Max definitely has a bee in his bonnet about landlords, I’m convinced he had a massive argument with one in a previous life. Making it impossible to be a landlord, would simply raise rents for those who can’t afford to buy, or don’t want to buy - rents that, in London, are already unaffordable for many.
The current government’s biggest failing has been on planning reform, the whole point of a majority is to push through the necessary but unpopular. Gove’s reforms on rentals are a good start though, he’s the one minister with a pile of well-thought-through ideas.
I have zero problems with landlords - I have a big problem with BTL landlords as most of them are amateurville and anything for an extra buck.
We really do need an awful lot more build to rent property funded for and managed professional on behalf of pension funds.....
With suitable incentive / changes to the market so that private owner occupier residential property is kept as private (owner occupier) property with amateur landlords discouraged.
Yes, there's a lot in that. I've lived for many years in small flats with excellent landlords, but usually because they were run by professional agencies who generally responded to issues within 24 hours.
And, as I've said before, you can assign Gove to anything at all and he will *always* come up with something interesting - not always right, but always innovative. He's one of the most under-estimated people in government. On this issue, though, there's not enough money behind the initiative to make a significant difference.
I predicted the Tories would lose both seats but Boris would stay. Sadly - for the Conservative Party - this appears to be accurate on all counts
Boris is clearly steering his Party to a catastrophic defeat. They need to oust him now
Recall the Golden Bough. The sacrifice of the king propitiates the angry gods, and thus the tribe is saved. It is time to propitiate; because the gods - AKA the voters - are VERY angry
And if, in the process, the Tory core has to put up with some social liberalism that it finds distasteful, then tough. If it should come to pass, a heavy Conservative defeat at the next election that allows this to happen will be as much a monument to their greed as it will be to Johnson's self-absorption and venality.
Wokeness is not “social liberalism”, it is much more sinister than that
I entirely agree with you on the predatory pensioners. We need a government for the young
Unfortunately I don’t think Starmer’s Labour is it. They are as clueless - policy wise - as the Tories.
But then, looking at the headlines in today’s FT, with emergencies across the world from humble Sri Lanka to mighty America, with the EU warning of “terrible splits” in the bloc as Russia shuts off the gas, I wonder if any politician anywhere has even a vague idea how to handle what’s coming our way
Brace
I really hate the way particular groups are described in offensive ways - "feckless young", "predatory pensioners" etc. This sort of tribal culture war language will do nothing to repair society.
The current Tory party is exhausted and out of good ideas. Boris is a disgrace to his office and his government is degrading our democracy. His MPs should grow a spine, throw him out and start the process of rebuilding a Tory party that does not shame Britain. I doubt they will. But it is what they ought to do.if they don't the Tories will be out of power for a long time which will lead to the same problems with Labour. Parties that stay in power for too long become a menace.
We need policies for the hard-working of all ages, the young and those who are poor and just about managing. We need proper housebuilding, to do something about the grotesque interest rates on student loans and the absurd obstacles we have put in the way of those who try to export. We need proper investment in infrastructure in all parts of the country and we need to repair relations with our nearest neighbours.
We do not need more constitutional jiggery-pokery.
What we need above all is a government which explains clearly that times are going to be hard for the next few years as we deal with the consequences of Brexit, Covid and world instabilities so that all of us will have to tighten our belts but that this will need to be done fairly. No-one will be immune but we will try our damndest to make sure that those with the greatest wealth pay their fair share. For a start, NI on everyone who works, no matter what their age , rises in pensions should be no higher than what is offered to other public sector workers and council tax bands above the current highest levels to capture the increase in house values in recent years. I'd hugely increase the amount non-doms have to pay for their status as well and limit the amount rich people can give to charities and claim back from their tax as well.
Others will have other policies but they need to be presented as part of a narrative which explains that the next few years will be tough and that no-one will be exempt. Labour and the Lib Dems are still proposing to do something for the WASPI women, for instance - who have no legal case and are about as undeserving a group as you could find. This idea that you can throw sweeties at your favoured groups needs to be quashed.
We have to think hard about how we are going to earn our living and start doing it. For all of Labour's success so far I am not at all sure that there is much of a narrative from them on this. And if they don't develop one - with the policies to match and the steel to resist all the many claims made on them - they will end up being buffeted by events when in power.
The problem with this is that the pensioners are leeching from younger generations through rent and imposing huge pension rises on working age people, either via the state pension or RPI increases on final salary schemes that are paid for by current employees of companies. A tax on higher earning pensioners and clawbacks of the state pension would allow for taxes to be cut for working age people but Labour are simply too weak to pursue this policy.
Younger generations pointing out, fairly, that pensioners are predatory and thieving from younger generations to fund their retirements. Making it prohibitively expensive to own additional properties is the best way to solve this as it frees up millions of houses for purchase by young people who are currently priced out of the market by landlords and second home owners.
You want everyone to "get along" but while older generations are monopolising wealth and prosperity I see no reason for young people to be part of this grand bargain of "getting along" for the sake of it. It's up to older people to realise their selfishness is the cause of friction between the generations, they are leeching from their children and grandchildren yet want all of us to play nice because their parents made sacrifices while they made none.
I do not often agree with you @MaxPB but I think that on this issue you are largely correct. I have a lot of time for the Millennials and the younger generations who are, IMO, being massively shat upon by the grey vote.
I predicted the Tories would lose both seats but Boris would stay. Sadly - for the Conservative Party - this appears to be accurate on all counts
Boris is clearly steering his Party to a catastrophic defeat. They need to oust him now
Recall the Golden Bough. The sacrifice of the king propitiates the angry gods, and thus the tribe is saved. It is time to propitiate; because the gods - AKA the voters - are VERY angry
And if, in the process, the Tory core has to put up with some social liberalism that it finds distasteful, then tough. If it should come to pass, a heavy Conservative defeat at the next election that allows this to happen will be as much a monument to their greed as it will be to Johnson's self-absorption and venality.
Wokeness is not “social liberalism”, it is much more sinister than that
I entirely agree with you on the predatory pensioners. We need a government for the young
Unfortunately I don’t think Starmer’s Labour is it. They are as clueless - policy wise - as the Tories.
But then, looking at the headlines in today’s FT, with emergencies across the world from humble Sri Lanka to mighty America, with the EU warning of “terrible splits” in the bloc as Russia shuts off the gas, I wonder if any politician anywhere has even a vague idea how to handle what’s coming our way
Brace
I really hate the way particular groups are described in offensive ways - "feckless young", "predatory pensioners" etc. This sort of tribal culture war language will do nothing to repair society.
The current Tory party is exhausted and out of good ideas. Boris is a disgrace to his office and his government is degrading our democracy. His MPs should grow a spine, throw him out and start the process of rebuilding a Tory party that does not shame Britain. I doubt they will. But it is what they ought to do.if they don't the Tories will be out of power for a long time which will lead to the same problems with Labour. Parties that stay in power for too long become a menace.
We need policies for the hard-working of all ages, the young and those who are poor and just about managing. We need proper housebuilding, to do something about the grotesque interest rates on student loans and the absurd obstacles we have put in the way of those who try to export. We need proper investment in infrastructure in all parts of the country and we need to repair relations with our nearest neighbours.
We do not need more constitutional jiggery-pokery.
What we need above all is a government which explains clearly that times are going to be hard for the next few years as we deal with the consequences of Brexit, Covid and world instabilities so that all of us will have to tighten our belts but that this will need to be done fairly. No-one will be immune but we will try our damndest to make sure that those with the greatest wealth pay their fair share. For a start, NI on everyone who works, no matter what their age , rises in pensions should be no higher than what is offered to other public sector workers and council tax bands above the current highest levels to capture the increase in house values in recent years. I'd hugely increase the amount non-doms have to pay for their status as well and limit the amount rich people can give to charities and claim back from their tax as well.
Others will have other policies but they need to be presented as part of a narrative which explains that the next few years will be tough and that no-one will be exempt. Labour and the Lib Dems are still proposing to do something for the WASPI women, for instance - who have no legal case and are about as undeserving a group as you could find. This idea that you can throw sweeties at your favoured groups needs to be quashed.
We have to think hard about how we are going to earn our living and start doing it. For all of Labour's success so far I am not at all sure that there is much of a narrative from them on this. And if they don't develop one - with the policies to match and the steel to resist all the many claims made on them - they will end up being buffeted by events when in power.
The problem with this is that the pensioners are leeching from younger generations through rent and imposing huge pension rises on working age people, either via the state pension or RPI increases on final salary schemes that are paid for by current employees of companies. A tax on higher earning pensioners and clawbacks of the state pension would allow for taxes to be cut for working age people but Labour are simply too weak to pursue this policy.
Younger generations pointing out, fairly, that pensioners are predatory and thieving from younger generations to fund their retirements. Making it prohibitively expensive to own additional properties is the best way to solve this as it frees up millions of houses for purchase by young people who are currently priced out of the market by landlords and second home owners.
You want everyone to "get along" but while older generations are monopolising wealth and prosperity I see no reason for young people to be part of this grand bargain of "getting along" for the sake of it. It's up to older people to realise their selfishness is the cause of friction between the generations, they are leeching from their children and grandchildren yet want all of us to play nice because their parents made sacrifices while they made none.
I am not a pensioner and am very concerned about the future for the young. I don't think rude language helps, that's all. There are poor pensioners and rich young. You are one of the latter. I know quite a few poor pensioners in Millom who have not been stealing anything from anyone and have little in the way of assets. People like you should be taxed more to help people like them.
I have proposed both below the line and above it a number of proposals which would shift the balance away from the wealthy to those who work, especially the young.
We are I think broadly in agreement that too much policy has been aimed at only one group of favoured voters which is bad policy and bad for the economy and society. But I find it grimly amusing that it is you which has been a cheerleader for the Tory party and its policies which have largely been responsible for this for the last 12 years.
Rather than castigating me perhaps you might reflect on whether your support for that party has been in part responsible for the policies you now say you dislike.
Firstly, I already pay significant tax, at last count more than 45% of my gross income was spent on income and other taxes last year. The top 1% of earners in this country contribute ever more in tax, it was 27% two years ago. The idea that high earners don't contribute enough is frankly ridiculous. Let's start with NI on pension income, state pension clawback for higher rate pensioners before we start increasing the burden, yet again, on working people. Let's increase tax on unproductive and unearned income like dividends, rent and some forms of capital before attacking working people (either via income taxes or corporate taxes that will drag on pay growth). Lets bloody put a super-tax on cruises if we need to claw back money from wealthy old people.
What we also don't do us tax accumulated lifetime wealth during retirement and we should. We have trillions of non-primary housing assets locked up by older people who don't spend it and it isn't properly taxed. Even if we looked at how discretionary trusts are taxed that would be a start. If taxes go up on older wealthy people then that's taxes which don't have to go up on working age people, it also means older people will self fund their generation's health and care needs rather than putting the burden onto working age people.
Labour needs a radical approach on the generational wealth gap and to "speak truth to power" call out the older generation as selfish, make them look at themselves in the mirror and ask how they think their 11% pension rises will be funded, are they impoverishing their children and grandchildren in the process. Ask them if they are as selfish as everyone believes or are they willing to make the same sacrifices as everyone else is being asked? I think a bout of honesty for older people is necessary but Starmer isn't a strong enough leader to do it. Neither is Boris, of course.
That's a very long way of saying "more tax needs to be paid but not by me".
True, but the fact remains that those in “ordinary” working PAYE jobs are paying much, much more tax as a portion of their income that almost any other segment of the tax paying classes.
Eg, Wealthy pensioners pay only income tax & make no NI contributions despite being those responsible for the heaviest burden on the NHS. Wealthly pensioners could certainly be paying more.
Any of the groups of society who manage to camoflage profit as capital gains (BTL types, private equity groups etc etc) are paying half the tax on their income that the PAYE classes are.
MaxPB is not alone in wondering where all this massive rental income flow is going & whether any of it is being taxed.
And so on...
Even PAYE is fiddled. The recent changes to income tax include separate allowances for savings interest, dividends, and property rental once all taxed at straight basic/higher rate. One can get £1000 of rent tax free - £2K for a married couple. Okay, more than that is taxed. But that's a few to several hundred pounds less for HMRC just in that one allowance.
