes on those who aren't working and are just extracting rent from others without putting any effort in need to increase.
Spot on.
The weird thing is that I agree, mostly.
Reduce tax on income Increase tax on wealth Borrow to invest, but not much, cos inflation Increase interest rates Redistribute more aggressively Break cartels and monopolies Overhaul the planning system FFS Fix the trading relationship with the EU Give people a future to look fwd to.
Yes. It is strange that many from very differing political starting points can sketch out the broad outlines of what ought to be done. Even whilst quibbling over the details. Yet the need to be elected prevents it.
It’s very simple. The old won’t vote for many of the things above, and they vote en masse.
Even Big G, who agrees (at least at a broad level) noted just before that Labour won’t win with - for example - a tax on housing. He would likely add inheritance. What else is left apart from capital gains which - property aside - is closer to income than wealth.
The worst economic performance in the G20 excluding Russia. They're discussing it on C4 News.
Is it Brexit they want to know?
Interesting that the BBC are more balanced about this than Channel 4. A few points from the BBC report.
These are just predictions not actual measures. This year the UK will have the fastest growth in the G7 so 'worst performance' is frankly bollocks. Next year we are predicted to have the worst performance in the G7. So if that comes true then they will have a point. Until the it is nothing more than a prediction and, as the BBC says, there are a huge number of variables that could change it quite considerably.
As I understand the report it is because taxes are too high and a tax cutting budget is needed including vat, corporation tax, and increase personal allowances
Fascinating.
Is this all to be paid for with another thirty trillion quid in borrowing, or are we going back to austerity - in which case, what is the Government going to stop paying for this time?
Paid for by generating growth
That's just the Tory version of the magic money tree. We can spend what we like because for every pound less we raise in tax we'll get two more back through the proceeds of growth.
If it were that simple the Government could just cut taxes to zero and abolish itself. We'd all be millionaires.
People forget that there's the Laffer Curve isn't a straight line to zero, it has an upwards and downwards slope. You could be on the left of the peak, or the right of it, its like a bell curve.
If you're aiming to raise tax revenues, then raise taxes too much and its counterproductive. Cut taxes too much and its also counterproductive. The difficult question to answer is what is the optimal point, or points if its a curve with multiple peaks.
So difficult that nobody can get it right. So we end up with tax cuts for the already well off, fuelling asset price inflation, which benefits the already well off yet further. Meanwhile, tax cuts fail to compensate for the falling living standards of the already struggling, and do naff all for the very poor who already pay very little tax.
Oh, and the tax take won't magically increase, it will go down, and there will be cuts, and austerity, and they'll be heaped on the heads of those who can least afford them - mainly through yet more benefit freezes for the poor (working or otherwise) and yet more pay freezes for public sector workers.
We all know how the Conservative solution to hardship works - or, more accurately, doesn't. We've been there before and that's where they want to go again. Singing the same old tired songs, over and over again.
Except it has been got right in the past. Cutting taxes that were too high in the 80s led to serious economic growth that repaid the lower tax rates many times over.
The problem is that presently this Government is doing things all wrong. You need to cut taxes on the things you want to incentivise, like work, while taxing things you want to discourage, like smoking. This government is increasing taxes on working, while giving tax breaks to the retired. All that's going to do is give even more unearned money to the richest who aren't doing anything to work for it, while reducing the incentives to work for those who actually do something and generate for the economy and on who's backs the rest of society rests.
The taxes on those who work are far too high and need to be reduced. The taxes on those who aren't working and are just extracting rent from others without putting any effort in need to increase.
Spot on.
The weird thing is that I agree, mostly.
Reduce tax on income Increase tax on wealth Borrow to invest, but not much, cos inflation Increase interest rates Redistribute more aggressively Break cartels and monopolies Overhaul the planning system FFS Fix the trading relationship with the EU Give people a future to look fwd to.
Yes. It is strange that many from very differing political starting points can sketch out the broad outlines of what ought to be done. Even whilst quibbling over the details. Yet the need to be elected prevents it.
It is the retired home owner vote that is the squatting toad making it electorally impossible. Demographics aren't changing any time soon either.
It does need them to care more about the next generation, but fat chance of that outside their own immediate families.
The worst economic performance in the G20 excluding Russia. They're discussing it on C4 News.
Is it Brexit they want to know?
Interesting that the BBC are more balanced about this than Channel 4. A few points from the BBC report.
These are just predictions not actual measures. This year the UK will have the fastest growth in the G7 so 'worst performance' is frankly bollocks. Next year we are predicted to have the worst performance in the G7. So if that comes true then they will have a point. Until the it is nothing more than a prediction and, as the BBC says, there are a huge number of variables that could change it quite considerably.
As I understand the report it is because taxes are too high and a tax cutting budget is needed including vat, corporation tax, and increase personal allowances
So a complete reverse on Rishi's budget then?
Yes and if he won't get someone who will
My understanding of economics is raise tax early to fight inflation. Borrow money for spending and cut taxes particularly vat to fight slump in growth.
Borrow money for investment not spending on wages
Borrow money for “investment spending” that keep people in work?
When people think of recession, inflation, stagflation, low unemployment, they tend it think it’s as evenly spread across all economy, like a uniform swing in opinion poll seat calc - but all those bad things could hurt more sectorally? So government intervention would be to stop skilled or semi skilled from losing jobs and having to take unskilled ones?
Either a wage price spiral is driving inflation, in which case higher interest rates and disregard of unemployment are the Thatcherite solution as per the early Eighties.
If it is external pressures (Sanctions on Russia forcing up fuel and food prices) in which case domestic spending is not the issue, and a bigger deficit and after tax wage rises are needed to keep economic wheels and domestic demand going.
But external drivers could spark off those domestic drivers? If you don’t now keep a rein on 9% pay demands from everybody?
Businesses have no excuse for not paying decent wage increases unless they themselves are struggling - and there are plenty that are making a fortune. Crudely put, let them up pay and cut dividends for a change.
Government could also afford decent wage increases for its workers (and better social security for the poor) through increasing the taxation of residential property, capital gains and inheritances. The current one simply won't do it because it needs to stuff the mouths of its friends - elderly homeowners, their heirs, and the very rich - with gold. This will continue until it is replaced.
Tell me, is it labour's policy to tax residential home owners as I am genuinely interested in a policy that would condemn them to defeat
And that's the problem. We all know what needs to be done, but nobody knows how to get elected doing it.
The current situation (houses "generate" more wealth and tax-free than workers can generate and they get taxed on it) just isn't on. Forget pennies on or off the tax rate, we are collectively stuffed if we don't fix that.
I don't know if anyone's been following Lancashir v Yorkshire in the 2020 - astonishing match: Yorkshire appeared to be cruising, but Lancashire chipped away wicket after wicket before giving Yorkshire a chance with a wide with three balls to go: the last ball needed to be struck for four to tie or six to win: the batsman lined up a mighty swipe and was ... just ... caught on the boundary. Astonishing match. And a proper match between proper teams - hard to see how the hundred can compete with this.
It is clear to me, and must in reality be clear to you, that the Prime Minister is a cynical, self-regarding liar wholly unfit for any public office. There is no evading this very obvious fact by appeals to burden or standard of proof, rules of natural justice, etc. This is politics, not the law, and different rules apply.
In any case, when I initially wrote to you on this subject, you said that you proposed to await the publication of the Gray report. What is there in that report which in your view exonerates him from any of the charges against him?
Nor am I impressed by your claim that a narrow victory in the vote on Monday is itself evidence of his fitness to govern. I have no doubt that your salary as an MP looks a pittance to you, but you are paid it to exercise your own judgement on behalf of your constituents, not to toe party lines or to go with flows, nor to advance obviously circular and specious arguments.
In short, the only rational attitude to the Prime Minister is one of baffled disgust, and I regret to tell you that the same applies to his supporters. I have consistently voted Conservative since the General Election of 1979. Next time round I shall not do so. Nor shall I abstain: unless I particularly dislike the LibDem candidate, I shall positively campaign and vote in the increasingly realistic hope of repeating the result of 1997
Love ❤ Ishmael x
Is that rude enough?
I am guessing by your response, your email from Cox must have been remarkably similar to mine from Cairns. I might be going out on a limb here, but do you think No 10 has instructed the loyalists on the sort of boosterism BS that had to go into the letters?
Mine (Robin Millar) sent me a curt I am not telling you but the nuance was he voted for Boris
It really annoys me when I do not get a straight answer, after all Cairns was upfront and honest
This site is incredibly small-c conservative. Waitrose man, if you like.
There are almost no true lefties, and the only Green on here is essentially a high-octane, performative satire.
It’s also old, male and “hideously” white.
It's got more male lately - someone commented a couple of months back about the rarity of female posters. The slanging match a couple of days ago by well-established posters on who could f*** longest was seriously locker-room stuff that you wouldn't need to be a very sensitive woman to feel a "not a place for me" reaction. it'd be good if the moderators reined it in a bit. Who wants to know about everyone's sex life on a poloitics site?
Off topic, but possibly of interest generally: The United States is now giving away COVID tests to anyone here, who asks for them. I just received eight self tests, and I believe another batch is due on Friday.
(The Post Office is distributing them and there are still a few bugs in their system. I have, so far, received at least 7 emails telling me that the tests are coming, when two would have been plenty. But they are getting them to those who ask for them, which is the main thing.
The worst economic performance in the G20 excluding Russia. They're discussing it on C4 News.
Is it Brexit they want to know?
Interesting that the BBC are more balanced about this than Channel 4. A few points from the BBC report.
These are just predictions not actual measures. This year the UK will have the fastest growth in the G7 so 'worst performance' is frankly bollocks. Next year we are predicted to have the worst performance in the G7. So if that comes true then they will have a point. Until the it is nothing more than a prediction and, as the BBC says, there are a huge number of variables that could change it quite considerably.
As I understand the report it is because taxes are too high and a tax cutting budget is needed including vat, corporation tax, and increase personal allowances
Fascinating.
Is this all to be paid for with another thirty trillion quid in borrowing, or are we going back to austerity - in which case, what is the Government going to stop paying for this time?
Paid for by generating growth
That's just the Tory version of the magic money tree. We can spend what we like because for every pound less we raise in tax we'll get two more back through the proceeds of growth.
If it were that simple the Government could just cut taxes to zero and abolish itself. We'd all be millionaires.
People forget that there's the Laffer Curve isn't a straight line to zero, it has an upwards and downwards slope. You could be on the left of the peak, or the right of it, its like a bell curve.
If you're aiming to raise tax revenues, then raise taxes too much and its counterproductive. Cut taxes too much and its also counterproductive. The difficult question to answer is what is the optimal point, or points if its a curve with multiple peaks.
So difficult that nobody can get it right. So we end up with tax cuts for the already well off, fuelling asset price inflation, which benefits the already well off yet further. Meanwhile, tax cuts fail to compensate for the falling living standards of the already struggling, and do naff all for the very poor who already pay very little tax.
Oh, and the tax take won't magically increase, it will go down, and there will be cuts, and austerity, and they'll be heaped on the heads of those who can least afford them - mainly through yet more benefit freezes for the poor (working or otherwise) and yet more pay freezes for public sector workers.
We all know how the Conservative solution to hardship works - or, more accurately, doesn't. We've been there before and that's where they want to go again. Singing the same old tired songs, over and over again.
Except it has been got right in the past. Cutting taxes that were too high in the 80s led to serious economic growth that repaid the lower tax rates many times over.
The problem is that presently this Government is doing things all wrong. You need to cut taxes on the things you want to incentivise, like work, while taxing things you want to discourage, like smoking. This government is increasing taxes on working, while giving tax breaks to the retired. All that's going to do is give even more unearned money to the richest who aren't doing anything to work for it, while reducing the incentives to work for those who actually do something and generate for the economy and on who's backs the rest of society rests.
The taxes on those who work are far too high and need to be reduced. The taxes on those who aren't working and are just extracting rent from others without putting any effort in need to increase.
Spot on.
The weird thing is that I agree, mostly.
Reduce tax on income Increase tax on wealth Borrow to invest, but not much, cos inflation Increase interest rates Redistribute more aggressively Break cartels and monopolies Overhaul the planning system FFS Fix the trading relationship with the EU Give people a future to look fwd to.
Yes. It is strange that many from very differing political starting points can sketch out the broad outlines of what ought to be done. Even whilst quibbling over the details. Yet the need to be elected prevents it.
It’s very simple. The old won’t vote for many of the things above, and they vote en masse.
Even Big G, who agrees (at least at a broad level) noted just before that Labour won’t win with - for example - a tax on housing. He would likely add inheritance. What else is left apart from capital gains which - property aside - is closer to income than wealth.
Make voting compulsory? That at least would eradicate the age bias. And it's about time the little sods started voting anyway.
So apparently the US is sending 7 artillery pieces to Ukraine out of a total of 600. We are sending 3 out of 44. It makes me wonder how committed to this we really are. Perhaps we are dripping them in slowly as the Ukrainians get used to them. Or perhaps it is a bit pointless if they aren't anywhere near ready to launch a major offensive. Michael Clarke suggesting that they may not be in position to do so until next year! Putin's antics over food ought to be a reason to double down on this.
I'm hoping this is like early Covid testing and early vaccines - load of backlogs at the start as people struggle to get the supply chains running, then it gets sorted out and suddenly it's flooding in.
I would also add Wallace and Truss to Hunt and Mordaunt as the top 3, they tend to be the most popular potential candidates in surveys of Tory members.
However it may be the next Tory leader ends up Leader of the Opposition not PM, there are rumours that if the 1922 cttee tries to change the rules to hold another VONC within a year then Boris would threaten to call a snap general election first. Patel would also be a contender for Leader of the Opposition, even if probably not PM at this time
Boris tries that he will be out of office quicker then he can get to the Palace
Depends, the repeal of the FTPA means the ability to call a general election is now back to being the prerogative of the PM.
Not a chance he would get away with that
As soon as he went to the Palace the Queen would have no choice but to dissolve Parliament if he asked, constitutionally.
The Opposition parties of course would fully support an early general election too given current polls
Depends if enough Boris supporters backed him, if more than 40 Boris loyalist MPs did then any new potential Tory leader and PM would not have a majority in Parliament as the Opposition parties would of course back an early general election too
It is clear to me, and must in reality be clear to you, that the Prime Minister is a cynical, self-regarding liar wholly unfit for any public office. There is no evading this very obvious fact by appeals to burden or standard of proof, rules of natural justice, etc. This is politics, not the law, and different rules apply.
In any case, when I initially wrote to you on this subject, you said that you proposed to await the publication of the Gray report. What is there in that report which in your view exonerates him from any of the charges against him?
Nor am I impressed by your claim that a narrow victory in the vote on Monday is itself evidence of his fitness to govern. I have no doubt that your salary as an MP looks a pittance to you, but you are paid it to exercise your own judgement on behalf of your constituents, not to toe party lines or to go with flows, nor to advance obviously circular and specious arguments.
In short, the only rational attitude to the Prime Minister is one of baffled disgust, and I regret to tell you that the same applies to his supporters. I have consistently voted Conservative since the General Election of 1979. Next time round I shall not do so. Nor shall I abstain: unless I particularly dislike the LibDem candidate, I shall positively campaign and vote in the increasingly realistic hope of repeating the result of 1997
Love ❤ Ishmael x
Is that rude enough?
I am guessing by your response, your email from Cox must have been remarkably similar to mine from Cairns. I might be going out on a limb here, but do you think No 10 has instructed the loyalists on the sort of boosterism BS that had to go into the letters?
Yes
I don't understand though why phatboi Cox feels the need to go along with this sort of shit. The only point of extremely rich MPs is that they don't have to, and I don't see Johnson giving him another outing as AG
Still in Sicily? Enjoying it?
Same with Cairns, an easy shoo in for Welsh Sec. if Johnson fell. I can only conclude he is an idiot
Yes I am. I'm in the North this time, going to have a look at Palermo Duomo tomorrow. I did the South East based in Marina Del Ragusa a few years ago. I can't get over how economically vibrant Sicily is.
Regards, and enjoy your days in the sun away from Johnsonian nonsense.
I love it here. Strong contender for favourite place evah
I don't know if anyone's been following Lancashir v Yorkshire in the 2020 - astonishing match: Yorkshire appeared to be cruising, but Lancashire chipped away wicket after wicket before giving Yorkshire a chance with a wide with three balls to go: the last ball needed to be struck for four to tie or six to win: the batsman lined up a mighty swipe and was ... just ... caught on the boundary. Astonishing match. And a proper match between proper teams - hard to see how the hundred can compete with this.
The reverse fixture ended in a tie. Wicket with last ball.
I would also add Wallace and Truss to Hunt and Mordaunt as the top 3, they tend to be the most popular potential candidates in surveys of Tory members.
However it may be the next Tory leader ends up Leader of the Opposition not PM, there are rumours that if the 1922 cttee tries to change the rules to hold another VONC within a year then Boris would threaten to call a snap general election first. Patel would also be a contender for Leader of the Opposition, even if probably not PM at this time
Boris tries that he will be out of office quicker then he can get to the Palace
Depends, the repeal of the FTPA means the ability to call a general election is now back to being the prerogative of the PM.
Not a chance he would get away with that
As soon as he went to the Palace the Queen would have no choice but to dissolve Parliament if he asked, constitutionally.
The Opposition parties of course would fully support an early general election too given current polls
You live in a fantasy world
The only alternative would be to hold a VONC and elect a new Tory leader and PM unopposed within 24 hours effectively
You think Boris can walk out of no 10 on his own bat and call an election
The vonc would happen on his way and at present Raab would form the government
I really do not understand where you come up with these fantasies
It is clear to me, and must in reality be clear to you, that the Prime Minister is a cynical, self-regarding liar wholly unfit for any public office. There is no evading this very obvious fact by appeals to burden or standard of proof, rules of natural justice, etc. This is politics, not the law, and different rules apply.
In any case, when I initially wrote to you on this subject, you said that you proposed to await the publication of the Gray report. What is there in that report which in your view exonerates him from any of the charges against him?
Nor am I impressed by your claim that a narrow victory in the vote on Monday is itself evidence of his fitness to govern. I have no doubt that your salary as an MP looks a pittance to you, but you are paid it to exercise your own judgement on behalf of your constituents, not to toe party lines or to go with flows, nor to advance obviously circular and specious arguments.
In short, the only rational attitude to the Prime Minister is one of baffled disgust, and I regret to tell you that the same applies to his supporters. I have consistently voted Conservative since the General Election of 1979. Next time round I shall not do so. Nor shall I abstain: unless I particularly dislike the LibDem candidate, I shall positively campaign and vote in the increasingly realistic hope of repeating the result of 1997
Love ❤ Ishmael x
Is that rude enough?
I am guessing by your response, your email from Cox must have been remarkably similar to mine from Cairns. I might be going out on a limb here, but do you think No 10 has instructed the loyalists on the sort of boosterism BS that had to go into the letters?
Mine (Robin Millar) sent me a curt I am not telling you but the nuance was he voted for Boris
It really annoys me when I do not get a straight answer, after all Cairns was upfront and honest
My Tory wife considers him anything but after this email. She called him a spineless liar (well actually it was another four letter word beginning with t).
Essentially he lied to me, suggesting that Johnson had been exonorated by the police after a full investigation which we all know to be patently untrue.
Off topic, but possibly of interest generally: The United States is now giving away COVID tests to anyone here, who asks for them. I just received eight self tests, and I believe another batch is due on Friday.
(The Post Office is distributing them and there are still a few bugs in their system. I have, so far, received at least 7 emails telling me that the tests are coming, when two would have been plenty. But they are getting them to those who ask for them, which is the main thing.
The pandemic is over, we've moved on already. Everyone has had the chance to have 3 or 4 vaccines if they want it and need it. Why bother with tests now when it wasn't done during the pandemic when it could have made a difference?
I would also add Wallace and Truss to Hunt and Mordaunt as the top 3, they tend to be the most popular potential candidates in surveys of Tory members.
However it may be the next Tory leader ends up Leader of the Opposition not PM, there are rumours that if the 1922 cttee tries to change the rules to hold another VONC within a year then Boris would threaten to call a snap general election first. Patel would also be a contender for Leader of the Opposition, even if probably not PM at this time
Boris tries that he will be out of office quicker then he can get to the Palace
Depends, the repeal of the FTPA means the ability to call a general election is now back to being the prerogative of the PM.
Holy shit. We need a written constitution. BoJo has blown the whole “unwritten” aspect for me
It is clear to me, and must in reality be clear to you, that the Prime Minister is a cynical, self-regarding liar wholly unfit for any public office. There is no evading this very obvious fact by appeals to burden or standard of proof, rules of natural justice, etc. This is politics, not the law, and different rules apply.
In any case, when I initially wrote to you on this subject, you said that you proposed to await the publication of the Gray report. What is there in that report which in your view exonerates him from any of the charges against him?
Nor am I impressed by your claim that a narrow victory in the vote on Monday is itself evidence of his fitness to govern. I have no doubt that your salary as an MP looks a pittance to you, but you are paid it to exercise your own judgement on behalf of your constituents, not to toe party lines or to go with flows, nor to advance obviously circular and specious arguments.
In short, the only rational attitude to the Prime Minister is one of baffled disgust, and I regret to tell you that the same applies to his supporters. I have consistently voted Conservative since the General Election of 1979. Next time round I shall not do so. Nor shall I abstain: unless I particularly dislike the LibDem candidate, I shall positively campaign and vote in the increasingly realistic hope of repeating the result of 1997
The worst economic performance in the G20 excluding Russia. They're discussing it on C4 News.
Is it Brexit they want to know?
Interesting that the BBC are more balanced about this than Channel 4. A few points from the BBC report.
These are just predictions not actual measures. This year the UK will have the fastest growth in the G7 so 'worst performance' is frankly bollocks. Next year we are predicted to have the worst performance in the G7. So if that comes true then they will have a point. Until the it is nothing more than a prediction and, as the BBC says, there are a huge number of variables that could change it quite considerably.