The Tory Party implemented much of all this situation and relies more and more on the pensioner vote for its success, to the degree that our village Tory ferociously attacks any suggestion that IHT for instance should be reformed.
I predicted the Tories would lose both seats but Boris would stay. Sadly - for the Conservative Party - this appears to be accurate on all counts
Boris is clearly steering his Party to a catastrophic defeat. They need to oust him now
Recall the Golden Bough. The sacrifice of the king propitiates the angry gods, and thus the tribe is saved. It is time to propitiate; because the gods - AKA the voters - are VERY angry
And if, in the process, the Tory core has to put up with some social liberalism that it finds distasteful, then tough. If it should come to pass, a heavy Conservative defeat at the next election that allows this to happen will be as much a monument to their greed as it will be to Johnson's self-absorption and venality.
Wokeness is not “social liberalism”, it is much more sinister than that
I entirely agree with you on the predatory pensioners. We need a government for the young
Unfortunately I don’t think Starmer’s Labour is it. They are as clueless - policy wise - as the Tories.
But then, looking at the headlines in today’s FT, with emergencies across the world from humble Sri Lanka to mighty America, with the EU warning of “terrible splits” in the bloc as Russia shuts off the gas, I wonder if any politician anywhere has even a vague idea how to handle what’s coming our way
Brace
I really hate the way particular groups are described in offensive ways - "feckless young", "predatory pensioners" etc. This sort of tribal culture war language will do nothing to repair society.
The current Tory party is exhausted and out of good ideas. Boris is a disgrace to his office and his government is degrading our democracy. His MPs should grow a spine, throw him out and start the process of rebuilding a Tory party that does not shame Britain. I doubt they will. But it is what they ought to do.if they don't the Tories will be out of power for a long time which will lead to the same problems with Labour. Parties that stay in power for too long become a menace.
We need policies for the hard-working of all ages, the young and those who are poor and just about managing. We need proper housebuilding, to do something about the grotesque interest rates on student loans and the absurd obstacles we have put in the way of those who try to export. We need proper investment in infrastructure in all parts of the country and we need to repair relations with our nearest neighbours.
We do not need more constitutional jiggery-pokery.
What we need above all is a government which explains clearly that times are going to be hard for the next few years as we deal with the consequences of Brexit, Covid and world instabilities so that all of us will have to tighten our belts but that this will need to be done fairly. No-one will be immune but we will try our damndest to make sure that those with the greatest wealth pay their fair share. For a start, NI on everyone who works, no matter what their age , rises in pensions should be no higher than what is offered to other public sector workers and council tax bands above the current highest levels to capture the increase in house values in recent years. I'd hugely increase the amount non-doms have to pay for their status as well and limit the amount rich people can give to charities and claim back from their tax as well.
Others will have other policies but they need to be presented as part of a narrative which explains that the next few years will be tough and that no-one will be exempt. Labour and the Lib Dems are still proposing to do something for the WASPI women, for instance - who have no legal case and are about as undeserving a group as you could find. This idea that you can throw sweeties at your favoured groups needs to be quashed.
We have to think hard about how we are going to earn our living and start doing it. For all of Labour's success so far I am not at all sure that there is much of a narrative from them on this. And if they don't develop one - with the policies to match and the steel to resist all the many claims made on them - they will end up being buffeted by events when in power.
The problem with this is that the pensioners are leeching from younger generations through rent and imposing huge pension rises on working age people, either via the state pension or RPI increases on final salary schemes that are paid for by current employees of companies. A tax on higher earning pensioners and clawbacks of the state pension would allow for taxes to be cut for working age people but Labour are simply too weak to pursue this policy.
Younger generations pointing out, fairly, that pensioners are predatory and thieving from younger generations to fund their retirements. Making it prohibitively expensive to own additional properties is the best way to solve this as it frees up millions of houses for purchase by young people who are currently priced out of the market by landlords and second home owners.
You want everyone to "get along" but while older generations are monopolising wealth and prosperity I see no reason for young people to be part of this grand bargain of "getting along" for the sake of it. It's up to older people to realise their selfishness is the cause of friction between the generations, they are leeching from their children and grandchildren yet want all of us to play nice because their parents made sacrifices while they made none.
I do not often agree with you @MaxPB but I think that on this issue you are largely correct. I have a lot of time for the Millennials and the younger generations who are, IMO, being massively shat upon by the grey vote.
At least Cameron paid lip service, Johnson just ignores us and gets the Mail to write headlines about how it is all our fault
East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
Sorry lol I meant your company/employer.
Oh lol, no Asian.
I think this is a big issue, the lack of British ultimate parents in the UK. We're an exporter - ultimately if/when we produce dividends they head straight to Uncle Sam though.
Tbf, the investors are global with a big chunk of that being UK money. But yes, I agree with you that too much of UK industry isn't supported by domestic UK investment. It's a sad fact that UK investors are very risk averse and would rather invest in FTSE350 companies that yield 3-4% a year in dividends and low capital growth than in AIM or high risk funds like the one I help manage that pours money into startups.
And we keep selling mid sized companies to foreign buyers.
Full interview on WATO later today. ...Former Leader of Conservative Party Michael Howard has told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Boris Johnson should resign.
"The party, and more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership."
"Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions," he told the programme.
On speculation about how the Conservatives could remove the PM - after Johnson won a no confidence vote on 6 June - Howard said "it may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership [election] could take place"...
The problem then is, where do the 1922 and rebels go if Boris gets same win as a few weeks ago? Surely, not least for the 22’s credibility, they would need to be pretty confident of numbers for victory before gerrymandering another go?
Former Leader of Conservative Party Michael Howard has told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Boris Johnson should resign. "The party, and more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership." "Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions," he told the programme. On speculation about how the Conservatives could remove the PM - after Johnson won a no confidence vote on 6 June - Howard said "it may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership [election] could take place". There'll be the full interview on World at One on Radio 4."
Exactly what happened in Australia. From the same people. There are only two issues. The PM and his character, and the economy. Talking about anything else appears out of touch.
MaxPB I hear your anger about the establishment I think the problem is UK society has become completely ossified perhaps we have just been too stable for too long
Not appreciating stability is a big mistake. Ask anyone who lives in a genuinely unstable country.
Yeah. I imagine a lot of Syrians and Ukrainians fancy a bit of Boring British Stability, right now
Stability is not the only requirement though. Russia has a very stable political system, at least internally. That stability is supported by jailing or poisoning peope who speak out or try to form an opposition to the government.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
You only have to be less toxic than your opponent and Labour is far less toxic than the Conservative Party as this result shows.
That's true at by elections.
A general election is a different kettle of fish.
What worries me about these results is that SKS might see it as a vindication of his strategy to have no policies and just win by default.
SKS certainly ought to see a recovery of this scale in a Red Wall seat as vindication of his strategy to try and leave Brexit and all things EU on the back burner.
Yes there's a need for Labour to be developing policies for this point on, but I don't think a smorgasbord of detail is what needed. What's more important is to have a clear restatement of values and to crystallise those into a relatively small number of well-understood headline policies that put those values into practice.
There needs to be positivity for the future, more than anything else. Cameron had it, as did Blair - and yes, as did Johnson.
Labour still presents itself as a group of worthy metropolitan lawyers, backed up by angry social activists and trade unionists. They need to have someone being positive.
I think whatever face Labour presents you'll manage to see that one.
So what are the positive reasons to vote Labour?
What’s their vision, their dream?
A society free of privilege and prejudice!
But you were talking about 'types' - worthy metropolitan lawyers, angry social activists and (shock horror) trade unionists. All just sounds a bit like Daily Telegraph chuntering to me.
Full interview on WATO later today. ...Former Leader of Conservative Party Michael Howard has told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Boris Johnson should resign.
"The party, and more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership."
"Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions," he told the programme.
On speculation about how the Conservatives could remove the PM - after Johnson won a no confidence vote on 6 June - Howard said "it may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership [election] could take place"...
The problem then is, where do the 1922 and rebels go if Boris gets same win as a few weeks ago? Surely, not least for the 22’s credibility, they would need to be pretty confident of numbers for victory before gerrymandering another go?
Good point but Dowden's resignation is bad news for Johnson and any indication there is a groundswell to remove him, the 1922 will facilitate the vote
Full interview on WATO later today. ...Former Leader of Conservative Party Michael Howard has told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Boris Johnson should resign.
"The party, and more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership."
"Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions," he told the programme.
On speculation about how the Conservatives could remove the PM - after Johnson won a no confidence vote on 6 June - Howard said "it may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership [election] could take place"...
The problem then is, where do the 1922 and rebels go if Boris gets same win as a few weeks ago? Surely, not least for the 22’s credibility, they would need to be pretty confident of numbers for victory before gerrymandering another go?
By that reasoning nothing except a GE defeat is ever going to be grounds for moving against him
As per down thread, I think the 22 should have a vonc among itself only, unless there's a specific rule against it. Doesn't lead to a leadership contest or anything but it would be a clear indicator of which way a proper vonc would go
Sadly Russia doing well now Rouble is strong Putin getting plentiful income from oil Even Fraser Nelson in telegraph this morning suggests Russia doing well
Exactly what happened in Australia. From the same people. There are only two issues. The PM and his character, and the economy. Talking about anything else appears out of touch.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
Do we know anything about the Independent in Wakefield who got 7% (above David Herdson)?
Basically a Tory. Former tory councillor. Which detracts a bit from the winning margin
Oh wow, so two former Tory councillors 3rd and 4th.
Yes. Labour didn't quite get back to 2017 levels on a low turnout against an outgoing party who foisted a child sexual assaulter on the city. The Tory collapse in vote flattered them somewhat and id expect this to be a Labour held marginal (less than 5%) at a GE. On this sort of result, against this specific backdrop id say labour will struggle to retake the larger majoritues in the red wall on current boundaries like Bishop Auckland and Rother Valley
so far the psephologiy from this parliament, including last night as you describe and last months locals, fills us with little confidence the red wall is clearly coming home to Labour.
If anyone wants to turn up at next GE certain of change of government, not for a nervous night of close results in key places, they need to think again. The psephology isn’t supporting the Labour spin.
Agreed. Labour did not do as well last night as in the locals in May in Wakefield, there is no clamour for a Labour government. There IS clamour for Johnson to be gone. Now. In the South, however........
The independent candidate who came third in Wakefield is a conservative I think?
Yes a former councillor for the Tories
So, all in all, Labour didn't exactly hit the ball out the park in Wakefield did they?
They did enough to hold it as a marginal at a GE meaning they might get half the red wall losses back imo 'if nothing changes'
That would be enough to see the back of Tory rule mind.
But not with a great deal of confidence going into the night? Based on all red wall voting say over last year, local elections, last night Wakefield result, what is giving Labour confidence going into Red Wall on election night?
You see what I have been trying to say for the last twelve hours now? I had in mind what was needed before the result announced, and it was a very fair bar, 50 to 55% votes would have convinced me - which is the best way to comment on elections. Not take whatever result and then try spinning it, as so many disappointingly doing, and attacking the character and work of those who disagree. That’s not proper psephology. 😠
What do you contribute to the country mate I take it you work in financial services so are likely vastly overpaid yourself given your abilities, Maybe you take too much out of the country Whilst the old are a problem a lot of our problems stem from the massive bailout of the banks in 2008
Investing money in UK based tech startups, literally job creation in the UKs fastest growing sector.
I agree, the government should have stood behind depositors and let RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock go to the wall. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling couldn't let both major Scottish banks go bankrupt so they bailed them out. Blame them not me.
But do you take personal risk with your money in these investments or do you just invest the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario
It's investor money (we don't proprietary invest), and don't blame me for the changing of bonus rules that made my salary very high and performance pay much lower. Both TSE and I pointed out this would be the result of the idiotic bonus cap the EU introduced.
And the tails for me is losing my job, so the idea that I win either way is frankly ridiculous. You seem to be a very bitter and jealous person, did you, by any chance, not cut it in financial services and now hate everyone who did make it?