As I understand the report it is because taxes are too high and a tax cutting budget is needed including vat, corporation tax, and increase personal allowances
Fascinating.
Is this all to be paid for with another thirty trillion quid in borrowing, or are we going back to austerity - in which case, what is the Government going to stop paying for this time?
Paid for by generating growth
That's just the Tory version of the magic money tree. We can spend what we like because for every pound less we raise in tax we'll get two more back through the proceeds of growth.
If it were that simple the Government could just cut taxes to zero and abolish itself. We'd all be millionaires.
People forget that there's the Laffer Curve isn't a straight line to zero, it has an upwards and downwards slope. You could be on the left of the peak, or the right of it, its like a bell curve.
If you're aiming to raise tax revenues, then raise taxes too much and its counterproductive. Cut taxes too much and its also counterproductive. The difficult question to answer is what is the optimal point, or points if its a curve with multiple peaks.
So difficult that nobody can get it right. So we end up with tax cuts for the already well off, fuelling asset price inflation, which benefits the already well off yet further. Meanwhile, tax cuts fail to compensate for the falling living standards of the already struggling, and do naff all for the very poor who already pay very little tax.
Oh, and the tax take won't magically increase, it will go down, and there will be cuts, and austerity, and they'll be heaped on the heads of those who can least afford them - mainly through yet more benefit freezes for the poor (working or otherwise) and yet more pay freezes for public sector workers.
We all know how the Conservative solution to hardship works - or, more accurately, doesn't. We've been there before and that's where they want to go again. Singing the same old tired songs, over and over again.
Except it has been got right in the past. Cutting taxes that were too high in the 80s led to serious economic growth that repaid the lower tax rates many times over.
The problem is that presently this Government is doing things all wrong. You need to cut taxes on the things you want to incentivise, like work, while taxing things you want to discourage, like smoking. This government is increasing taxes on working, while giving tax breaks to the retired. All that's going to do is give even more unearned money to the richest who aren't doing anything to work for it, while reducing the incentives to work for those who actually do something and generate for the economy and on who's backs the rest of society rests.
The taxes on those who work are far too high and need to be reduced. The taxes on those who aren't working and are just extracting rent from others without putting any effort in need to increase.
Spot on.
The weird thing is that I agree, mostly.
Reduce tax on income Increase tax on wealth Borrow to invest, but not much, cos inflation Increase interest rates Redistribute more aggressively Break cartels and monopolies Overhaul the planning system FFS Fix the trading relationship with the EU Give people a future to look fwd to.
Yes. It is strange that many from very differing political starting points can sketch out the broad outlines of what ought to be done. Even whilst quibbling over the details. Yet the need to be elected prevents it.
It’s very simple. The old won’t vote for many of the things above, and they vote en masse.
Even Big G, who agrees (at least at a broad level) noted just before that Labour won’t win with - for example - a tax on housing. He would likely add inheritance. What else is left apart from capital gains which - property aside - is closer to income than wealth.
I am not averse to a reduction in the allowance for IHT or a sensible wealth tax
This housing wealth is distorting the labour market now, too. I know plenty in my cohort who have discovered they don't need 2 salaries to live with the mortgage paid off. So. One retires. Or they both go part-time. And why shouldn't they when simply owning a home earns more than working does? Losing loads of experience from the workforce. Because of house prices.
I would also add Wallace and Truss to Hunt and Mordaunt as the top 3, they tend to be the most popular potential candidates in surveys of Tory members.
However it may be the next Tory leader ends up Leader of the Opposition not PM, there are rumours that if the 1922 cttee tries to change the rules to hold another VONC within a year then Boris would threaten to call a snap general election first. Patel would also be a contender for Leader of the Opposition, even if probably not PM at this time
Boris tries that he will be out of office quicker then he can get to the Palace
Depends, the repeal of the FTPA means the ability to call a general election is now back to being the prerogative of the PM.
Not a chance he would get away with that
As soon as he went to the Palace the Queen would have no choice but to dissolve Parliament if he asked, constitutionally.
The Opposition parties of course would fully support an early general election too given current polls
You live in a fantasy world
The only alternative would be to hold a VONC and elect a new Tory leader and PM unopposed within 24 hours effectively
You think Boris can walk out of no 10 on his own bat and call an election
The vonc would happen on his way and at present Raab would form the government
I really do not understand where you come up with these fantasies
Johnson would remain PM until a new one appointed unless he resigned, which he wouldn't and a VONC just starts the process to change the Tory leader, not the PM.
That requires both a new PM to be appointed by the Queen having won a Tory leadership election after Johnson lost a VONC and with all former Johnson supporters supporting them rather than voting with the Opposition for an early general election
First day back at work today, WFH at least which my wife appreciated as she's a bit worried about being alone with the baby all day.
It's quite scary how much has changed in two weeks and also how little. The market feels different, extremely hostile. Looking for all weaknesses within nations. Sadly, with the c*** in charge we are a nation riddled with weaknesses, rising taxes, gigantic interest bill, terrible inflation, no plan to cut taxes, no investment plan, no supply side solutions. Just nothing.
I don't know if anyone's been following Lancashir v Yorkshire in the 2020 - astonishing match: Yorkshire appeared to be cruising, but Lancashire chipped away wicket after wicket before giving Yorkshire a chance with a wide with three balls to go: the last ball needed to be struck for four to tie or six to win: the batsman lined up a mighty swipe and was ... just ... caught on the boundary. Astonishing match. And a proper match between proper teams - hard to see how the hundred can compete with this.
The last one was a draw I think and an excellent watch
Nick Palmer said: "It's got more male lately - someone commented a couple of months back about the rarity of female posters."
And I agree with him that's regrettable, partly because the female posters who do comment here are mostly quite good. And partly because I think they bring perspectives that I may miss. (I suppose that means that I agree -- to some extent -- with "difference feminism".)
I would also add Wallace and Truss to Hunt and Mordaunt as the top 3, they tend to be the most popular potential candidates in surveys of Tory members.
However it may be the next Tory leader ends up Leader of the Opposition not PM, there are rumours that if the 1922 cttee tries to change the rules to hold another VONC within a year then Boris would threaten to call a snap general election first. Patel would also be a contender for Leader of the Opposition, even if probably not PM at this time
Boris tries that he will be out of office quicker then he can get to the Palace
Depends, the repeal of the FTPA means the ability to call a general election is now back to being the prerogative of the PM.
Not a chance he would get away with that
As soon as he went to the Palace the Queen would have no choice but to dissolve Parliament if he asked, constitutionally.
The Opposition parties of course would fully support an early general election too given current polls
Depends if enough Boris supporters backed him, if more than 40 Boris loyalist MPs did then any new potential Tory leader and PM would not have a majority in Parliament as the Opposition parties would of course back an early general election too
You are suggesting outright destruction of the conservative party over your addiction to Boris
I would also add Wallace and Truss to Hunt and Mordaunt as the top 3, they tend to be the most popular potential candidates in surveys of Tory members.
However it may be the next Tory leader ends up Leader of the Opposition not PM, there are rumours that if the 1922 cttee tries to change the rules to hold another VONC within a year then Boris would threaten to call a snap general election first. Patel would also be a contender for Leader of the Opposition, even if probably not PM at this time
Boris tries that he will be out of office quicker then he can get to the Palace
Depends, the repeal of the FTPA means the ability to call a general election is now back to being the prerogative of the PM.
Not a chance he would get away with that
As soon as he went to the Palace the Queen would have no choice but to dissolve Parliament if he asked, constitutionally.
The Opposition parties of course would fully support an early general election too given current polls
You live in a fantasy world
The only alternative would be to hold a VONC and elect a new Tory leader and PM unopposed within 24 hours effectively
You think Boris can walk out of no 10 on his own bat and call an election
The vonc would happen on his way and at present Raab would form the government
I really do not understand where you come up with these fantasies
Johnson would remain PM until a new one appointed and a VONC just starts the process to change the Tory leader, not the PM.
That requires both a new PM to be elected and all former Johnson supporters to support them rather than vote with the Opposition for an early general election
First and foremost Johnson supporters - just like all other MPs - want to stay as MP. They know voting for an early election means many of them losing their seats. As has been said so often in the past, turkeys don't vote for Christmas. And of one thing we can be sure; most of our MPs are true turkeys. .
This would normally be a matter for the Bank of England Financial Policy Committee, and the Prudential Regulatory Authority… & ultimately the banks. in March FPC said the rise in energy prices already represented a vulnerability for existing low income households with mortgages https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1534632725763727367
It is clear to me, and must in reality be clear to you, that the Prime Minister is a cynical, self-regarding liar wholly unfit for any public office. There is no evading this very obvious fact by appeals to burden or standard of proof, rules of natural justice, etc. This is politics, not the law, and different rules apply.
In any case, when I initially wrote to you on this subject, you said that you proposed to await the publication of the Gray report. What is there in that report which in your view exonerates him from any of the charges against him?
Nor am I impressed by your claim that a narrow victory in the vote on Monday is itself evidence of his fitness to govern. I have no doubt that your salary as an MP looks a pittance to you, but you are paid it to exercise your own judgement on behalf of your constituents, not to toe party lines or to go with flows, nor to advance obviously circular and specious arguments.
In short, the only rational attitude to the Prime Minister is one of baffled disgust, and I regret to tell you that the same applies to his supporters. I have consistently voted Conservative since the General Election of 1979. Next time round I shall not do so. Nor shall I abstain: unless I particularly dislike the LibDem candidate, I shall positively campaign and vote in the increasingly realistic hope of repeating the result of 1997
Love ❤ Ishmael x
Is that rude enough?
I am guessing by your response, your email from Cox must have been remarkably similar to mine from Cairns. I might be going out on a limb here, but do you think No 10 has instructed the loyalists on the sort of boosterism BS that had to go into the letters?
Mine (Robin Millar) sent me a curt I am not telling you but the nuance was he voted for Boris
It really annoys me when I do not get a straight answer, after all Cairns was upfront and honest
My Tory wife considers him anything but after this email. She called him a spineless liar (well actually it was another four letter word beginning with t).
Essentially he lied to me, suggesting that Johnson had been exonorated by the police after a full investigation which we all know to be patently untrue.
I do not disagree with you but Millar wouldn't tell me, even with my history over 60 years of helping in the constituency
This housing wealth is distorting the labour market now, too. I know plenty in my cohort who have discovered they don't need 2 salaries to live with the mortgage paid off. So. One retires. Or they both go part-time. And why shouldn't they when simply owning a home earns more than working does? Losing loads of experience from the workforce. Because of house prices.
That doesn't depend on house prices though: owning a home earns you exactly nothing, it just means your housing expenses are zero. If you've paid off the mortgage then all you need is income that covers your non-housing expenses -- and those are identical regardless of how much your house cost and how much your mortgage used to cost you. (The exception is if you're supplementing your income via "rent out a room" or if you invested in rental property.)
I would also add Wallace and Truss to Hunt and Mordaunt as the top 3, they tend to be the most popular potential candidates in surveys of Tory members.
However it may be the next Tory leader ends up Leader of the Opposition not PM, there are rumours that if the 1922 cttee tries to change the rules to hold another VONC within a year then Boris would threaten to call a snap general election first. Patel would also be a contender for Leader of the Opposition, even if probably not PM at this time
Boris tries that he will be out of office quicker then he can get to the Palace
Depends, the repeal of the FTPA means the ability to call a general election is now back to being the prerogative of the PM.
Holy shit. We need a written constitution. BoJo has blown the whole “unwritten” aspect for me
Written constitutions do not solve the issue of such chaotic individuals willing to ignore rules and conventions, if they have sufficient support to get away with it.
There are advantages to written constitutions (why else would almost all places have them), but more often than not when people make this type of plaintive cry the actual problem people want solved is not one of them. See also when people think it would eliminate confusion or dispute about constitutional powers.
This housing wealth is distorting the labour market now, too. I know plenty in my cohort who have discovered they don't need 2 salaries to live with the mortgage paid off. So. One retires. Or they both go part-time. And why shouldn't they when simply owning a home earns more than working does? Losing loads of experience from the workforce. Because of house prices.
For all that I agree we need to deal with house price inflation, the situation you have just outlined would be even worse if house prices were lower. Many people are only still in work because they have a mortgage. As soon as your mortgage is paid off it becomes much easier to cut back on work or have one of a couple retire.
So I don't see how house price inflation is distorting the market in the way you claim. Contrary to popular belief many, if not most, people do not have a house as an investment. They have it as a place to live and it is usually their biggest outgoing each month as well.
This is not in any way an argument against ending the idiotic house price inflation, but I think your perspective on this is incorrect as far as its effect on the labour market. Indeed I think it is exactly the reverse.
Utterly ridiculous directive and the UK should not mirror it into UK law.
Yes the market already was and will continue to see USB-C as the standard, and that's only likely to escalate further with the EU's directive, but if someone where to invent a superior alternative there should be nothing in British law preventing that from being offered here first even if it can't be offered in the sclerotic continent.
I would also add Wallace and Truss to Hunt and Mordaunt as the top 3, they tend to be the most popular potential candidates in surveys of Tory members.
However it may be the next Tory leader ends up Leader of the Opposition not PM, there are rumours that if the 1922 cttee tries to change the rules to hold another VONC within a year then Boris would threaten to call a snap general election first. Patel would also be a contender for Leader of the Opposition, even if probably not PM at this time
Boris tries that he will be out of office quicker then he can get to the Palace
Depends, the repeal of the FTPA means the ability to call a general election is now back to being the prerogative of the PM.
Not a chance he would get away with that
As soon as he went to the Palace the Queen would have no choice but to dissolve Parliament if he asked, constitutionally.
The Opposition parties of course would fully support an early general election too given current polls
Depends if enough Boris supporters backed him, if more than 40 Boris loyalist MPs did then any new potential Tory leader and PM would not have a majority in Parliament as the Opposition parties would of course back an early general election too
You are suggesting outright destruction of the conservative party over your addiction to Boris
It is a curious position for a party loyalist, even in a hypothetical. In the event of a party split would loyalists divide by the side they liked most, or the side that managed to keep the branding?
Do MP's actually have to vote for a General Election any more? I thought it was back in the gift of the PM. Where are we with the FTPA?
It is and if Johnson wanted an early general election that is what he would get and no alternative Tory PM could be appointed if 40+ Johnson loyalist rebels backed still PM Johnson in that (which would also be supported by the opposition). For no alternative Tory PM could then command a majority in Parliament
Do MP's actually have to vote for a General Election any more? I thought it was back in the gift of the PM. Where are we with the FTPA?
It is and if Johnson wanted an early general election that is what he would get and no alternative Tory PM could be appointed if Johnson loyalist rebels backed still PM Johnson in that (which would also be supported by the opposition)
What do you mean "supported by the opposition", there's no vote in Parliament, its back to the Lascelles Principles.
I see that Boris’s big idea is to bring back sub-prime loans.
It's completely mad, just as Klarna begins to wobble the government is suggesting Wonga makes a phoenix like comeback.
'Klarna' ?
Klarna does finance for Internet purchases of modest priced things like clothes. It is consumerism on the never-never, and some cannot make the payments.
I don't know if anyone's been following Lancashir v Yorkshire in the 2020 - astonishing match: Yorkshire appeared to be cruising, but Lancashire chipped away wicket after wicket before giving Yorkshire a chance with a wide with three balls to go: the last ball needed to be struck for four to tie or six to win: the batsman lined up a mighty swipe and was ... just ... caught on the boundary. Astonishing match. And a proper match between proper teams - hard to see how the hundred can compete with this.
I live local to there and could hear big cheers out of the window. Thought Yorkshire had it based on the last cheer I heard but clearly not when I saw the BBC Sport website update!
It is clear to me, and must in reality be clear to you, that the Prime Minister is a cynical, self-regarding liar wholly unfit for any public office. There is no evading this very obvious fact by appeals to burden or standard of proof, rules of natural justice, etc. This is politics, not the law, and different rules apply.
In any case, when I initially wrote to you on this subject, you said that you proposed to await the publication of the Gray report. What is there in that report which in your view exonerates him from any of the charges against him?
Nor am I impressed by your claim that a narrow victory in the vote on Monday is itself evidence of his fitness to govern. I have no doubt that your salary as an MP looks a pittance to you, but you are paid it to exercise your own judgement on behalf of your constituents, not to toe party lines or to go with flows, nor to advance obviously circular and specious arguments.
In short, the only rational attitude to the Prime Minister is one of baffled disgust, and I regret to tell you that the same applies to his supporters. I have consistently voted Conservative since the General Election of 1979. Next time round I shall not do so. Nor shall I abstain: unless I particularly dislike the LibDem candidate, I shall positively campaign and vote in the increasingly realistic hope of repeating the result of 1997
Love ❤ Ishmael x
Is that rude enough?
That's a very good letter.
The worst part is the only bit Sir Geoffrey will take away (or the person reading his letters at any rate) is the 'unless I particularly dislike the LibDem candidate' part. And they'll therefore presume, in the end, the vote will return to them and so ignore it.
Do MP's actually have to vote for a General Election any more? I thought it was back in the gift of the PM. Where are we with the FTPA?
It is and if Johnson wanted an early general election that is what he would get and no alternative Tory PM could be appointed if Johnson loyalist rebels backed still PM Johnson in that (which would also be supported by the opposition)
The HoC is not involved in any election decision. Only HMQ who will refuse if Boris has gone rogue and the cabinet do not support a GE
Do MP's actually have to vote for a General Election any more? I thought it was back in the gift of the PM. Where are we with the FTPA?
It is and if Johnson wanted an early general election that is what he would get and no alternative Tory PM could be appointed if 40+ Johnson loyalist rebels backed still PM Johnson in that (which would also be supported by the opposition). For no alternative Tory PM could then command a majority in Parliament
And would such a situation be an advantage for the party? You seem very happy to contemplate it.
I see Garry Kasparov has picked up on the artillery theme on twitter. Slow, small quantities and apparently missing the necessary electronics. Are they worried about the Russians getting hold of them?
I would also add Wallace and Truss to Hunt and Mordaunt as the top 3, they tend to be the most popular potential candidates in surveys of Tory members.
However it may be the next Tory leader ends up Leader of the Opposition not PM, there are rumours that if the 1922 cttee tries to change the rules to hold another VONC within a year then Boris would threaten to call a snap general election first. Patel would also be a contender for Leader of the Opposition, even if probably not PM at this time
Boris tries that he will be out of office quicker then he can get to the Palace
Depends, the repeal of the FTPA means the ability to call a general election is now back to being the prerogative of the PM.
Holy shit. We need a written constitution. BoJo has blown the whole “unwritten” aspect for me
Written constitutions do not solve the issue of such chaotic individuals willing to ignore rules and conventions, if they have sufficient support to get away with it.
There are advantages to written constitutions (why else would almost all places have them), but more often than not when people make this type of plaintive cry the actual problem people want solved is not one of them. See also when people think it would eliminate confusion or dispute about constitutional powers.
The thing that worries me is an idiot like BoJo can rock up, and do what the hell is wants (accountable to only his party). Only safeguard to that is the 5 year limit currently.
Do MP's actually have to vote for a General Election any more? I thought it was back in the gift of the PM. Where are we with the FTPA?
It is and if Johnson wanted an early general election that is what he would get and no alternative Tory PM could be appointed if Johnson loyalist rebels backed still PM Johnson in that (which would also be supported by the opposition)
What do you mean "supported by the opposition", there's no vote in Parliament, its back to the Lascelles Principles.
Only if an alternative PM could command a majority in Parliament, which they couldn't if 40+ Johnson loyalist MPs backed still PM Johnson in calling for an early general election over another VONC in him, any new Tory PM would then have no majority in Parliament and could not be appointed in Johnson's place by the Queen
Do MP's actually have to vote for a General Election any more? I thought it was back in the gift of the PM. Where are we with the FTPA?
It is and if Johnson wanted an early general election that is what he would get and no alternative Tory PM could be appointed if 40+ Johnson loyalist rebels backed still PM Johnson in that (which would also be supported by the opposition). For no alternative Tory PM could then command a majority in Parliament
I give up
Thankfully there are sane voices still in the party who would prevent such madness
I would also add Wallace and Truss to Hunt and Mordaunt as the top 3, they tend to be the most popular potential candidates in surveys of Tory members.
However it may be the next Tory leader ends up Leader of the Opposition not PM, there are rumours that if the 1922 cttee tries to change the rules to hold another VONC within a year then Boris would threaten to call a snap general election first. Patel would also be a contender for Leader of the Opposition, even if probably not PM at this time
Boris tries that he will be out of office quicker then he can get to the Palace
Depends, the repeal of the FTPA means the ability to call a general election is now back to being the prerogative of the PM.
Holy shit. We need a written constitution. BoJo has blown the whole “unwritten” aspect for me
Written constitutions do not solve the issue of such chaotic individuals willing to ignore rules and conventions, if they have sufficient support to get away with it.
There are advantages to written constitutions (why else would almost all places have them), but more often than not when people make this type of plaintive cry the actual problem people want solved is not one of them. See also when people think it would eliminate confusion or dispute about constitutional powers.
The thing that worries me is an idiot like BoJo can rock up, and do what the hell is wants (accountable to only his party). Only safeguard to that is the 5 year limit currently.
He's accountable to Parliament and the electorate, same as any other idiot.
A written constitution has done nothing to preserve democracy or freedoms in the USA where people have wanted to abuse issues and had the power to get away with it, see the rampant voter suppression and other issues over there, or a partisan court upending decades of rulings and precedent.
The problem with written constitutions is that if someone wants to twist and abuse the writing to further their own agenda they can - and if people put too much faith in the constitution to protect them it will prove to be hollow succour when they need the protections.
This housing wealth is distorting the labour market now, too. I know plenty in my cohort who have discovered they don't need 2 salaries to live with the mortgage paid off. So. One retires. Or they both go part-time. And why shouldn't they when simply owning a home earns more than working does? Losing loads of experience from the workforce. Because of house prices.