Yes. If you fuck up, you lose your job, potentially your career
Unlike about 90% of the people in the public sector…
That's the point mate take stupid risks make big bonuses then lose your job a few years down the line but set for life
I sold all my assets just before the covid crash mate because it was my own money and ipay attention to it However I was late getting back in for the same reason If I was in your position just gambling the banks money with no personal downside risk I would have just held through and come out looking like a hero
That’s assuming Max can invest his own money in what he’s investing in on behalf of his clients.
I don’t know what Max does exactly but if he was a stockbroker and advising his clients to buy BAe and wasn’t himself then it’s a bit weak but the chances are (and Max can correct me) that he’s not advising on ordinary stocks which likely are available to certain types of client with minimum investment sizes.
So if Max had millions in the bank then he might be able to invest in same investments but there are a lot of investments hoi poloi cannot chuck their money at.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
You only have to be less toxic than your opponent and Labour is far less toxic than the Conservative Party as this result shows.
That's true at by elections.
A general election is a different kettle of fish.
What worries me about these results is that SKS might see it as a vindication of his strategy to have no policies and just win by default.
SKS certainly ought to see a recovery of this scale in a Red Wall seat as vindication of his strategy to try and leave Brexit and all things EU on the back burner.
Yes there's a need for Labour to be developing policies for this point on, but I don't think a smorgasbord of detail is what needed. What's more important is to have a clear restatement of values and to crystallise those into a relatively small number of well-understood headline policies that put those values into practice.
There needs to be positivity for the future, more than anything else. Cameron had it, as did Blair - and yes, as did Johnson.
Labour still presents itself as a group of worthy metropolitan lawyers, backed up by angry social activists and trade unionists. They need to have someone being positive.
I think whatever face Labour presents you'll manage to see that one.
So what are the positive reasons to vote Labour?
What’s their vision, their dream?
A society free of privilege and prejudice!
But you were talking about 'types' - worthy metropolitan lawyers, angry social activists and (shock horror) trade unionists. All just sounds a bit like Daily Telegraph chuntering to me.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
You only have to be less toxic than your opponent and Labour is far less toxic than the Conservative Party as this result shows.
That's true at by elections.
A general election is a different kettle of fish.
What worries me about these results is that SKS might see it as a vindication of his strategy to have no policies and just win by default.
SKS certainly ought to see a recovery of this scale in a Red Wall seat as vindication of his strategy to try and leave Brexit and all things EU on the back burner.
Yes there's a need for Labour to be developing policies for this point on, but I don't think a smorgasbord of detail is what needed. What's more important is to have a clear restatement of values and to crystallise those into a relatively small number of well-understood headline policies that put those values into practice.
There needs to be positivity for the future, more than anything else. Cameron had it, as did Blair - and yes, as did Johnson.
Labour still presents itself as a group of worthy metropolitan lawyers, backed up by angry social activists and trade unionists. They need to have someone being positive.
I think whatever face Labour presents you'll manage to see that one.
So what are the positive reasons to vote Labour?
What’s their vision, their dream?
A society free of privilege and prejudice!
But you were talking about 'types' - worthy metropolitan lawyers, angry social activists and (shock horror) trade unionists. All just sounds a bit like Daily Telegraph chuntering to me.
I mean, is there any Labour politician you rate?
Without being depressing I cannot see any politician either at home or abroad that are credible
And the only leader worthy of mention is Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine
What do you contribute to the country mate I take it you work in financial services so are likely vastly overpaid yourself given your abilities, Maybe you take too much out of the country Whilst the old are a problem a lot of our problems stem from the massive bailout of the banks in 2008
Investing money in UK based tech startups, literally job creation in the UKs fastest growing sector.
I agree, the government should have stood behind depositors and let RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock go to the wall. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling couldn't let both major Scottish banks go bankrupt so they bailed them out. Blame them not me.
But do you take personal risk with your money in these investments or do you just invest the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario
It's investor money (we don't proprietary invest), and don't blame me for the changing of bonus rules that made my salary very high and performance pay much lower. Both TSE and I pointed out this would be the result of the idiotic bonus cap the EU introduced.
And the tails for me is losing my job, so the idea that I win either way is frankly ridiculous. You seem to be a very bitter and jealous person, did you, by any chance, not cut it in financial services and now hate everyone who did make it?
Yes. If you fuck up, you lose your job, potentially your career
Unlike about 90% of the people in the public sector…
You worked in the public sector in recent years? These days there is a reorganization almost permanently, with folk having to apply for their old jobs - or the new equivalent - every now and then; many jobs privatised; and so on.
The public sector is large and not homogenous. Some parts of it are well run, or have good managers who don't tolerate poor performance. I've had experience of working in some of those, so it pains me to see unfair generalisations. But.
Some parts of the public sector are badly run. Very badly run. As I've heard from family members with direct experience. And the problem is that badly run parts of the public sector don't go bust in the way that a badly run private company should eventually, they sort of just limp on, driving away anyone who can't bear the dysfunction.
Full interview on WATO later today. ...Former Leader of Conservative Party Michael Howard has told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Boris Johnson should resign.
"The party, and more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership."
"Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions," he told the programme.
On speculation about how the Conservatives could remove the PM - after Johnson won a no confidence vote on 6 June - Howard said "it may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership [election] could take place"...
The problem then is, where do the 1922 and rebels go if Boris gets same win as a few weeks ago? Surely, not least for the 22’s credibility, they would need to be pretty confident of numbers for victory before gerrymandering another go?
At some point the cabinet will move against him. In the first vote they undoubtedly felt obliged to support him, but should there be further votes then that'll possibly change, and once he starts to lose parts of the cabinet then the rest will decide that enough is enough and tell him to go.
(That's surely the mechanism, but how long it might take to play out is anyone's guess)
East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
Sorry lol I meant your company/employer.
Oh lol, no Asian.
I think this is a big issue, the lack of British ultimate parents in the UK. We're an exporter - ultimately if/when we produce dividends they head straight to Uncle Sam though.
Tbf, the investors are global with a big chunk of that being UK money. But yes, I agree with you that too much of UK industry isn't supported by domestic UK investment. It's a sad fact that UK investors are very risk averse and would rather invest in FTSE350 companies that yield 3-4% a year in dividends and low capital growth than in AIM or high risk funds like the one I help manage that pours money into startups.
And we keep selling mid sized companies to foreign buyers.
Indeed, there was a time when UK companies would do the buying but once again UK investors are too dividend hungry which makes them easy takeover targets with battered balance sheets at the first sign of a downturn. The whole corporate sector has become very, very lazy in the UK and American companies have realised it which is why they are hoovering them up and making them unlazy and getting huge RoI.
As to your earlier point on smashing it all up - I think the establishment has had enough time to achieve what it says it wants to, it has failed, abjectly and is now simply attempting to call managed decline something other than that. Smashing it all up at least gives us a chance of changing this for the better, staying on this path we know ends in failure. This isn't just true of the UK, it's true all over Europe.
MaxPB I hear your anger about the establishment I think the problem is UK society has become completely ossified perhaps we have just been too stable for too long
Not appreciating stability is a big mistake. Ask anyone who lives in a genuinely unstable country.
Yeah. I imagine a lot of Syrians and Ukrainians fancy a bit of Boring British Stability, right now
Stability is not the only requirement though. Russia has a very stable political system, at least internally. That stability is supported by jailing or poisoning peope who speak out or try to form an opposition to the government.
Stable democracy. Russia has never been a real democracy.
What do you contribute to the country mate I take it you work in financial services so are likely vastly overpaid yourself given your abilities, Maybe you take too much out of the country Whilst the old are a problem a lot of our problems stem from the massive bailout of the banks in 2008
The exchequer is minting it from Max's salary through NI (Both of them) and income tax. A bigger question though is where do investment bank profits arise from. Do they truly generate wealth for the country, or is it an extraction that would otherwise have been earnt by other businesses. Despite our fs sector, our gdp per cap is absolubtely moribund compared to elsewhere (Particularly the USA if you look over the last decade or so). Why is that ?
What do you contribute to the country mate I take it you work in financial services so are likely vastly overpaid yourself given your abilities, Maybe you take too much out of the country Whilst the old are a problem a lot of our problems stem from the massive bailout of the banks in 2008
Investing money in UK based tech startups, literally job creation in the UKs fastest growing sector.
I agree, the government should have stood behind depositors and let RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock go to the wall. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling couldn't let both major Scottish banks go bankrupt so they bailed them out. Blame them not me.
But do you take personal risk with your money in these investments or do you just invest the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario
It's investor money (we don't proprietary invest), and don't blame me for the changing of bonus rules that made my salary very high and performance pay much lower. Both TSE and I pointed out this would be the result of the idiotic bonus cap the EU introduced.
And the tails for me is losing my job, so the idea that I win either way is frankly ridiculous. You seem to be a very bitter and jealous person, did you, by any chance, not cut it in financial services and now hate everyone who did make it?
Yes. If you fuck up, you lose your job, potentially your career
Unlike about 90% of the people in the public sector…
Indeed, the downside to working in an utterly ruthless sector is that it is utterly ruthless.
Give me a break. I have worked in the financial sector for decades and the idea that useless gits in it get turfed out is for the birds. Promoted or shifted sideways is more usual. A vast number are hugely overpaid. Most of them attribute to their skill what is more properly attributable to luck and being in the right place at the right time and only a few add real value. It is one of the most over-coddled and over-praised sectors around. Our over-reliance on it has been harmful to the economy as a whole.
I think Erdogan is the only one who can broker a ceasefire at this point. He armed Ukraine, thought not for free, but maintained frenemy status with VVP.
Exactly what happened in Australia. From the same people. There are only two issues. The PM and his character, and the economy. Talking about anything else appears out of touch.
In Australia a result of 52/48 to the Liberals/Nationals was replaced by a 52/48 result for Labor. Not a huge shift in opinion.
East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
Sorry lol I meant your company/employer.
Oh lol, no Asian.
I think this is a big issue, the lack of British ultimate parents in the UK. We're an exporter - ultimately if/when we produce dividends they head straight to Uncle Sam though.
Tbf, the investors are global with a big chunk of that being UK money. But yes, I agree with you that too much of UK industry isn't supported by domestic UK investment. It's a sad fact that UK investors are very risk averse and would rather invest in FTSE350 companies that yield 3-4% a year in dividends and low capital growth than in AIM or high risk funds like the one I help manage that pours money into startups.
And we keep selling mid sized companies to foreign buyers.
Indeed, there was a time when UK companies would do the buying but once again UK investors are too dividend hungry which makes them easy takeover targets with battered balance sheets at the first sign of a downturn. The whole corporate sector has become very, very lazy in the UK and American companies have realised it which is why they are hoovering them up and making them unlazy and getting huge RoI.
As to your earlier point on smashing it all up - I think the establishment has had enough time to achieve what it says it wants to, it has failed, abjectly and is now simply attempting to call managed decline something other than that. Smashing it all up at least gives us a chance of changing this for the better, staying on this path we know ends in failure. This isn't just true of the UK, it's true all over Europe.
I think quite a bit of this is to do with our VC and PE community being too short term in its outlook, which is then passed on to CEOs of early stage companies. Flog as soon as possible tends to be the view.
Far too many posts to read through this morning, but my quick take on the by-elections (probably already covered):
1. Starmer is not currently very popular at all with voters; particularly, I suspect with working class voters, who think he's a dud. In that context, Wakefield was a good result for Labour - certainly better than I feared. Starmer has time to up his game.
2. Both Wakefield and T&H provide, I think, evidence of significant weakening of Brexit as a determinant of voting. Both were strong leave seats. Yes, the anti-Tory vote was about Boris, but at the same time Boris is the embodiment of Brexit. I don't think the Tories can rely on Brexit any longer to win them the next GE.
Agree on both there, Al, and for me what's becoming key is to not let this be all about Johnson. The Tories must be held to account for inflicting him on the country. They knew what he was. Knew he wasn't fit for office. Yet they still chose him. So, you know, they need to "own" him now. They can't be allowed to masquerade as a new and untarnished offering having ditched him (if they finally do). A Boris Johnson is for life not just for a Christmas election.