That doesn't depend on house prices though: owning a home earns you exactly nothing, it just means your housing expenses are zero. If you've paid off the mortgage then all you need is income that covers your non-housing expenses -- and those are identical regardless of how much your house cost and how much your mortgage used to cost you. (The exception is if you're supplementing your income via "rent out a room" or if you invested in rental property.)
Yes. But there's no need to save for the future at all when your house is making £30k a year. It's psychology.
The pandemic is over, we've moved on already. Everyone has had the chance to have 3 or 4 vaccines if they want it and need it. Why bother with tests now when it wasn't done during the pandemic when it could have made a difference?"
The deaths from COVID in the US have been averaging about 200 a day for the last month. Yesterday, for example, according tothe Worldometers site, there were 345 deaths from COVID here.) That is far from the peaks of thousands per day, but it is still a serious public health problem here. Moreover, although we cannot now prevent COVID from becoming endemic, we can reduce it significantly.
And there are times when testing lets us follow the Golden Rule. For example, I will soon be meeting some relatives that I have not seen for months. Before I meet them, I will take one of the tests to insure that I do not transmit the virus to one of them. (That's especially important when you are meeting the very old, or the immune-compromised, of course.)
I see that Boris’s big idea is to bring back sub-prime loans.
It's completely mad, just as Klarna begins to wobble the government is suggesting Wonga makes a phoenix like comeback.
'Klarna' ?
Swedish “buy-now-pay-later” service.
Has expanded too aggressively and is now facing questions over its overall valuation and perhaps viability.
Materially insolvent within months, investors have sunk billions in and will have to weigh up whether it's worth sinking in another few billion or just cut their losses.
I fear for a lot of Northern European economies that are being propped up by ultra loose credit conditions that are suddenly snapping back.
My biggest worry is that we're something like 10 months into the gas price crisis (remember the gas subsidies given out last year to keep fertilizer plants running for CO2 and farming) and the government hasn't made any moves to rapidly increase generation capacity from alternative sources in that time. There's just no urgency to get anything done, just wishful thinking that this will all just go away in a few months but that few months just keeps getting further away.
It is clear to me, and must in reality be clear to you, that the Prime Minister is a cynical, self-regarding liar wholly unfit for any public office. There is no evading this very obvious fact by appeals to burden or standard of proof, rules of natural justice, etc. This is politics, not the law, and different rules apply.
In any case, when I initially wrote to you on this subject, you said that you proposed to await the publication of the Gray report. What is there in that report which in your view exonerates him from any of the charges against him?
Nor am I impressed by your claim that a narrow victory in the vote on Monday is itself evidence of his fitness to govern. I have no doubt that your salary as an MP looks a pittance to you, but you are paid it to exercise your own judgement on behalf of your constituents, not to toe party lines or to go with flows, nor to advance obviously circular and specious arguments.
In short, the only rational attitude to the Prime Minister is one of baffled disgust, and I regret to tell you that the same applies to his supporters. I have consistently voted Conservative since the General Election of 1979. Next time round I shall not do so. Nor shall I abstain: unless I particularly dislike the LibDem candidate, I shall positively campaign and vote in the increasingly realistic hope of repeating the result of 1997
Love ❤ Ishmael x
Is that rude enough?
I am guessing by your response, your email from Cox must have been remarkably similar to mine from Cairns. I might be going out on a limb here, but do you think No 10 has instructed the loyalists on the sort of boosterism BS that had to go into the letters?
Yes
I don't understand though why phatboi Cox feels the need to go along with this sort of shit. The only point of extremely rich MPs is that they don't have to, and I don't see Johnson giving him another outing as AG
Still in Sicily? Enjoying it?
Same with Cairns, an easy shoo in for Welsh Sec. if Johnson fell. I can only conclude he is an idiot
Yes I am. I'm in the North this time, going to have a look at Palermo Duomo tomorrow. I did the South East based in Marina Del Ragusa a few years ago. I can't get over how economically vibrant Sicily is.
Regards, and enjoy your days in the sun away from Johnsonian nonsense.
I love it here. Strong contender for favourite place evah
I grew up thinking Italy, and Sicily in particular was a corrupt economic hell hole. Look at the obvious poverty in Cinema Paradiso.
Well how times have changed. I haven't, as far as I am aware met a Mafia Don yet, here in Sicily. And **** me, what a turnaround, my own beloved country is becoming a corrupt economic hell hole run by a Mafia Don.
Do MP's actually have to vote for a General Election any more? I thought it was back in the gift of the PM. Where are we with the FTPA?
It is and if Johnson wanted an early general election that is what he would get and no alternative Tory PM could be appointed if 40+ Johnson loyalist rebels backed still PM Johnson in that (which would also be supported by the opposition). For no alternative Tory PM could then command a majority in Parliament
I give up
Thankfully there are sane voices still in the party who would prevent such madness
Trump commanded 121 loyalist representatives in the House GOP and 7 GOP Senators to the end on the EC affirmation vote in 2021
Spent the day in T and H. News you may have missed: the Indy leader of East Devon Council has joined the Lib Dems; the bar manger at Honiton Conservative Club is voting Lib Dem. The cautious prediction is that Lib Dems will get over 50% of the vote; the optimists are looking at 70%!
This housing wealth is distorting the labour market now, too. I know plenty in my cohort who have discovered they don't need 2 salaries to live with the mortgage paid off. So. One retires. Or they both go part-time. And why shouldn't they when simply owning a home earns more than working does? Losing loads of experience from the workforce. Because of house prices.
For all that I agree we need to deal with house price inflation, the situation you have just outlined would be even worse if house prices were lower. Many people are only still in work because they have a mortgage. As soon as your mortgage is paid off it becomes much easier to cut back on work or have one of a couple retire.
So I don't see how house price inflation is distorting the market in the way you claim. Contrary to popular belief many, if not most, people do not have a house as an investment. They have it as a place to live and it is usually their biggest outgoing each month as well.
This is not in any way an argument against ending the idiotic house price inflation, but I think your perspective on this is incorrect as far as its effect on the labour market. Indeed I think it is exactly the reverse.
I think I disagree, because mortages are fundamentally less burdensome for people who bought their houses earlier. People buying pretty much identical houses to mine now are locking in a price about twice as high as I paid a decade or so ago. Now that's extreme in some ways (not everywhere is on the verge of having a natty new rail link), but it's a wider problem. After all, I will have neighbours in my street whose house price and mortgage payments have been frozen in at half what I paid. (And in that case, their mortgage almost certainly isn't their biggest monthly outgoing, and hasn't been for a long time.)
So there's a generation above mine who can afford to retire unimaginably early and a generation below me who might never be able to afford to do so. Two nations, separated by house prices. Living in one street of generic London suburban houses.
Do MP's actually have to vote for a General Election any more? I thought it was back in the gift of the PM. Where are we with the FTPA?
It is and if Johnson wanted an early general election that is what he would get and no alternative Tory PM could be appointed if Johnson loyalist rebels backed still PM Johnson in that (which would also be supported by the opposition)
What do you mean "supported by the opposition", there's no vote in Parliament, its back to the Lascelles Principles.
Only if an alternative PM could command a majority in Parliament, which they couldn't if 40+ Johnson loyalist MPs backed still PM Johnson in calling for an early general election over another VONC in him, any new Tory PM would then have no majority in Parliament and could not be appointed in Johnson's place by the Queen
You should as if you actually want this to happen and you a representative of the party
The worst economic performance in the G20 excluding Russia. They're discussing it on C4 News.
Is it Brexit they want to know?
Interesting that the BBC are more balanced about this than Channel 4. A few points from the BBC report.
These are just predictions not actual measures. This year the UK will have the fastest growth in the G7 so 'worst performance' is frankly bollocks. Next year we are predicted to have the worst performance in the G7. So if that comes true then they will have a point. Until the it is nothing more than a prediction and, as the BBC says, there are a huge number of variables that could change it quite considerably.
As I understand the report it is because taxes are too high and a tax cutting budget is needed including vat, corporation tax, and increase personal allowances
Fascinating.
Is this all to be paid for with another thirty trillion quid in borrowing, or are we going back to austerity - in which case, what is the Government going to stop paying for this time?
Paid for by generating growth
That's just the Tory version of the magic money tree. We can spend what we like because for every pound less we raise in tax we'll get two more back through the proceeds of growth.
If it were that simple the Government could just cut taxes to zero and abolish itself. We'd all be millionaires.
People forget that there's the Laffer Curve isn't a straight line to zero, it has an upwards and downwards slope. You could be on the left of the peak, or the right of it, its like a bell curve.
If you're aiming to raise tax revenues, then raise taxes too much and its counterproductive. Cut taxes too much and its also counterproductive. The difficult question to answer is what is the optimal point, or points if its a curve with multiple peaks.
So difficult that nobody can get it right. So we end up with tax cuts for the already well off, fuelling asset price inflation, which benefits the already well off yet further. Meanwhile, tax cuts fail to compensate for the falling living standards of the already struggling, and do naff all for the very poor who already pay very little tax.
Oh, and the tax take won't magically increase, it will go down, and there will be cuts, and austerity, and they'll be heaped on the heads of those who can least afford them - mainly through yet more benefit freezes for the poor (working or otherwise) and yet more pay freezes for public sector workers.
We all know how the Conservative solution to hardship works - or, more accurately, doesn't. We've been there before and that's where they want to go again. Singing the same old tired songs, over and over again.
Except it has been got right in the past. Cutting taxes that were too high in the 80s led to serious economic growth that repaid the lower tax rates many times over.
The problem is that presently this Government is doing things all wrong. You need to cut taxes on the things you want to incentivise, like work, while taxing things you want to discourage, like smoking. This government is increasing taxes on working, while giving tax breaks to the retired. All that's going to do is give even more unearned money to the richest who aren't doing anything to work for it, while reducing the incentives to work for those who actually do something and generate for the economy and on who's backs the rest of society rests.
The taxes on those who work are far too high and need to be reduced. The taxes on those who aren't working and are just extracting rent from others without putting any effort in need to increase.
Spot on.
The weird thing is that I agree, mostly.
Reduce tax on income Increase tax on wealth Borrow to invest, but not much, cos inflation Increase interest rates Redistribute more aggressively Break cartels and monopolies Overhaul the planning system FFS Fix the trading relationship with the EU Give people a future to look fwd to.
I see Garry Kasparov has picked up on the artillery theme on twitter. Slow, small quantities and apparently missing the necessary electronics. Are they worried about the Russians getting hold of them?
I saw the comment earlier criticising the UK for 'only' sending 3 of our 44 artillery pieces.
To be honest (if I am reading this right) I am not sure we should be denuding our own front line forces to support Ukraine right now. If we can replace them as quickly as possible or send new equipment that is not part of our own immediate defence then fine but whatever we send is effectively gone for good so we need to make sure we are not leaving ourselves vulnerable.
I don't know how important artillery is to our battle plans so it may be this is worrying about nothing but before we start criticising the scale of our response it would be nice to know that what we are sending will not denude our own forces significantly.
Nick Palmer said: "It's got more male lately - someone commented a couple of months back about the rarity of female posters."
And I agree with him that's regrettable, partly because the female posters who do comment here are mostly quite good. And partly because I think they bring perspectives that I may miss. (I suppose that means that I agree -- to some extent -- with "difference feminism".)
It's better than it used to be.
Time was when female posters were as rare as Scottish Labour supporters. There are still too few but the situation has definitely improved.
Do MP's actually have to vote for a General Election any more? I thought it was back in the gift of the PM. Where are we with the FTPA?
It is and if Johnson wanted an early general election that is what he would get and no alternative Tory PM could be appointed if 40+ Johnson loyalist rebels backed still PM Johnson in that (which would also be supported by the opposition). For no alternative Tory PM could then command a majority in Parliament
I give up
Thankfully there are sane voices still in the party who would prevent such madness
Trump commanded 121 loyalist representatives in the House GOP and 7 GOP Senators to the end on the EC affirmation vote in 2021
Wow - we are now in Trump territory
Time for you to get a nice cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit methinks
I see Garry Kasparov has picked up on the artillery theme on twitter. Slow, small quantities and apparently missing the necessary electronics. Are they worried about the Russians getting hold of them?
Good article here on the current artillery situation. A bit reminiscent of our own 1915 shell crisis.
I see that Boris’s big idea is to bring back sub-prime loans.
It's completely mad, just as Klarna begins to wobble the government is suggesting Wonga makes a phoenix like comeback.
'Klarna' ?
Klarna does finance for Internet purchases of modest priced things like clothes. It is consumerism on the never-never, and some cannot make the payments.
I'm getting lots of targeted ads for bank accounts where you get "paid" three or four days before you actually get the transfer from your employer. Monzo, and someone else.
It is clear to me, and must in reality be clear to you, that the Prime Minister is a cynical, self-regarding liar wholly unfit for any public office. There is no evading this very obvious fact by appeals to burden or standard of proof, rules of natural justice, etc. This is politics, not the law, and different rules apply.
In any case, when I initially wrote to you on this subject, you said that you proposed to await the publication of the Gray report. What is there in that report which in your view exonerates him from any of the charges against him?
Nor am I impressed by your claim that a narrow victory in the vote on Monday is itself evidence of his fitness to govern. I have no doubt that your salary as an MP looks a pittance to you, but you are paid it to exercise your own judgement on behalf of your constituents, not to toe party lines or to go with flows, nor to advance obviously circular and specious arguments.
In short, the only rational attitude to the Prime Minister is one of baffled disgust, and I regret to tell you that the same applies to his supporters. I have consistently voted Conservative since the General Election of 1979. Next time round I shall not do so. Nor shall I abstain: unless I particularly dislike the LibDem candidate, I shall positively campaign and vote in the increasingly realistic hope of repeating the result of 1997
Love ❤ Ishmael x
Is that rude enough?
I am guessing by your response, your email from Cox must have been remarkably similar to mine from Cairns. I might be going out on a limb here, but do you think No 10 has instructed the loyalists on the sort of boosterism BS that had to go into the letters?
Yes
I don't understand though why phatboi Cox feels the need to go along with this sort of shit. The only point of extremely rich MPs is that they don't have to, and I don't see Johnson giving him another outing as AG
Still in Sicily? Enjoying it?
Same with Cairns, an easy shoo in for Welsh Sec. if Johnson fell. I can only conclude he is an idiot
Yes I am. I'm in the North this time, going to have a look at Palermo Duomo tomorrow. I did the South East based in Marina Del Ragusa a few years ago. I can't get over how economically vibrant Sicily is.
Regards, and enjoy your days in the sun away from Johnsonian nonsense.
I love it here. Strong contender for favourite place evah
[snip]
Well how times have changed. I haven't, as far as I am aware met a Mafia Don yet, here in Sicily. And **** me, what a turnaround, my own beloved country is becoming a corrupt economic hell hole run by a Mafia Don.
This housing wealth is distorting the labour market now, too. I know plenty in my cohort who have discovered they don't need 2 salaries to live with the mortgage paid off. So. One retires. Or they both go part-time. And why shouldn't they when simply owning a home earns more than working does? Losing loads of experience from the workforce. Because of house prices.
For all that I agree we need to deal with house price inflation, the situation you have just outlined would be even worse if house prices were lower. Many people are only still in work because they have a mortgage. As soon as your mortgage is paid off it becomes much easier to cut back on work or have one of a couple retire.
So I don't see how house price inflation is distorting the market in the way you claim. Contrary to popular belief many, if not most, people do not have a house as an investment. They have it as a place to live and it is usually their biggest outgoing each month as well.
This is not in any way an argument against ending the idiotic house price inflation, but I think your perspective on this is incorrect as far as its effect on the labour market. Indeed I think it is exactly the reverse.
I think I disagree, because mortages are fundamentally less burdensome for people who bought their houses earlier. People buying pretty much identical houses to mine now are locking in a price about twice as high as I paid a decade or so ago. Now that's extreme in some ways (not everywhere is on the verge of having a natty new rail link), but it's a wider problem. After all, I will have neighbours in my street whose house price and mortgage payments have been frozen in at half what I paid. (And in that case, their mortgage almost certainly isn't their biggest monthly outgoing, and hasn't been for a long time.)
So there's a generation above mine who can afford to retire unimaginably early and a generation below me who might never be able to afford to do so. Two nations, separated by house prices. Living in one street of generic London suburban houses.
And yet that isn't an issue that is answered by lower house prices. Everyone needs somewhere to live and most people are not looking at their house as an investment but rather as their home.
Moreover a lot of those who do look at it as an investment do so because successive government's have so fucked up the pension system that it is no longer a guarantee of a half way reasonable retirement.
The worst economic performance in the G20 excluding Russia. They're discussing it on C4 News.
Is it Brexit they want to know?
Interesting that the BBC are more balanced about this than Channel 4. A few points from the BBC report.
These are just predictions not actual measures. This year the UK will have the fastest growth in the G7 so 'worst performance' is frankly bollocks. Next year we are predicted to have the worst performance in the G7. So if that comes true then they will have a point. Until the it is nothing more than a prediction and, as the BBC says, there are a huge number of variables that could change it quite considerably.
As I understand the report it is because taxes are too high and a tax cutting budget is needed including vat, corporation tax, and increase personal allowances
Fascinating.
Is this all to be paid for with another thirty trillion quid in borrowing, or are we going back to austerity - in which case, what is the Government going to stop paying for this time?
Paid for by generating growth
That's just the Tory version of the magic money tree. We can spend what we like because for every pound less we raise in tax we'll get two more back through the proceeds of growth.
If it were that simple the Government could just cut taxes to zero and abolish itself. We'd all be millionaires.
People forget that there's the Laffer Curve isn't a straight line to zero, it has an upwards and downwards slope. You could be on the left of the peak, or the right of it, its like a bell curve.
If you're aiming to raise tax revenues, then raise taxes too much and its counterproductive. Cut taxes too much and its also counterproductive. The difficult question to answer is what is the optimal point, or points if its a curve with multiple peaks.
So difficult that nobody can get it right. So we end up with tax cuts for the already well off, fuelling asset price inflation, which benefits the already well off yet further. Meanwhile, tax cuts fail to compensate for the falling living standards of the already struggling, and do naff all for the very poor who already pay very little tax.
Oh, and the tax take won't magically increase, it will go down, and there will be cuts, and austerity, and they'll be heaped on the heads of those who can least afford them - mainly through yet more benefit freezes for the poor (working or otherwise) and yet more pay freezes for public sector workers.
We all know how the Conservative solution to hardship works - or, more accurately, doesn't. We've been there before and that's where they want to go again. Singing the same old tired songs, over and over again.
Except it has been got right in the past. Cutting taxes that were too high in the 80s led to serious economic growth that repaid the lower tax rates many times over.
The problem is that presently this Government is doing things all wrong. You need to cut taxes on the things you want to incentivise, like work, while taxing things you want to discourage, like smoking. This government is increasing taxes on working, while giving tax breaks to the retired. All that's going to do is give even more unearned money to the richest who aren't doing anything to work for it, while reducing the incentives to work for those who actually do something and generate for the economy and on who's backs the rest of society rests.
The taxes on those who work are far too high and need to be reduced. The taxes on those who aren't working and are just extracting rent from others without putting any effort in need to increase.
Spot on.
The weird thing is that I agree, mostly.
Reduce tax on income Increase tax on wealth Borrow to invest, but not much, cos inflation Increase interest rates Redistribute more aggressively Break cartels and monopolies Overhaul the planning system FFS Fix the trading relationship with the EU Give people a future to look fwd to.
One immediate thing we could do is break up the cartel that now exists within the petrol forecourt sector. That alone will bring margins back down to realistic levels and it could be done within a few weeks with primary legislation.
This housing wealth is distorting the labour market now, too. I know plenty in my cohort who have discovered they don't need 2 salaries to live with the mortgage paid off. So. One retires. Or they both go part-time. And why shouldn't they when simply owning a home earns more than working does? Losing loads of experience from the workforce. Because of house prices.
For all that I agree we need to deal with house price inflation, the situation you have just outlined would be even worse if house prices were lower. Many people are only still in work because they have a mortgage. As soon as your mortgage is paid off it becomes much easier to cut back on work or have one of a couple retire.
So I don't see how house price inflation is distorting the market in the way you claim. Contrary to popular belief many, if not most, people do not have a house as an investment. They have it as a place to live and it is usually their biggest outgoing each month as well.
This is not in any way an argument against ending the idiotic house price inflation, but I think your perspective on this is incorrect as far as its effect on the labour market. Indeed I think it is exactly the reverse.
I think I disagree, because mortages are fundamentally less burdensome for people who bought their houses earlier. People buying pretty much identical houses to mine now are locking in a price about twice as high as I paid a decade or so ago. Now that's extreme in some ways (not everywhere is on the verge of having a natty new rail link), but it's a wider problem. After all, I will have neighbours in my street whose house price and mortgage payments have been frozen in at half what I paid. (And in that case, their mortgage almost certainly isn't their biggest monthly outgoing, and hasn't been for a long time.)
So there's a generation above mine who can afford to retire unimaginably early and a generation below me who might never be able to afford to do so. Two nations, separated by house prices. Living in one street of generic London suburban houses.
My experience.is anecdotal. Lots of folks in their fifties simply quitting work. They specifically cite value of house as their reasoning.
Boris Johnson will tomorrow announce plans to allow low earners to use benefits to buy a home
He wants to change rules so people can use benefits to pass affordability checks & make monthly mortgage repayments
Lol what drivel
Wow that must have come from Gove as that is a very sensible policy that I have advocated for on this site in the past. I am shocked to see the Conservatives do that. 😲
I see that Boris’s big idea is to bring back sub-prime loans.
It's completely mad, just as Klarna begins to wobble the government is suggesting Wonga makes a phoenix like comeback.
'Klarna' ?
Swedish “buy-now-pay-later” service.
Has expanded too aggressively and is now facing questions over its overall valuation and perhaps viability.
Materially insolvent within months, investors have sunk billions in and will have to weigh up whether it's worth sinking in another few billion or just cut their losses.