What do you contribute to the country mate I take it you work in financial services so are likely vastly overpaid yourself given your abilities, Maybe you take too much out of the country Whilst the old are a problem a lot of our problems stem from the massive bailout of the banks in 2008
Investing money in UK based tech startups, literally job creation in the UKs fastest growing sector.
I agree, the government should have stood behind depositors and let RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock go to the wall. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling couldn't let both major Scottish banks go bankrupt so they bailed them out. Blame them not me.
But do you take personal risk with your money in these investments or do you just invest the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario
It's investor money (we don't proprietary invest), and don't blame me for the changing of bonus rules that made my salary very high and performance pay much lower. Both TSE and I pointed out this would be the result of the idiotic bonus cap the EU introduced.
And the tails for me is losing my job, so the idea that I win either way is frankly ridiculous. You seem to be a very bitter and jealous person, did you, by any chance, not cut it in financial services and now hate everyone who did make it?
Yes. If you fuck up, you lose your job, potentially your career
Unlike about 90% of the people in the public sector…
That's the point mate take stupid risks make big bonuses then lose your job a few years down the line but set for life
I sold all my assets just before the covid crash mate because it was my own money and ipay attention to it However I was late getting back in for the same reason If I was in your position just gambling the banks money with no personal downside risk I would have just held through and come out looking like a hero
That’s assuming Max can invest his own money in what he’s investing in on behalf of his clients.
I don’t know what Max does exactly but if he was a stockbroker and advising his clients to buy BAe and wasn’t himself then it’s a bit weak but the chances are (and Max can correct me) that he’s not advising on ordinary stocks which likely are available to certain types of client with minimum investment sizes.
So if Max had millions in the bank then he might be able to invest in same investments but there are a lot of investments hoi poloi cannot chuck their money at.
Amazes me how many of these "BIG SHOTS" in the city have no idea how to invest their own money Another piece of evidence they are vastly overpaid for what they do
If we simply aggregate the votes cast in the two seats last night, the Conservatives still came out on top with 24,500+ votes, followed by the LDs and Lab. The Conservatives were the only party not to loose a deposit, the LDs and Lab lost one deposit each, and every other party standing lost all their deposits.
Yet the Conservatives came out of it with zero seats, while the LDs and Lab got one each. What's clear is that the LDs and Lab are now potentially concentrating their votes very effectively, because voters are prepared to pile in behind either the LDs or Lab depending on which is judged capable of winning against the Conservatives. The Greens were squeezed in both seats compared to their national poll ratings.
In the light of that, it seems highly simplistic to continue to interpret national opinion polls based solely on the net Lab lead over the Conservatives, and to calculate seats gained based on uniform swing. That greatly understates the number of Conservative seats at risk. Just as important to me is the combined Lab/LD/Green vote, and how far that exceeds the Con vote.
So taking the two polls which showed Labour leads of 2% and 11% over virtually the same polling period, it's important to note also that the combined Lab/LD/Green vote exceeded the Con vote by 20% and 26% respectively.
I don't think there is evidence that Green votes are as tactically efficient as the Lab-LD vote, which rarely forms the top two candidates in any constituency. On the contrary, Green votes seem to pile up in Labour safe seats and rural Tory-LD contests.
I think you need to be careful in making assumptions about what the second choice of the voters for the candidates in minor places would have been.
For Labour, it's easiest - MOST would go for the anti-Tory choice and stuck with Labour either because they didn't appreciate the situation or couldn't bring themselves to vote tactically. It's not universal - a Brexit-y Labour voter might well prefer the Tories to Lib Dems say - but those are really exceptions that prove the rule.
It isn't as clear for Lib Dems. At the moment, it's probably true that the mood is anti-Tory on balance. But non-trivial numbers would, if forced to choose, prefer a Tory MP and Tory Government to Labour.
With the Greens, it seems obvious from the party's national platform that it's to the left of either the Lib Dems or Labour. But that really doesn't mean it's true of their General Election voters, perhaps particularly in those seats where they are standing a paper candidate picking up say 2-4%. Those people overwhelmingly know they aren't electing a Green MP, and it's a generalised anti-politics as usual vote. That brings together a real grab-bag of eccentrics. No offence to the Green Party, and it's not their fault that this is true, but an appreciable number of their votes in a four cornered contest with a paper Green are from people who are rather disappointed that the BNP and UKIP haven't bothered to put someone up.
I agree with the above which is why I focus on places where the Greens won more than 2-4% - albeit there are places like Lewes that would probably have been closer to 50/50 without the small Green vote. The big Green votes are in places like Sheffield Central and Hackney that have nothing to do with the tally of Tory MPs, and in constituencies like Henley or (amusingly) Chesham and Amersham where they are to some extent splitting the anti-Con vote, often a hopeless cause anyway, but nonetheless inefficiently.
A simpler summary: almost no winnable contest is Conservative-Green, so putting them in the anti-Tory polling bloc is a category error unless assuming big swings toward local options.
I predicted the Tories would lose both seats but Boris would stay. Sadly - for the Conservative Party - this appears to be accurate on all counts
Boris is clearly steering his Party to a catastrophic defeat. They need to oust him now
Recall the Golden Bough. The sacrifice of the king propitiates the angry gods, and thus the tribe is saved. It is time to propitiate; because the gods - AKA the voters - are VERY angry
And if, in the process, the Tory core has to put up with some social liberalism that it finds distasteful, then tough. If it should come to pass, a heavy Conservative defeat at the next election that allows this to happen will be as much a monument to their greed as it will be to Johnson's self-absorption and venality.
Wokeness is not “social liberalism”, it is much more sinister than that
I entirely agree with you on the predatory pensioners. We need a government for the young
Unfortunately I don’t think Starmer’s Labour is it. They are as clueless - policy wise - as the Tories.
But then, looking at the headlines in today’s FT, with emergencies across the world from humble Sri Lanka to mighty America, with the EU warning of “terrible splits” in the bloc as Russia shuts off the gas, I wonder if any politician anywhere has even a vague idea how to handle what’s coming our way
Brace
I really hate the way particular groups are described in offensive ways - "feckless young", "predatory pensioners" etc. This sort of tribal culture war language will do nothing to repair society.
The current Tory party is exhausted and out of good ideas. Boris is a disgrace to his office and his government is degrading our democracy. His MPs should grow a spine, throw him out and start the process of rebuilding a Tory party that does not shame Britain. I doubt they will. But it is what they ought to do.if they don't the Tories will be out of power for a long time which will lead to the same problems with Labour. Parties that stay in power for too long become a menace.
We need policies for the hard-working of all ages, the young and those who are poor and just about managing. We need proper housebuilding, to do something about the grotesque interest rates on student loans and the absurd obstacles we have put in the way of those who try to export. We need proper investment in infrastructure in all parts of the country and we need to repair relations with our nearest neighbours.
We do not need more constitutional jiggery-pokery.
What we need above all is a government which explains clearly that times are going to be hard for the next few years as we deal with the consequences of Brexit, Covid and world instabilities so that all of us will have to tighten our belts but that this will need to be done fairly. No-one will be immune but we will try our damndest to make sure that those with the greatest wealth pay their fair share. For a start, NI on everyone who works, no matter what their age , rises in pensions should be no higher than what is offered to other public sector workers and council tax bands above the current highest levels to capture the increase in house values in recent years. I'd hugely increase the amount non-doms have to pay for their status as well and limit the amount rich people can give to charities and claim back from their tax as well.
Others will have other policies but they need to be presented as part of a narrative which explains that the next few years will be tough and that no-one will be exempt. Labour and the Lib Dems are still proposing to do something for the WASPI women, for instance - who have no legal case and are about as undeserving a group as you could find. This idea that you can throw sweeties at your favoured groups needs to be quashed.
We have to think hard about how we are going to earn our living and start doing it. For all of Labour's success so far I am not at all sure that there is much of a narrative from them on this. And if they don't develop one - with the policies to match and the steel to resist all the many claims made on them - they will end up being buffeted by events when in power.
The problem with this is that the pensioners are leeching from younger generations through rent and imposing huge pension rises on working age people, either via the state pension or RPI increases on final salary schemes that are paid for by current employees of companies. A tax on higher earning pensioners and clawbacks of the state pension would allow for taxes to be cut for working age people but Labour are simply too weak to pursue this policy.
Younger generations pointing out, fairly, that pensioners are predatory and thieving from younger generations to fund their retirements. Making it prohibitively expensive to own additional properties is the best way to solve this as it frees up millions of houses for purchase by young people who are currently priced out of the market by landlords and second home owners.
You want everyone to "get along" but while older generations are monopolising wealth and prosperity I see no reason for young people to be part of this grand bargain of "getting along" for the sake of it. It's up to older people to realise their selfishness is the cause of friction between the generations, they are leeching from their children and grandchildren yet want all of us to play nice because their parents made sacrifices while they made none.
I am not a pensioner and am very concerned about the future for the young. I don't think rude language helps, that's all. There are poor pensioners and rich young. You are one of the latter. I know quite a few poor pensioners in Millom who have not been stealing anything from anyone and have little in the way of assets. People like you should be taxed more to help people like them.
I have proposed both below the line and above it a number of proposals which would shift the balance away from the wealthy to those who work, especially the young.
We are I think broadly in agreement that too much policy has been aimed at only one group of favoured voters which is bad policy and bad for the economy and society. But I find it grimly amusing that it is you which has been a cheerleader for the Tory party and its policies which have largely been responsible for this for the last 12 years.
Rather than castigating me perhaps you might reflect on whether your support for that party has been in part responsible for the policies you now say you dislike.
Firstly, I already pay significant tax, at last count more than 45% of my gross income was spent on income and other taxes last year. The top 1% of earners in this country contribute ever more in tax, it was 27% two years ago. The idea that high earners don't contribute enough is frankly ridiculous. Let's start with NI on pension income, state pension clawback for higher rate pensioners before we start increasing the burden, yet again, on working people. Let's increase tax on unproductive and unearned income like dividends, rent and some forms of capital before attacking working people (either via income taxes or corporate taxes that will drag on pay growth). Lets bloody put a super-tax on cruises if we need to claw back money from wealthy old people.
What we also don't do us tax accumulated lifetime wealth during retirement and we should. We have trillions of non-primary housing assets locked up by older people who don't spend it and it isn't properly taxed. Even if we looked at how discretionary trusts are taxed that would be a start. If taxes go up on older wealthy people then that's taxes which don't have to go up on working age people, it also means older people will self fund their generation's health and care needs rather than putting the burden onto working age people.
Labour needs a radical approach on the generational wealth gap and to "speak truth to power" call out the older generation as selfish, make them look at themselves in the mirror and ask how they think their 11% pension rises will be funded, are they impoverishing their children and grandchildren in the process. Ask them if they are as selfish as everyone believes or are they willing to make the same sacrifices as everyone else is being asked? I think a bout of honesty for older people is necessary but Starmer isn't a strong enough leader to do it. Neither is Boris, of course.
Actually - the answer is a significant investment in urban densification within a limited radius of certain old village and town centres. And a larger densification programme in urban areas.
The vested interests are against it in the Conservative party - the property developers and large landowners.
But the Netherlands shows how it can be done in a sensitive Northern European way.
The key would be to ensure the apartments were big enough for families and well built enough (noise insulation etc, and light access).
Young people want to be near the action. Houses wouldn't lose value as they'd remain the blue riband aspiration. It would reverse the long term decline of town and village centres.
Will it be done? Almost certainly not.
The Tories would fear social democratic leanings among residential occupants.
Labour would struggle to pass an increase in housing without reviving council housing provision.
And the key to it is avoiding perceptions that they are sinks or schemes.
The US is not the model for us here - the Dutch have similar population densities to the southeast.
The USA is not the model for anyone on anything, I don't think They heavily deal in disaster - see water supply to California, for example, and the impacts of that on others over the last century.
I'm not so convinced by the Netherlands - it comes across to me as in parts one big Legoland suburb, and the UK has been successful in preserving diversity and a good measure of local vernacular. My impression is that they build mainly outside towns, and in brand new suburbs.
In London I'm inclined to take Green Belt scrubland to an extent - with land speculation gains heavily mitigated by a social homes tax or similar, and also one or two of the low rise modern council estates and develop on the density of the Barbican.
We already have very strong building regs for build quality, including flat conversions; the main issue is that eg regulation is often done on a sample basis rather than each dwelling, which allows abuses (eg gaps in insulation) through.
One issue you have with demanding apartments be 'family sized' (3 bed?) is that household sizes are smaller and smaller. That is down from 2.9 to approx 2.3 in 50 years.
We don't need to drive densification of villages; we mainly just need to take off blanket bans on development, which can apply even to suitable sites. I'm inclined to allow long-run 1% growth per annum.
Former Leader of Conservative Party Michael Howard has told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Boris Johnson should resign. "The party, and more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership." "Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions," he told the programme. On speculation about how the Conservatives could remove the PM - after Johnson won a no confidence vote on 6 June - Howard said "it may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership [election] could take place". There'll be the full interview on World at One on Radio 4."
I thought the Tory Party had more sense (yes, I know, I know...) than to create a set of rules that keeps a useless leader in post. As it transpires, the rules are even more moronic than those in Labour pre-Corbyn.
Sometimes, rules just have to be changed for the greater good.
What do you contribute to the country mate I take it you work in financial services so are likely vastly overpaid yourself given your abilities, Maybe you take too much out of the country Whilst the old are a problem a lot of our problems stem from the massive bailout of the banks in 2008
Investing money in UK based tech startups, literally job creation in the UKs fastest growing sector.
I agree, the government should have stood behind depositors and let RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock go to the wall. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling couldn't let both major Scottish banks go bankrupt so they bailed them out. Blame them not me.
But do you take personal risk with your money in these investments or do you just invest the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario
It's investor money (we don't proprietary invest), and don't blame me for the changing of bonus rules that made my salary very high and performance pay much lower. Both TSE and I pointed out this would be the result of the idiotic bonus cap the EU introduced.
And the tails for me is losing my job, so the idea that I win either way is frankly ridiculous. You seem to be a very bitter and jealous person, did you, by any chance, not cut it in financial services and now hate everyone who did make it?
Yes. If you fuck up, you lose your job, potentially your career
Unlike about 90% of the people in the public sector…
Indeed, the downside to working in an utterly ruthless sector is that it is utterly ruthless.
Give me a break. I have worked in the financial sector for decades and the idea that useless gits in it get turfed out is for the birds. Promoted or shifted sideways is more usual. A vast number are hugely overpaid. Most of them attribute to their skill what is more properly attributable to luck and being in the right place at the right time and only a few add real value. It is one of the most over-coddled and over-praised sectors around. Our over-reliance on it has been harmful to the economy as a whole.
And yet we had an email this week that over the coming weeks we'd have a headcount reduction of 10% (due to adverse market conditions in the US, UK and EU) which would be based on the last two years of performance and a few other considerations. I guess those 300 or so people are just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Being in Rwanda is not looking like an astute move by Johnson but of course it would have been 1000x worse had the tory MPs not prematurely ejaculated.
I am amazed that it is not simply taken as read that Boris triggered that premature ejaculation himself. Some people are reluctant to give him credit for anything.
I am not sure it will save him.
I think he might return from his trip to find the rules have changed.
Unless he is out before then...
It might not be changed so soon. But if they truly want him gone a way will be found in short order. As he should appreciate technical rules can be fudged if people want.
If MPs claim they want him gone but oh no the rules mean they cannot they are liars.
What do you contribute to the country mate I take it you work in financial services so are likely vastly overpaid yourself given your abilities, Maybe you take too much out of the country Whilst the old are a problem a lot of our problems stem from the massive bailout of the banks in 2008
Investing money in UK based tech startups, literally job creation in the UKs fastest growing sector.
I agree, the government should have stood behind depositors and let RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock go to the wall. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling couldn't let both major Scottish banks go bankrupt so they bailed them out. Blame them not me.
But do you take personal risk with your money in these investments or do you just invest the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario
It's investor money (we don't proprietary invest), and don't blame me for the changing of bonus rules that made my salary very high and performance pay much lower. Both TSE and I pointed out this would be the result of the idiotic bonus cap the EU introduced.
And the tails for me is losing my job, so the idea that I win either way is frankly ridiculous. You seem to be a very bitter and jealous person, did you, by any chance, not cut it in financial services and now hate everyone who did make it?
Yes. If you fuck up, you lose your job, potentially your career
Unlike about 90% of the people in the public sector…
That's the point mate take stupid risks make big bonuses then lose your job a few years down the line but set for life
I sold all my assets just before the covid crash mate because it was my own money and ipay attention to it However I was late getting back in for the same reason If I was in your position just gambling the banks money with no personal downside risk I would have just held through and come out looking like a hero
That’s assuming Max can invest his own money in what he’s investing in on behalf of his clients.
I don’t know what Max does exactly but if he was a stockbroker and advising his clients to buy BAe and wasn’t himself then it’s a bit weak but the chances are (and Max can correct me) that he’s not advising on ordinary stocks which likely are available to certain types of client with minimum investment sizes.
So if Max had millions in the bank then he might be able to invest in same investments but there are a lot of investments hoi poloi cannot chuck their money at.
Amazes me how many of these "BIG SHOTS" in the city have no idea how to invest their own money Another piece of evidence they are vastly overpaid for what they do
Former Leader of Conservative Party Michael Howard has told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Boris Johnson should resign. "The party, and more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership." "Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions," he told the programme. On speculation about how the Conservatives could remove the PM - after Johnson won a no confidence vote on 6 June - Howard said "it may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership [election] could take place". There'll be the full interview on World at One on Radio 4."
18pt majority for Labour in Wakefield is significant. Better than the national polls, but a touch under the two constituency polls done in the seat. IF reflected nationally, it would give Labour a comfortable majority in the Commons.
Full interview on WATO later today. ...Former Leader of Conservative Party Michael Howard has told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Boris Johnson should resign.
"The party, and more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership."
"Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions," he told the programme.
On speculation about how the Conservatives could remove the PM - after Johnson won a no confidence vote on 6 June - Howard said "it may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership [election] could take place"...
The problem then is, where do the 1922 and rebels go if Boris gets same win as a few weeks ago? Surely, not least for the 22’s credibility, they would need to be pretty confident of numbers for victory before gerrymandering another go?
By that reasoning nothing except a GE defeat is ever going to be grounds for moving against him
As per down thread, I think the 22 should have a vonc among itself only, unless there's a specific rule against it. Doesn't lead to a leadership contest or anything but it would be a clear indicator of which way a proper vonc would go
I think you are subconsciously guiding us to the truth, Boris is there to till the election is how his MPs at least are thinking it. Most of those who fancy their chances in a leadership election probably prefer to give it a go after GE loss now forces Boris out - not least because the parliamentary arithmetic could be perfect after the general election for a sassy Conservative opposition up against Starmers grey wet coalition.
The party foot solders might see it very differently though. More feeling for the hard work put into the seats won, remove Boris as best chance to hold them.
See how the view of this between MPs and the party’s foot soldiers could be very different in the coming months?
On speculation about how the Conservatives could remove the PM - after Johnson won a no confidence vote on 6 June - Howard said "it may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership [election] could take place"...
The problem then is, where do the 1922 and rebels go if Boris gets same win as a few weeks ago? Surely, not least for the 22’s credibility, they would need to be pretty confident of numbers for victory before gerrymandering another go?
Yeah. My totally uninformed take is that they'd probably not change the rules unless they were very sure it would be a defeat, say about 2/3rds to 1/3rd. And even then I'd guess that people would be going to Boris in private to say "look, the game is definitely up, we can't resist pressure for a rules change much longer, you should resign" at that point. Maybe Boris would force them to push him out, but maybe not. It would certainly be a very different political environment to right now or even to back in January.
I predicted the Tories would lose both seats but Boris would stay. Sadly - for the Conservative Party - this appears to be accurate on all counts
Boris is clearly steering his Party to a catastrophic defeat. They need to oust him now
Recall the Golden Bough. The sacrifice of the king propitiates the angry gods, and thus the tribe is saved. It is time to propitiate; because the gods - AKA the voters - are VERY angry
And if, in the process, the Tory core has to put up with some social liberalism that it finds distasteful, then tough. If it should come to pass, a heavy Conservative defeat at the next election that allows this to happen will be as much a monument to their greed as it will be to Johnson's self-absorption and venality.
Wokeness is not “social liberalism”, it is much more sinister than that
I entirely agree with you on the predatory pensioners. We need a government for the young
Unfortunately I don’t think Starmer’s Labour is it. They are as clueless - policy wise - as the Tories.
But then, looking at the headlines in today’s FT, with emergencies across the world from humble Sri Lanka to mighty America, with the EU warning of “terrible splits” in the bloc as Russia shuts off the gas, I wonder if any politician anywhere has even a vague idea how to handle what’s coming our way
Brace
I really hate the way particular groups are described in offensive ways - "feckless young", "predatory pensioners" etc. This sort of tribal culture war language will do nothing to repair society.
The current Tory party is exhausted and out of good ideas. Boris is a disgrace to his office and his government is degrading our democracy. His MPs should grow a spine, throw him out and start the process of rebuilding a Tory party that does not shame Britain. I doubt they will. But it is what they ought to do.if they don't the Tories will be out of power for a long time which will lead to the same problems with Labour. Parties that stay in power for too long become a menace.
We need policies for the hard-working of all ages, the young and those who are poor and just about managing. We need proper housebuilding, to do something about the grotesque interest rates on student loans and the absurd obstacles we have put in the way of those who try to export. We need proper investment in infrastructure in all parts of the country and we need to repair relations with our nearest neighbours.
We do not need more constitutional jiggery-pokery.
What we need above all is a government which explains clearly that times are going to be hard for the next few years as we deal with the consequences of Brexit, Covid and world instabilities so that all of us will have to tighten our belts but that this will need to be done fairly. No-one will be immune but we will try our damndest to make sure that those with the greatest wealth pay their fair share. For a start, NI on everyone who works, no matter what their age , rises in pensions should be no higher than what is offered to other public sector workers and council tax bands above the current highest levels to capture the increase in house values in recent years. I'd hugely increase the amount non-doms have to pay for their status as well and limit the amount rich people can give to charities and claim back from their tax as well.
Others will have other policies but they need to be presented as part of a narrative which explains that the next few years will be tough and that no-one will be exempt. Labour and the Lib Dems are still proposing to do something for the WASPI women, for instance - who have no legal case and are about as undeserving a group as you could find. This idea that you can throw sweeties at your favoured groups needs to be quashed.
We have to think hard about how we are going to earn our living and start doing it. For all of Labour's success so far I am not at all sure that there is much of a narrative from them on this. And if they don't develop one - with the policies to match and the steel to resist all the many claims made on them - they will end up being buffeted by events when in power.
The problem with this is that the pensioners are leeching from younger generations through rent and imposing huge pension rises on working age people, either via the state pension or RPI increases on final salary schemes that are paid for by current employees of companies. A tax on higher earning pensioners and clawbacks of the state pension would allow for taxes to be cut for working age people but Labour are simply too weak to pursue this policy.
Younger generations pointing out, fairly, that pensioners are predatory and thieving from younger generations to fund their retirements. Making it prohibitively expensive to own additional properties is the best way to solve this as it frees up millions of houses for purchase by young people who are currently priced out of the market by landlords and second home owners.
You want everyone to "get along" but while older generations are monopolising wealth and prosperity I see no reason for young people to be part of this grand bargain of "getting along" for the sake of it. It's up to older people to realise their selfishness is the cause of friction between the generations, they are leeching from their children and grandchildren yet want all of us to play nice because their parents made sacrifices while they made none.
I am not a pensioner and am very concerned about the future for the young. I don't think rude language helps, that's all. There are poor pensioners and rich young. You are one of the latter. I know quite a few poor pensioners in Millom who have not been stealing anything from anyone and have little in the way of assets. People like you should be taxed more to help people like them.
I have proposed both below the line and above it a number of proposals which would shift the balance away from the wealthy to those who work, especially the young.