I fear for a lot of Northern European economies that are being propped up by ultra loose credit conditions that are suddenly snapping back.
My biggest worry is that we're something like 10 months into the gas price crisis (remember the gas subsidies given out last year to keep fertilizer plants running for CO2 and farming) and the government hasn't made any moves to rapidly increase generation capacity from alternative sources in that time. There's just no urgency to get anything done, just wishful thinking that this will all just go away in a few months but that few months just keeps getting further away.
Max, you forgot the “dash for nuclear” which was savagely torn apart in Jesse Norman’s letter.
Edit: I watched PMQs earlier and Boris was his usual boosterish self while Keir practiced the lines spat out by the Labour Party’s AI bot.
Boris boasted something about Britain’s incredibly strong economy and…it’s like watching something from an alternative reality.
Do MP's actually have to vote for a General Election any more? I thought it was back in the gift of the PM. Where are we with the FTPA?
It is and if Johnson wanted an early general election that is what he would get and no alternative Tory PM could be appointed if 40+ Johnson loyalist rebels backed still PM Johnson in that (which would also be supported by the opposition). For no alternative Tory PM could then command a majority in Parliament
I give up
Thankfully there are sane voices still in the party who would prevent such madness
Trump commanded 121 loyalist representatives in the House GOP and 7 GOP Senators to the end on the EC affirmation vote in 2021
Boris Johnson will tomorrow announce plans to allow low earners to use benefits to buy a home
He wants to change rules so people can use benefits to pass affordability checks & make monthly mortgage repayments
Lol what drivel
How long would it take until the first "I was in receipt of benefits so I bought a house and now I've been re-assessed I can't get that benefit any more so now not only am I skint but I'm also homeless" story?
I don't know if anyone's been following Lancashir v Yorkshire in the 2020 - astonishing match: Yorkshire appeared to be cruising, but Lancashire chipped away wicket after wicket before giving Yorkshire a chance with a wide with three balls to go: the last ball needed to be struck for four to tie or six to win: the batsman lined up a mighty swipe and was ... just ... caught on the boundary. Astonishing match. And a proper match between proper teams - hard to see how the hundred can compete with this.
I live local to there and could hear big cheers out of the window. Thought Yorkshire had it based on the last cheer I heard but clearly not when I saw the BBC Sport website update!
I think that cheer was for the wide in the last ball but three!
This is an empty threat from BoJo. Sure he could call an election. Surest way to lose one. Especially as it would be on current boundaries. And the chance of somebody else re-writing the rules for a new Review.
Boris Johnson will tomorrow announce plans to allow low earners to use benefits to buy a home
He wants to change rules so people can use benefits to pass affordability checks & make monthly mortgage repayments
Lol what drivel
Wow that must have come from Gove as that is a very sensible policy that I have advocated for on this site in the past. I am shocked to see the Conservatives do that. 😲
Indeed if in parts of the country the mortgage is equivalent to the monthly rent then investing in their own home does seem an excellent policy
I don't know if anyone's been following Lancashir v Yorkshire in the 2020 - astonishing match: Yorkshire appeared to be cruising, but Lancashire chipped away wicket after wicket before giving Yorkshire a chance with a wide with three balls to go: the last ball needed to be struck for four to tie or six to win: the batsman lined up a mighty swipe and was ... just ... caught on the boundary. Astonishing match. And a proper match between proper teams - hard to see how the hundred can compete with this.
The last one was a draw I think and an excellent watch
A tie, technically.
But yes, and in my experience most of these games are excellent watches. It really didn't need another, shorter, uglier version.
I see Garry Kasparov has picked up on the artillery theme on twitter. Slow, small quantities and apparently missing the necessary electronics. Are they worried about the Russians getting hold of them?
I saw the comment earlier criticising the UK for 'only' sending 3 of our 44 artillery pieces.
To be honest (if I am reading this right) I am not sure we should be denuding our own front line forces to support Ukraine right now. If we can replace them as quickly as possible or send new equipment that is not part of our own immediate defence then fine but whatever we send is effectively gone for good so we need to make sure we are not leaving ourselves vulnerable.
I don't know how important artillery is to our battle plans so it may be this is worrying about nothing but before we start criticising the scale of our response it would be nice to know that what we are sending will not denude our own forces significantly.
There's only one useful place for our artillery right now. And that is in Ukraine.
They really aren't that much use in any scenario we have seen with the Russians. Our best kit in the air - planes, cruise missiles - would devastate what is currently left of Russia's offensive capability. Their artillery wouldn't last until tea time. Without that, they have nothing we need to be worried about.
And we aren't going to be shelling Al Qaeda or the Taliban any time soon.
This housing wealth is distorting the labour market now, too. I know plenty in my cohort who have discovered they don't need 2 salaries to live with the mortgage paid off. So. One retires. Or they both go part-time. And why shouldn't they when simply owning a home earns more than working does? Losing loads of experience from the workforce. Because of house prices.
For all that I agree we need to deal with house price inflation, the situation you have just outlined would be even worse if house prices were lower. Many people are only still in work because they have a mortgage. As soon as your mortgage is paid off it becomes much easier to cut back on work or have one of a couple retire.
So I don't see how house price inflation is distorting the market in the way you claim. Contrary to popular belief many, if not most, people do not have a house as an investment. They have it as a place to live and it is usually their biggest outgoing each month as well.
This is not in any way an argument against ending the idiotic house price inflation, but I think your perspective on this is incorrect as far as its effect on the labour market. Indeed I think it is exactly the reverse.
I think I disagree, because mortages are fundamentally less burdensome for people who bought their houses earlier. People buying pretty much identical houses to mine now are locking in a price about twice as high as I paid a decade or so ago. Now that's extreme in some ways (not everywhere is on the verge of having a natty new rail link), but it's a wider problem. After all, I will have neighbours in my street whose house price and mortgage payments have been frozen in at half what I paid. (And in that case, their mortgage almost certainly isn't their biggest monthly outgoing, and hasn't been for a long time.)
So there's a generation above mine who can afford to retire unimaginably early and a generation below me who might never be able to afford to do so. Two nations, separated by house prices. Living in one street of generic London suburban houses.
My experience.is anecdotal. Lots of folks in their fifties simply quitting work. They specifically cite value of house as their reasoning.
In part seeing the paper value of their house as their retirement pot.
The worst economic performance in the G20 excluding Russia. They're discussing it on C4 News.
Is it Brexit they want to know?
Interesting that the BBC are more balanced about this than Channel 4. A few points from the BBC report.
These are just predictions not actual measures. This year the UK will have the fastest growth in the G7 so 'worst performance' is frankly bollocks. Next year we are predicted to have the worst performance in the G7. So if that comes true then they will have a point. Until the it is nothing more than a prediction and, as the BBC says, there are a huge number of variables that could change it quite considerably.
As I understand the report it is because taxes are too high and a tax cutting budget is needed including vat, corporation tax, and increase personal allowances
Fascinating.
Is this all to be paid for with another thirty trillion quid in borrowing, or are we going back to austerity - in which case, what is the Government going to stop paying for this time?
Paid for by generating growth
That's just the Tory version of the magic money tree. We can spend what we like because for every pound less we raise in tax we'll get two more back through the proceeds of growth.
If it were that simple the Government could just cut taxes to zero and abolish itself. We'd all be millionaires.
People forget that there's the Laffer Curve isn't a straight line to zero, it has an upwards and downwards slope. You could be on the left of the peak, or the right of it, its like a bell curve.
If you're aiming to raise tax revenues, then raise taxes too much and its counterproductive. Cut taxes too much and its also counterproductive. The difficult question to answer is what is the optimal point, or points if its a curve with multiple peaks.
So difficult that nobody can get it right. So we end up with tax cuts for the already well off, fuelling asset price inflation, which benefits the already well off yet further. Meanwhile, tax cuts fail to compensate for the falling living standards of the already struggling, and do naff all for the very poor who already pay very little tax.
Oh, and the tax take won't magically increase, it will go down, and there will be cuts, and austerity, and they'll be heaped on the heads of those who can least afford them - mainly through yet more benefit freezes for the poor (working or otherwise) and yet more pay freezes for public sector workers.
We all know how the Conservative solution to hardship works - or, more accurately, doesn't. We've been there before and that's where they want to go again. Singing the same old tired songs, over and over again.
Except it has been got right in the past. Cutting taxes that were too high in the 80s led to serious economic growth that repaid the lower tax rates many times over.
The problem is that presently this Government is doing things all wrong. You need to cut taxes on the things you want to incentivise, like work, while taxing things you want to discourage, like smoking. This government is increasing taxes on working, while giving tax breaks to the retired. All that's going to do is give even more unearned money to the richest who aren't doing anything to work for it, while reducing the incentives to work for those who actually do something and generate for the economy and on who's backs the rest of society rests.
The taxes on those who work are far too high and need to be reduced. The taxes on those who aren't working and are just extracting rent from others without putting any effort in need to increase.
Spot on.
The weird thing is that I agree, mostly.
Reduce tax on income Increase tax on wealth Borrow to invest, but not much, cos inflation Increase interest rates Redistribute more aggressively Break cartels and monopolies Overhaul the planning system FFS Fix the trading relationship with the EU Give people a future to look fwd to.
One immediate thing we could do is break up the cartel that now exists within the petrol forecourt sector. That alone will bring margins back down to realistic levels and it could be done within a few weeks with primary legislation.
There are cartels across the UK economy.
One of the best things about the UK is the supermarket sector which is ruthlessly efficient and delivers some of the lowest cost food in the world.
This is an empty threat from BoJo. Sure he could call an election. Surest way to lose one. Especially as it would be on current boundaries. And the chance of somebody else re-writing the rules for a new Review.
I see that Boris’s big idea is to bring back sub-prime loans.
It's completely mad, just as Klarna begins to wobble the government is suggesting Wonga makes a phoenix like comeback.
'Klarna' ?
Swedish “buy-now-pay-later” service.
Has expanded too aggressively and is now facing questions over its overall valuation and perhaps viability.
Materially insolvent within months, investors have sunk billions in and will have to weigh up whether it's worth sinking in another few billion or just cut their losses.
I fear for a lot of Northern European economies that are being propped up by ultra loose credit conditions that are suddenly snapping back.
My biggest worry is that we're something like 10 months into the gas price crisis (remember the gas subsidies given out last year to keep fertilizer plants running for CO2 and farming) and the government hasn't made any moves to rapidly increase generation capacity from alternative sources in that time. There's just no urgency to get anything done, just wishful thinking that this will all just go away in a few months but that few months just keeps getting further away.
Max, you forgot the “dash for nuclear” which was savagely torn apart in Jesse Norman’s letter.
Yes, a dash for nuclear which will produce its first kW of electricity in 15 years. Very useful. I'm not against the idea of nuclear but it does nothing to increase electricity supply by 50% within a year which is what the government needed to start planning when gas prices spiked. Everything we do with gas can be done with electricity, we just need a lot more of it.