We are I think broadly in agreement that too much policy has been aimed at only one group of favoured voters which is bad policy and bad for the economy and society. But I find it grimly amusing that it is you which has been a cheerleader for the Tory party and its policies which have largely been responsible for this for the last 12 years.
Rather than castigating me perhaps you might reflect on whether your support for that party has been in part responsible for the policies you now say you dislike.
Firstly, I already pay significant tax, at last count more than 45% of my gross income was spent on income and other taxes last year. The top 1% of earners in this country contribute ever more in tax, it was 27% two years ago. The idea that high earners don't contribute enough is frankly ridiculous. Let's start with NI on pension income, state pension clawback for higher rate pensioners before we start increasing the burden, yet again, on working people. Let's increase tax on unproductive and unearned income like dividends, rent and some forms of capital before attacking working people (either via income taxes or corporate taxes that will drag on pay growth). Lets bloody put a super-tax on cruises if we need to claw back money from wealthy old people.
What we also don't do us tax accumulated lifetime wealth during retirement and we should. We have trillions of non-primary housing assets locked up by older people who don't spend it and it isn't properly taxed. Even if we looked at how discretionary trusts are taxed that would be a start. If taxes go up on older wealthy people then that's taxes which don't have to go up on working age people, it also means older people will self fund their generation's health and care needs rather than putting the burden onto working age people.
Labour needs a radical approach on the generational wealth gap and to "speak truth to power" call out the older generation as selfish, make them look at themselves in the mirror and ask how they think their 11% pension rises will be funded, are they impoverishing their children and grandchildren in the process. Ask them if they are as selfish as everyone believes or are they willing to make the same sacrifices as everyone else is being asked? I think a bout of honesty for older people is necessary but Starmer isn't a strong enough leader to do it. Neither is Boris, of course.
That's a very long way of saying "more tax needs to be paid but not by me".
True, but the fact remains that those in “ordinary” working PAYE jobs are paying much, much more tax as a portion of their income that almost any other segment of the tax paying classes.
Eg, Wealthy pensioners pay only income tax & make no NI contributions despite being those responsible for the heaviest burden on the NHS. Wealthly pensioners could certainly be paying more.
Any of the groups of society who manage to camoflage profit as capital gains (BTL types, private equity groups etc etc) are paying half the tax on their income that the PAYE classes are.
MaxPB is not alone in wondering where all this massive rental income flow is going & whether any of it is being taxed.
And so on...
Which is why I said that NI should be levied on all who work etc. I have no problem with wealthy pensioners paying NI etc. Nor landlords paying their fair share etc.
But when someone who is well paid and well off, when asked to pay more, immediately starts pointing at others and asks them to pay more, we have a problem.
The fact is that all will have to pay more, including well-remunerated City folk, as well as those who have been allowed to shield income and wealth through various loopholes. I have been saying this for years. I will be affected I expect. I won't like it. But if it helps make a better future for my children so much the better.
@MaxPB's response is to say "not me" - which is a pretty common one, even if he is honest enough to admit it, and it is one reason why the party he supports and has voted for has been in power for the last 12 years.
He is, whether he likes it or not, part of the establishment he so derides.
That carries all the way through to universities - why would you teach computer science for £40k a year when you can earn £60k and have zero of the hassle of teaching people.
I have done.
Not computer science but a similar field. My last job in England was a good job in the private sector which paid lots more than 60K. After 8 years the job was no longer interesting and the job area was not personally rewarding. I moved to Germany and got a teaching chair, where my many years in the private sector was seen as great experience. Teaching at university level is far from a hassle. The students really appreciate bringing wide practical experience of the field to my course material, and seeing students improving from struggling with basic concepts to understanding the difficult stuff is really personally rewarding.
I do admit, though, that teachers/lecturers/professors get much less hassle and pressure from the government and quangos (eg. Ofstead) in Germany compared to in Britain.
Former Leader of Conservative Party Michael Howard has told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Boris Johnson should resign. "The party, and more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership." "Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions," he told the programme. On speculation about how the Conservatives could remove the PM - after Johnson won a no confidence vote on 6 June - Howard said "it may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership [election] could take place". There'll be the full interview on World at One on Radio 4."
All hail King Rishi, truly the wisest politician of our age.
Thinly veiled, he's just sent me a tax rebate. The other view is that grasping Rishi helped himself to an unauthorised loan at zero interest.
Not that you are missing much interest (alas for your other savings).
Indeed. The overpaid fools in the City are making my pension savings disappear at a rate of knots. What's the point of them if they don't notice or can't react to market falls? It's the old saying — all it takes to be an investment genius is a rising market and a short memory.
Johnson will almost certainly be replaced by this time next year unless he somehow gets ahead in the opinion polls again, or holds a difficult by-election. Just in time for the new boundaries.
SKS is pursuing the only route to Downing Street, the Cameron strategy
1. Face an unpopular prime minister 2. Fail to get a majority 3. Go into coalition with Lib Dems take the credit for their policies, let them take the stick for yours 4. Annihiliate Lib Dems at following election, win majority 5. Get brought down by the Europe issue
Sounds plausible to me
I hope you are well, haven't talked to you much recently
I am, thank you.
Was absent for a couple of weeks due to baby number three being born. Wee little boy (actualy not so wee, almost a pound more than his two siblings at birth!)
So, all the joy, exhaustion, frustration and joy again entailed in that. But mostly happiness. It's hard to look at a newborn getting cuddled by his older brother and sister and not feel happy.
Hope all good with you, CHB.
(By the way, @MaxPB - hope all good with you and your little'un. If you're lucky, things may be settling down a little bit by now?)
Congratulations !
Mine's outgrowing her 0-1 month stuff but too small for 0-3. She's got long legs for her centile...; Well her mum is 6'1. You're of course now an experienced pro with the nappies
Ah, congratulations to you, too (I'd missed news of your arrival, if it was announced).
You'll find, over time with washing and if passing down from one child to another that the sizes become even more random. Ours is in some 0-3 things already, we have the same problem with legs and also with feet - all the baby clothes with feet built in seem to have tiny, tiny feet.
Best stuff we got was from a Dutch friend, from Albert Heijn (supermarket) so not super fancy, but long legs for Dutch babies and feet that fold over so you can open them up if too small or too hot.
Nappies - well, I thought I was a pro after two others, but newborn nappies are a challenge. There's not much there to put the nappy on!
SKS is pursuing the only route to Downing Street, the Cameron strategy
1. Face an unpopular prime minister 2. Fail to get a majority 3. Go into coalition with Lib Dems take the credit for their policies, let them take the stick for yours 4. Annihiliate Lib Dems at following election, win majority 5. Get brought down by the Europe issue
Sounds plausible to me
I hope you are well, haven't talked to you much recently
I am, thank you.
Was absent for a couple of weeks due to baby number three being born. Wee little boy (actualy not so wee, almost a pound more than his two siblings at birth!)
So, all the joy, exhaustion, frustration and joy again entailed in that. But mostly happiness. It's hard to look at a newborn getting cuddled by his older brother and sister and not feel happy.
Hope all good with you, CHB.
(By the way, @MaxPB - hope all good with you and your little'un. If you're lucky, things may be settling down a little bit by now?)
Congratulations !
Mine's outgrowing her 0-1 month stuff but too small for 0-3. She's got long legs for her centile...; Well her mum is 6'1. You're of course now an experienced pro with the nappies
Ah, congratulations to you, too (I'd missed news of your arrival, if it was announced).
You'll find, over time with washing and if passing down from one child to another that the sizes become even more random. Ours is in some 0-3 things already, we have the same problem with legs and also with feet - all the baby clothes with feet built in seem to have tiny, tiny feet.
Best stuff we got was from a Dutch friend, from Albert Heijn (supermarket) so not super fancy, but long legs for Dutch babies and feet that fold over so you can open them up if too small or too hot.
Nappies - well, I thought I was a pro after two others, but newborn nappies are a challenge. There's not much there to put the nappy on!
Ah I missed your message earlier, congratulations on number three. We're struggling with just one, can't imagine what three would be like.
I thought the Tory Party had more sense (yes, I know, I know...) than to create a set of rules that keeps a useless leader in post. As it transpires, the rules are even more moronic than those in Labour pre-Corbyn.
They also have more sense than to have a set of rules that allows the leader to face a confidence vote every six weeks when the level of support means he'll win anyway. That from the party's perspective would do nobody any good.
All hail King Rishi, truly the wisest politician of our age.
Thinly veiled, he's just sent me a tax rebate. The other view is that grasping Rishi helped himself to an unauthorised loan at zero interest.
Not that you are missing much interest (alas for your other savings).
Indeed. The overpaid fools in the City are making my pension savings disappear at a rate of knots. What's the point of them if they don't notice or can't react to market falls? It's the old saying — all it takes to be an investment genius is a rising market and a short memory.
Like I say it's heads I win tails you lose with these guys They extract money from ordinary people then boast about how much tax they pay yeah well if we taxed drug dealers they would be the biggest contributors to the exchequer
MaxPB I hear your anger about the establishment I think the problem is UK society has become completely ossified perhaps we have just been too stable for too long
Not appreciating stability is a big mistake. Ask anyone who lives in a genuinely unstable country.
Yeah. I imagine a lot of Syrians and Ukrainians fancy a bit of Boring British Stability, right now
Stability is not the only requirement though. Russia has a very stable political system, at least internally. That stability is supported by jailing or poisoning peope who speak out or try to form an opposition to the government.
Stable democracy. Russia has never been a real democracy.
That is shifting the argument quite a bit. There had been no mention of democracy, just stability.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
Do we know anything about the Independent in Wakefield who got 7% (above David Herdson)?
Basically a Tory. Former tory councillor. Which detracts a bit from the winning margin
Oh wow, so two former Tory councillors 3rd and 4th.
Yes. Labour didn't quite get back to 2017 levels on a low turnout against an outgoing party who foisted a child sexual assaulter on the city. The Tory collapse in vote flattered them somewhat and id expect this to be a Labour held marginal (less than 5%) at a GE. On this sort of result, against this specific backdrop id say labour will struggle to retake the larger majoritues in the red wall on current boundaries like Bishop Auckland and Rother Valley
Anyway. How do you get away with that post? I’ve been saying exactly the same thing all night, now there’s drawings of me on the walls of the bogs with my head up Boris Johnson’s arse. 🤷♀️
Im sexy as hell Rabbit. Everyone here loves me and despairs
I don’t want to get banned for doxxing, but you are Lady Galadriel?
- Ministers planning fresh cull of deer as population reaches a staggering 2million... - Will urge supermarkets to buy and sell - Farmers could get grants to shoot more - shake up deer act
I think you conflate what you want to happen with what will happen.
No I think it is evidenced by the fact he needs to shore up support and is in danger of being kicked out. He only cares about himself after all.
He'd lose his own seat. No way Boris calls an election. If he sticks around until May 2024 he's got tenure of almost 5 years and takes him well beyond Brown and May. Plus he probably thinks that this is all a passing issue and by 2024 he can turn it around and get another 5 years with slim majority.
He would have to organise the election. It would require a large number of people to be in the know about a snap election. Not least, donors who would fund it.
The moment it looked like he was trying for it, the 22 rules would be changed and the letters in by tea-time.
The only way we have an election before 2024 (probably autumn) is if there is a new PM who gets a significant "she's not Boris" honeymoon bounce. And even that is fraught (ask Theresa May).
What do you contribute to the country mate I take it you work in financial services so are likely vastly overpaid yourself given your abilities, Maybe you take too much out of the country Whilst the old are a problem a lot of our problems stem from the massive bailout of the banks in 2008
Investing money in UK based tech startups, literally job creation in the UKs fastest growing sector.
I agree, the government should have stood behind depositors and let RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock go to the wall. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling couldn't let both major Scottish banks go bankrupt so they bailed them out. Blame them not me.
But do you take personal risk with your money in these investments or do you just invest the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario
It's investor money (we don't proprietary invest), and don't blame me for the changing of bonus rules that made my salary very high and performance pay much lower. Both TSE and I pointed out this would be the result of the idiotic bonus cap the EU introduced.
And the tails for me is losing my job, so the idea that I win either way is frankly ridiculous. You seem to be a very bitter and jealous person, did you, by any chance, not cut it in financial services and now hate everyone who did make it?