There just seems to be no one at cabinet level having that discussion, how do we rapidly increase electricity supply by 50% within 12 months, how do we do it without increasing our carbon footprint and what do we need to get started tomorrow. Just pie in the sky rubbish about 7 nuclear plants using the EPR design that has still yet to reliably produce any electricity at scale.
This housing wealth is distorting the labour market now, too. I know plenty in my cohort who have discovered they don't need 2 salaries to live with the mortgage paid off. So. One retires. Or they both go part-time. And why shouldn't they when simply owning a home earns more than working does? Losing loads of experience from the workforce. Because of house prices.
For all that I agree we need to deal with house price inflation, the situation you have just outlined would be even worse if house prices were lower. Many people are only still in work because they have a mortgage. As soon as your mortgage is paid off it becomes much easier to cut back on work or have one of a couple retire.
So I don't see how house price inflation is distorting the market in the way you claim. Contrary to popular belief many, if not most, people do not have a house as an investment. They have it as a place to live and it is usually their biggest outgoing each month as well.
This is not in any way an argument against ending the idiotic house price inflation, but I think your perspective on this is incorrect as far as its effect on the labour market. Indeed I think it is exactly the reverse.
I think I disagree, because mortages are fundamentally less burdensome for people who bought their houses earlier. People buying pretty much identical houses to mine now are locking in a price about twice as high as I paid a decade or so ago. Now that's extreme in some ways (not everywhere is on the verge of having a natty new rail link), but it's a wider problem. After all, I will have neighbours in my street whose house price and mortgage payments have been frozen in at half what I paid. (And in that case, their mortgage almost certainly isn't their biggest monthly outgoing, and hasn't been for a long time.)
So there's a generation above mine who can afford to retire unimaginably early and a generation below me who might never be able to afford to do so. Two nations, separated by house prices. Living in one street of generic London suburban houses.
My experience.is anecdotal. Lots of folks in their fifties simply quitting work. They specifically cite value of house as their reasoning.
In part seeing the paper value of their house as their retirement pot.
Which, if you plan to retire to a cheaper locale is totally rational.
I see Garry Kasparov has picked up on the artillery theme on twitter. Slow, small quantities and apparently missing the necessary electronics. Are they worried about the Russians getting hold of them?
The French Cesars have all control kit for sure. And the Dutch/German units have apparently not only that, but have been fully integrated into the Ukrainian-built fire control app, GIS Arta.
Boris Johnson will tomorrow announce plans to allow low earners to use benefits to buy a home
He wants to change rules so people can use benefits to pass affordability checks & make monthly mortgage repayments
Lol what drivel
Wow that must have come from Gove as that is a very sensible policy that I have advocated for on this site in the past. I am shocked to see the Conservatives do that. 😲
Indeed if in parts of the country the mortgage is equivalent to the monthly rent then investing in their own home does seem an excellent policy
I pay significantly less for my one bed mortgage than I did for my two bed shared private rental.
Then I found out what my girlfriend pays for her one bed rental... ouch.
Comments
Mind you huge oil reserves do not mean great wealth. Or even any wealth. Just look at the country with the largest reserves in the world - poor old Venezuela.
The old won’t vote for many of the things above, and they vote en masse.
Even Big G, who agrees (at least at a broad level) noted just before that Labour won’t win with - for example - a tax on housing. He would likely add inheritance. What else is left apart from capital gains which - property aside - is closer to income than wealth.
It does need them to care more about the next generation, but fat chance of that outside their own immediate families.
The current situation (houses "generate" more wealth and tax-free than workers can generate and they get taxed on it) just isn't on. Forget pennies on or off the tax rate, we are collectively stuffed if we don't fix that.
It really annoys me when I do not get a straight answer, after all Cairns was upfront and honest
(The Post Office is distributing them and there are still a few bugs in their system. I have, so far, received at least 7 emails telling me that the tests are coming, when two would have been plenty. But they are getting them to those who ask for them, which is the main thing.
On the other hand, the site for ordering them seems quite well done: https://www.covid.gov/tests )
The vonc would happen on his way and at present Raab would form the government
I really do not understand where you come up with these fantasies
Essentially he lied to me, suggesting that Johnson had been exonorated by the police after a full investigation which we all know to be patently untrue.
The pandemic is over, we've moved on already. Everyone has had the chance to have 3 or 4 vaccines if they want it and need it. Why bother with tests now when it wasn't done during the pandemic when it could have made a difference?
I know plenty in my cohort who have discovered they don't need 2 salaries to live with the mortgage paid off. So. One retires. Or they both go part-time.
And why shouldn't they when simply owning a home earns more than working does?
Losing loads of experience from the workforce. Because of house prices.
That requires both a new PM to be appointed by the Queen having won a Tory leadership election after Johnson lost a VONC and with all former Johnson supporters supporting them rather than voting with the Opposition for an early general election
It's quite scary how much has changed in two weeks and also how little. The market feels different, extremely hostile. Looking for all weaknesses within nations. Sadly, with the c*** in charge we are a nation riddled with weaknesses, rising taxes, gigantic interest bill, terrible inflation, no plan to cut taxes, no investment plan, no supply side solutions. Just nothing.
And I agree with him that's regrettable, partly because the female posters who do comment here are mostly quite good. And partly because I think they bring perspectives that I may miss. (I suppose that means that I agree -- to some extent -- with "difference feminism".)
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1534613192202235907
Where are we with the FTPA?
There are advantages to written constitutions (why else would almost all places have them), but more often than not when people make this type of plaintive cry the actual problem people want solved is not one of them. See also when people think it would eliminate confusion or dispute about constitutional powers.
So I don't see how house price inflation is distorting the market in the way you claim. Contrary to popular belief many, if not most, people do not have a house as an investment. They have it as a place to live and it is usually their biggest outgoing each month as well.
This is not in any way an argument against ending the idiotic house price inflation, but I think your perspective on this is incorrect as far as its effect on the labour market. Indeed I think it is exactly the reverse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_and_Calling_of_Parliament_Act_2022
Yes the market already was and will continue to see USB-C as the standard, and that's only likely to escalate further with the EU's directive, but if someone where to invent a superior alternative there should be nothing in British law preventing that from being offered here first even if it can't be offered in the sclerotic continent.
But of course he won't
Has expanded too aggressively and is now facing questions over its overall valuation and perhaps viability.
BoJo can rock up, and do what the hell is wants (accountable to only his party). Only safeguard to that is the 5 year limit currently.
Thankfully there are sane voices still in the party who would prevent such madness
A written constitution has done nothing to preserve democracy or freedoms in the USA where people have wanted to abuse issues and had the power to get away with it, see the rampant voter suppression and other issues over there, or a partisan court upending decades of rulings and precedent.
The problem with written constitutions is that if someone wants to twist and abuse the writing to further their own agenda they can - and if people put too much faith in the constitution to protect them it will prove to be hollow succour when they need the protections.
It's psychology.
"What's the point?
The pandemic is over, we've moved on already. Everyone has had the chance to have 3 or 4 vaccines if they want it and need it. Why bother with tests now when it wasn't done during the pandemic when it could have made a difference?"
The deaths from COVID in the US have been averaging about 200 a day for the last month. Yesterday, for example, according tothe Worldometers site, there were 345 deaths from COVID here.) That is far from the peaks of thousands per day, but it is still a serious public health problem here. Moreover, although we cannot now prevent COVID from becoming endemic, we can reduce it significantly.
And there are times when testing lets us follow the Golden Rule. For example, I will soon be meeting some relatives that I have not seen for months. Before I meet them, I will take one of the tests to insure that I do not transmit the virus to one of them. (That's especially important when you are meeting the very old, or the immune-compromised, of course.)
I fear for a lot of Northern European economies that are being propped up by ultra loose credit conditions that are suddenly snapping back.
My biggest worry is that we're something like 10 months into the gas price crisis (remember the gas subsidies given out last year to keep fertilizer plants running for CO2 and farming) and the government hasn't made any moves to rapidly increase generation capacity from alternative sources in that time. There's just no urgency to get anything done, just wishful thinking that this will all just go away in a few months but that few months just keeps getting further away.
Well how times have changed. I haven't, as far as I am aware met a Mafia Don yet, here in Sicily. And **** me, what a turnaround, my own beloved country is becoming a corrupt economic hell hole run by a Mafia Don.
Oh and the weather is much better here too.
Smells like a bastardised version of “Help to Buy” with extra moral hazard baked in. It’s Boris all over.
So there's a generation above mine who can afford to retire unimaginably early and a generation below me who might never be able to afford to do so. Two nations, separated by house prices. Living in one street of generic London suburban houses.
Words fail me
To be honest (if I am reading this right) I am not sure we should be denuding our own front line forces to support Ukraine right now. If we can replace them as quickly as possible or send new equipment that is not part of our own immediate defence then fine but whatever we send is effectively gone for good so we need to make sure we are not leaving ourselves vulnerable.
I don't know how important artillery is to our battle plans so it may be this is worrying about nothing but before we start criticising the scale of our response it would be nice to know that what we are sending will not denude our own forces significantly.
Time was when female posters were as rare as Scottish Labour supporters. There are still too few but the situation has definitely improved.
I see Fitalass has returned. That helps.
Time for you to get a nice cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit methinks
https://kyivindependent.com/national/how-western-heavy-weaponry-can-make-a-difference-in-the-war-in-ukraine/
It feels a bit weird, and dangerous.
Boris Johnson will tomorrow announce plans to allow low earners to use benefits to buy a home
He wants to change rules so people can use benefits to pass affordability checks & make monthly mortgage repayments
Lol what drivel
Moreover a lot of those who do look at it as an investment do so because successive government's have so fucked up the pension system that it is no longer a guarantee of a half way reasonable retirement.
One immediate thing we could do is break up the cartel that now exists within the petrol forecourt sector. That alone will bring margins back down to realistic levels and it could be done within a few weeks with primary legislation.
Edit: I watched PMQs earlier and Boris was his usual boosterish self while Keir practiced the lines spat out by the Labour Party’s AI bot.
Boris boasted something about Britain’s incredibly strong economy and…it’s like watching something from an alternative reality.
Trump 232 EVs
Not long, I'm guessing.
Sure he could call an election. Surest way to lose one. Especially as it would be on current boundaries. And the chance of somebody else re-writing the rules for a new Review.
But yes, and in my experience most of these games are excellent watches. It really didn't need another, shorter, uglier version.
They really aren't that much use in any scenario we have seen with the Russians. Our best kit in the air - planes, cruise missiles - would devastate what is currently left of Russia's offensive capability. Their artillery wouldn't last until tea time. Without that, they have nothing we need to be worried about.
And we aren't going to be shelling Al Qaeda or the Taliban any time soon.
One of the best things about the UK is the supermarket sector which is ruthlessly efficient and delivers some of the lowest cost food in the world.
Do more of that!
There just seems to be no one at cabinet level having that discussion, how do we rapidly increase electricity supply by 50% within 12 months, how do we do it without increasing our carbon footprint and what do we need to get started tomorrow. Just pie in the sky rubbish about 7 nuclear plants using the EPR design that has still yet to reliably produce any electricity at scale.
Then I found out what my girlfriend pays for her one bed rental... ouch.