Yes. If you fuck up, you lose your job, potentially your career
Unlike about 90% of the people in the public sector…
That's the point mate take stupid risks make big bonuses then lose your job a few years down the line but set for life
I sold all my assets just before the covid crash mate because it was my own money and ipay attention to it However I was late getting back in for the same reason If I was in your position just gambling the banks money with no personal downside risk I would have just held through and come out looking like a hero
That’s assuming Max can invest his own money in what he’s investing in on behalf of his clients.
I don’t know what Max does exactly but if he was a stockbroker and advising his clients to buy BAe and wasn’t himself then it’s a bit weak but the chances are (and Max can correct me) that he’s not advising on ordinary stocks which likely are available to certain types of client with minimum investment sizes.
So if Max had millions in the bank then he might be able to invest in same investments but there are a lot of investments hoi poloi cannot chuck their money at.
Amazes me how many of these "BIG SHOTS" in the city have no idea how to invest their own money Another piece of evidence they are vastly overpaid for what they do
@wooliedyed re your analysis a week or two ago re the red wall gains by the Tories being a predictable progression rather than a phenomena of the 2019 election (2019 just being the tipping point) I note that, I think @Foxy, did something this morning on the potential swing back in the red wall seats based upon Wakefield that you might find interesting (again I think highlighting the lack of a specific phenomena for these seats). I didn't look at the detail of your research or @Foxy's but it sounds interesting.
Mine was just a calculation on Electoral Calculus, based on recent polling and assumptions, nothing more significant than that. It is quite fun to play with, and gives a list of seats changing hands:
He would have to organise the election. It would require a large number of people to be in the know about a snap election. Not least, donors who would fund it.
The moment it looked like he was trying for it, the 22 rules would be changed and the letters in by tea-time.
The only way we have an election before 2024 (probably autumn) is if there is a new PM who gets a significant "she's not Boris" honeymoon bounce. And even that is fraught (ask Theresa May).
Surely he can just announce it now?
He is less worried about winning it than still being in the job for another day
He won a sizeable majority for his party 30 months ago. Getting legislation through isn't a problem, and won't be for the next two years.
He's literally just seen by-election results that indicate he is personally unpopular at the moment, and that it is very likely he would lose significant numbers of seats with an immediate election, and ALL his advisors will be saying the same.
He's under pressure from his party, but isn't facing an immediate confidence vote as we've just had one.
Whilst opponents would no doubt welcome the chance to kick the Conservatives, Tory voters and those considering Tory would view it as crackers. At best they'd see it as an annoying waste of time for a Government with a good majority, and a cavalier gamble by someone who has lost the plot. At worst, they will very strongly suspect the reason is that he knows that the state of the nation in 2024 will be Defcon F***ed, so is going to the ballot box before the punters figure it out.
It has no logic and no merit that can survive serious scrutiny. And, for all his flaws, Johnson is not totally stupid in terms of political calculation.
And he believes his own "just give me a chance to deliver" and "tomorrow I'll be better and things will be better" rhetoric. One of his flaws is that, in the moment, he always absolutely believes his own bluster and flim-flam.
He would have to organise the election. It would require a large number of people to be in the know about a snap election. Not least, donors who would fund it.
The moment it looked like he was trying for it, the 22 rules would be changed and the letters in by tea-time.
The only way we have an election before 2024 (probably autumn) is if there is a new PM who gets a significant "she's not Boris" honeymoon bounce. And even that is fraught (ask Theresa May).
Agree with you entirely as I invariably do. We retired oil moguls/lowly Tory grassrooters stick together.
What do you contribute to the country mate I take it you work in financial services so are likely vastly overpaid yourself given your abilities, Maybe you take too much out of the country Whilst the old are a problem a lot of our problems stem from the massive bailout of the banks in 2008
Investing money in UK based tech startups, literally job creation in the UKs fastest growing sector.
I agree, the government should have stood behind depositors and let RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock go to the wall. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling couldn't let both major Scottish banks go bankrupt so they bailed them out. Blame them not me.
But do you take personal risk with your money in these investments or do you just invest the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario
It's investor money (we don't proprietary invest), and don't blame me for the changing of bonus rules that made my salary very high and performance pay much lower. Both TSE and I pointed out this would be the result of the idiotic bonus cap the EU introduced.
And the tails for me is losing my job, so the idea that I win either way is frankly ridiculous. You seem to be a very bitter and jealous person, did you, by any chance, not cut it in financial services and now hate everyone who did make it?
Yes. If you fuck up, you lose your job, potentially your career
Unlike about 90% of the people in the public sector…
Indeed, the downside to working in an utterly ruthless sector is that it is utterly ruthless.
Give me a break. I have worked in the financial sector for decades and the idea that useless gits in it get turfed out is for the birds. Promoted or shifted sideways is more usual. A vast number are hugely overpaid. Most of them attribute to their skill what is more properly attributable to luck and being in the right place at the right time and only a few add real value. It is one of the most over-coddled and over-praised sectors around. Our over-reliance on it has been harmful to the economy as a whole.
And yet we had an email this week that over the coming weeks we'd have a headcount reduction of 10% (due to adverse market conditions in the US, UK and EU) which would be based on the last two years of performance and a few other considerations. I guess those 300 or so people are just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I've been through loads of redundancy rounds. Most will get some sort of payoff and have had good salaries. The vast majority will get other jobs in the sector. They are unlikely to end up on Universal Credit or working for the minimum wage.
The City has some clever people in it and run well it can add value. But it has not been run well and clever people in it are as prone to self-delusion as everyone else, more so in fact. In my experience anyway.
At any event, I need to go so thanks for the debate.
BTW I don't think I congratulated you on your baby girl. Hope all is going well.
SKS is pursuing the only route to Downing Street, the Cameron strategy
1. Face an unpopular prime minister 2. Fail to get a majority 3. Go into coalition with Lib Dems take the credit for their policies, let them take the stick for yours 4. Annihiliate Lib Dems at following election, win majority 5. Get brought down by the Europe issue
Sounds plausible to me
I hope you are well, haven't talked to you much recently
I am, thank you.
Was absent for a couple of weeks due to baby number three being born. Wee little boy (actualy not so wee, almost a pound more than his two siblings at birth!)
So, all the joy, exhaustion, frustration and joy again entailed in that. But mostly happiness. It's hard to look at a newborn getting cuddled by his older brother and sister and not feel happy.
Hope all good with you, CHB.
(By the way, @MaxPB - hope all good with you and your little'un. If you're lucky, things may be settling down a little bit by now?)
Congratulations !
Mine's outgrowing her 0-1 month stuff but too small for 0-3. She's got long legs for her centile...; Well her mum is 6'1. You're of course now an experienced pro with the nappies
Ah, congratulations to you, too (I'd missed news of your arrival, if it was announced).
You'll find, over time with washing and if passing down from one child to another that the sizes become even more random. Ours is in some 0-3 things already, we have the same problem with legs and also with feet - all the baby clothes with feet built in seem to have tiny, tiny feet.
Best stuff we got was from a Dutch friend, from Albert Heijn (supermarket) so not super fancy, but long legs for Dutch babies and feet that fold over so you can open them up if too small or too hot.
Nappies - well, I thought I was a pro after two others, but newborn nappies are a challenge. There's not much there to put the nappy on!
Ah I missed your message earlier, congratulations on number three. We're struggling with just one, can't imagine what three would be like.
Thanks
Put it this way, if I ever get an interview question about an example of when I effectively multitasked, I've got a few. Also some examples of when multitasking went wrong and lessons learnt
Exactly what happened in Australia. From the same people. There are only two issues. The PM and his character, and the economy. Talking about anything else appears out of touch.
In Australia a result of 52/48 to the Liberals/Nationals was replaced by a 52/48 result for Labor. Not a huge shift in opinion.
No indeed. But a relentless focus on wedge issues of little relevance to most people drove away centrists to Independents. The Labor primary vote fell. Yet led to a majority. Others have noted that third and fourth in Wakefield were ex-Tories. And are already adding their votes to the Tory pile. It doesn't work like that
Your prediction skills aren't turning out to be so good
Evidence please to support that lie?
You were predicting a Tory lead by now.
Nope. Not me.
What you are probably referring to is I predicted end of May for the Tory vote share to drop in June but for first few weeks it ticked up a little bit. I took a lot of flak for “ramping” the Tory uptick - which I didn’t really, I was just flabbergasted it was ticking in the different direction than my methodology had predicted the Tories less popular those weeks note more popular. As it was across many polls the uptick was real enough, not MOE on a couple, But in hindsight, though there was the inexplicable tick upwards in their share two weeks after vonc, it proved short lived, they didn’t get above 34 and this weeks polls Tory share appears to be ticking down.
He would have to organise the election. It would require a large number of people to be in the know about a snap election. Not least, donors who would fund it.
The moment it looked like he was trying for it, the 22 rules would be changed and the letters in by tea-time.
The only way we have an election before 2024 (probably autumn) is if there is a new PM who gets a significant "she's not Boris" honeymoon bounce. And even that is fraught (ask Theresa May).
Surely he can just announce it now?
He is less worried about winning it than still being in the job for another day
He can't "just announce it now". For one thing, he would have the ignominy of being a PM who called an election and then lost his seat. Not to mention that of many dozens of his colleagues.
The voter shave told Boris to fuck off. Red Wall, Blue Wall. 3/4 of his backbenchers have told Boris to fuck off. They don't want a liar as a PM. He either goes of his own resignation, or he will be spectacularly resigned, whenever he goes to the country. You can't game to voters. This is now like Winchester 1997. Squared.
Although Anthony Eden might be chuckling at somebody taking his Worst. PM. Ever. title....
What do you contribute to the country mate I take it you work in financial services so are likely vastly overpaid yourself given your abilities, Maybe you take too much out of the country Whilst the old are a problem a lot of our problems stem from the massive bailout of the banks in 2008
Investing money in UK based tech startups, literally job creation in the UKs fastest growing sector.
I agree, the government should have stood behind depositors and let RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock go to the wall. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling couldn't let both major Scottish banks go bankrupt so they bailed them out. Blame them not me.
But do you take personal risk with your money in these investments or do you just invest the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario
It's investor money (we don't proprietary invest), and don't blame me for the changing of bonus rules that made my salary very high and performance pay much lower. Both TSE and I pointed out this would be the result of the idiotic bonus cap the EU introduced.
And the tails for me is losing my job, so the idea that I win either way is frankly ridiculous. You seem to be a very bitter and jealous person, did you, by any chance, not cut it in financial services and now hate everyone who did make it?
Yes. If you fuck up, you lose your job, potentially your career
Unlike about 90% of the people in the public sector…
Indeed, the downside to working in an utterly ruthless sector is that it is utterly ruthless.
Give me a break. I have worked in the financial sector for decades and the idea that useless gits in it get turfed out is for the birds. Promoted or shifted sideways is more usual. A vast number are hugely overpaid. Most of them attribute to their skill what is more properly attributable to luck and being in the right place at the right time and only a few add real value. It is one of the most over-coddled and over-praised sectors around. Our over-reliance on it has been harmful to the economy as a whole.
And yet we had an email this week that over the coming weeks we'd have a headcount reduction of 10% (due to adverse market conditions in the US, UK and EU) which would be based on the last two years of performance and a few other considerations. I guess those 300 or so people are just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I've been through loads of redundancy rounds. Most will get some sort of payoff and have had good salaries. The vast majority will get other jobs in the sector. They are unlikely to end up on Universal Credit or working for the minimum wage.
The City has some clever people in it and run well it can add value. But it has not been run well and clever people in it are as prone to self-delusion as everyone else, more so in fact. In my experience anyway.
At any event, I need to go so thanks for the debate.
BTW I don't think I congratulated you on your baby girl. Hope all is going well.
Thanks, and thanks for the afternoon debate too. I'd like to add that anyone who thinks PB can't change minds should take a look at my views on wealth taxes just 2 or 3 years ago so the debate is absolutely healthy and necessary!
I should also probably get back to work given everything that's happening.
What do you contribute to the country mate I take it you work in financial services so are likely vastly overpaid yourself given your abilities, Maybe you take too much out of the country Whilst the old are a problem a lot of our problems stem from the massive bailout of the banks in 2008
Investing money in UK based tech startups, literally job creation in the UKs fastest growing sector.
I agree, the government should have stood behind depositors and let RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock go to the wall. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling couldn't let both major Scottish banks go bankrupt so they bailed them out. Blame them not me.
But do you take personal risk with your money in these investments or do you just invest the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario
It's investor money (we don't proprietary invest), and don't blame me for the changing of bonus rules that made my salary very high and performance pay much lower. Both TSE and I pointed out this would be the result of the idiotic bonus cap the EU introduced.
And the tails for me is losing my job, so the idea that I win either way is frankly ridiculous. You seem to be a very bitter and jealous person, did you, by any chance, not cut it in financial services and now hate everyone who did make it?
Yes. If you fuck up, you lose your job, potentially your career
Unlike about 90% of the people in the public sector…
This is a bit of a myth. The City can be a very forgiving place. Quite soft in fact. You can stuff up badly and be back in the saddle in no time.
- Ministers planning fresh cull of deer as population reaches a staggering 2million... - Will urge supermarkets to buy and sell - Farmers could get grants to shoot more - shake up deer act
Really got the priorities in order
Very important. Tories grovel and cringe to posh landowners and have fantasies about bringing back the manorial system, Speenhamland, serfs, droit de seigneur, etc.
(Actually, there's a lot to be said for proper deer control - a big problem having been those landowners who prioritise blood sports and won't cooperate with others in the district. I don't suppose they support Labour.)
I wonder if the keenness of Ukraine to join the EU will shift opinion in the UK a tad towards re-join or closer cooperation? Ukrainians are pretty popular and their heroic struggle is supported by a majority. The only dissenters are classic "the West is always wrong" loons, "realists" with a very poor understanding of reality and petty minded opponents of any overseas expenditure who little realise that if Russia wins the cost will be a thousand fold higher and may well involve British lives.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
You only have to be less toxic than your opponent and Labour is far less toxic than the Conservative Party as this result shows.
In the interests of balance BBC R4 WATO is calling the Wakefield result for Labour "unconvincing" and the Tories "got a drubbing in Honiton and Tiverton".
What do you contribute to the country mate I take it you work in financial services so are likely vastly overpaid yourself given your abilities, Maybe you take too much out of the country Whilst the old are a problem a lot of our problems stem from the massive bailout of the banks in 2008
Investing money in UK based tech startups, literally job creation in the UKs fastest growing sector.
I agree, the government should have stood behind depositors and let RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock go to the wall. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling couldn't let both major Scottish banks go bankrupt so they bailed them out. Blame them not me.
But do you take personal risk with your money in these investments or do you just invest the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario
It's investor money (we don't proprietary invest), and don't blame me for the changing of bonus rules that made my salary very high and performance pay much lower. Both TSE and I pointed out this would be the result of the idiotic bonus cap the EU introduced.
And the tails for me is losing my job, so the idea that I win either way is frankly ridiculous. You seem to be a very bitter and jealous person, did you, by any chance, not cut it in financial services and now hate everyone who did make it?
Yes. If you fuck up, you lose your job, potentially your career
Unlike about 90% of the people in the public sector…
That's the point mate take stupid risks make big bonuses then lose your job a few years down the line but set for life
I sold all my assets just before the covid crash mate because it was my own money and ipay attention to it However I was late getting back in for the same reason If I was in your position just gambling the banks money with no personal downside risk I would have just held through and come out looking like a hero
That’s assuming Max can invest his own money in what he’s investing in on behalf of his clients.
I don’t know what Max does exactly but if he was a stockbroker and advising his clients to buy BAe and wasn’t himself then it’s a bit weak but the chances are (and Max can correct me) that he’s not advising on ordinary stocks which likely are available to certain types of client with minimum investment sizes.
So if Max had millions in the bank then he might be able to invest in same investments but there are a lot of investments hoi poloi cannot chuck their money at.
Amazes me how many of these "BIG SHOTS" in the city have no idea how to invest their own money Another piece of evidence they are vastly overpaid for what they do
Vanguard S&P 500 tracker, same as the rest of us.
Yes down about 22 % this year Nice one
But up 200% in the past decade, and 50% in the past five years.
Exactly what happened in Australia. From the same people. There are only two issues. The PM and his character, and the economy. Talking about anything else appears out of touch.
In Australia a result of 52/48 to the Liberals/Nationals was replaced by a 52/48 result for Labor. Not a huge shift in opinion.
No indeed. But a relentless focus on wedge issues of little relevance to most people drove away centrists to Independents. The Labor primary vote fell. Yet led to a majority. Others have noted that third and fourth in Wakefield were ex-Tories. And are already adding their votes to the Tory pile. It doesn't work like that
Quite so. They didn't vote Tory for a reason.
Incidentally the Yougov daily poll doesn't look good for the Tories. Wrong leader and wrong policies according to 72%, albeit before the weighting cuts in for the final results.
SKS is pursuing the only route to Downing Street, the Cameron strategy
1. Face an unpopular prime minister 2. Fail to get a majority 3. Go into coalition with Lib Dems take the credit for their policies, let them take the stick for yours 4. Annihiliate Lib Dems at following election, win majority 5. Get brought down by the Europe issue
Sounds plausible to me
I hope you are well, haven't talked to you much recently
I am, thank you.
Was absent for a couple of weeks due to baby number three being born. Wee little boy (actualy not so wee, almost a pound more than his two siblings at birth!)
So, all the joy, exhaustion, frustration and joy again entailed in that. But mostly happiness. It's hard to look at a newborn getting cuddled by his older brother and sister and not feel happy.
Hope all good with you, CHB.
(By the way, @MaxPB - hope all good with you and your little'un. If you're lucky, things may be settling down a little bit by now?)
Congratulations !
Mine's outgrowing her 0-1 month stuff but too small for 0-3. She's got long legs for her centile...; Well her mum is 6'1. You're of course now an experienced pro with the nappies
Ah, congratulations to you, too (I'd missed news of your arrival, if it was announced).
You'll find, over time with washing and if passing down from one child to another that the sizes become even more random. Ours is in some 0-3 things already, we have the same problem with legs and also with feet - all the baby clothes with feet built in seem to have tiny, tiny feet.
Best stuff we got was from a Dutch friend, from Albert Heijn (supermarket) so not super fancy, but long legs for Dutch babies and feet that fold over so you can open them up if too small or too hot.
Nappies - well, I thought I was a pro after two others, but newborn nappies are a challenge. There's not much there to put the nappy on!
Ah I missed your message earlier, congratulations on number three. We're struggling with just one, can't imagine what three would be like.
Thanks
Put it this way, if I ever get an interview question about an example of when I effectively multitasked, I've got a few. Also some examples of when multitasking went wrong and lessons learnt
With twins my favourite one was preparation - we had a 2 minute window in which whichever twin wanted feeding had to have a bottle in mouth to have a chance of feeding her before her sister was woken up and demanded the same.
Failure meant that whoever had the nightshift needed to be on duty.
Your prediction skills aren't turning out to be so good
Evidence please to support that lie?
You were predicting a Tory lead by now.
Nope. Not me.
What you are probably referring to is I predicted end of May for the Tory vote share to drop in June but for first few weeks it ticked up a little bit. I took a lot of flak for “ramping” the Tory uptick - which I didn’t really, I was just flabbergasted it was ticking in the different direction than my methodology had predicted the Tories less popular those weeks note more popular. As it was across many polls the uptick was real enough, not MOE on a couple, But in hindsight, though there was the inexplicable tick upwards in their share two weeks after vonc, it proved short lived, they didn’t get above 34 and this weeks polls Tory share appears to be ticking down.
This weekend, Tory MPs will be hearing some very hard home truths in their constituencies, both about the dire state of the country and their electoral prospects. Doubtless things will temporarily calm down again but there's no mistaking the panic right now - or the fundamentals. https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1540307071819718657
East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
You haven't answered my question on whether you take personal risks with your money I assume you don't therefore and are just risking the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario correct
Why are you being so aggressive to Max?
It's not been aggressive to ask if he risks his own money He earns the big bucks so if he's that good he would be comfortable risking his own money if not ,,
And ti be fairhe was quite aggressive towards pensioners even if some of the ire is deserved
I think it's generally agreed by most people on this site that rich pensioners need to pay more and that there is a limit on the percentage of total income that you can expect working people to contribute.
Elsewhere (and partly it's local because being up north many people own their outright by the time they hit their early 50's) I'm seeing more and more people switching to part time work because they don't need that much cash to live on.
Yes. Which begs the question.What is it about the country that so many are prepared to take a hit on their incomes to cut down hours or quit? Why do so many hate what they do?
They don't hate it, they just know they have won the house price lottery so can back-peddle a bit.
Full interview on WATO later today. ...Former Leader of Conservative Party Michael Howard has told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Boris Johnson should resign.
"The party, and more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership."
"Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions," he told the programme.
On speculation about how the Conservatives could remove the PM - after Johnson won a no confidence vote on 6 June - Howard said "it may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership [election] could take place"...
The problem then is, where do the 1922 and rebels go if Boris gets same win as a few weeks ago? Surely, not least for the 22’s credibility, they would need to be pretty confident of numbers for victory before gerrymandering another go?
At some point the cabinet will move against him. In the first vote they undoubtedly felt obliged to support him, but should there be further votes then that'll possibly change, and once he starts to lose parts of the cabinet then the rest will decide that enough is enough and tell him to go.
(That's surely the mechanism, but how long it might take to play out is anyone's guess)
But it’s a cheerleading cabinet? Maggie major Cameron and May cabinets had best in the show from across the party? Boris killed that approach so very early on with a cheerleading cabinet, as befits Populism approach based around The Great Leader - the difference between Conservatism and right wing populism described here. So in in this different type of politics, does a cheerleading cabinet bring down its leader? Surely by this approaches design, it’s not supposed to?
Comments
And, as I've said before, you can assign Gove to anything at all and he will *always* come up with something interesting - not always right, but always innovative. He's one of the most under-estimated people in government. On this issue, though, there's not enough money behind the initiative to make a significant difference.
The Tory Party implemented much of all this situation and relies more and more on the pensioner vote for its success, to the degree that our village Tory ferociously attacks any suggestion that IHT for instance should be reformed.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/24/world/russia-ukraine-war-news
Another FTSE 250 one to go:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/23/takeover-of-uk-defence-supplier-ultra-electronics-set-to-be-approved
Former Leader of Conservative Party Michael Howard has told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Boris Johnson should resign. "The party, and more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership." "Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions," he told the programme. On speculation about how the Conservatives could remove the PM - after Johnson won a no confidence vote on 6 June - Howard said "it may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership [election] could take place". There'll be the full interview on World at One on Radio 4."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-61789404
There are only two issues. The PM and his character, and the economy.
Talking about anything else appears out of touch.
But you were talking about 'types' - worthy metropolitan lawyers, angry social activists and (shock horror) trade unionists. All just sounds a bit like Daily Telegraph chuntering to me.
I mean, is there any Labour politician you rate?
As per down thread, I think the 22 should have a vonc among itself only, unless there's a specific rule against it. Doesn't lead to a leadership contest or anything but it would be a clear indicator of which way a proper vonc would go
Prime Minister Boris Johnson says his government will "keep going", addressing the concerns of people, until "we get through this patch."
They are in complete and utter denial.
I bet Keir can't believe his luck, it's like they've learned all the wrong lessons from Corbynism
You see what I have been trying to say for the last twelve hours now? I had in mind what was needed before the result announced, and it was a very fair bar, 50 to 55% votes would have convinced me - which is the best way to comment on elections. Not take whatever result and then try spinning it, as so many disappointingly doing, and attacking the character and work of those who disagree. That’s not proper psephology. 😠
I don’t know what Max does exactly but if he was a stockbroker and advising his clients to buy BAe and wasn’t himself then it’s a bit weak but the chances are (and Max can correct me) that he’s not advising on ordinary stocks which likely are available to certain types of client with minimum investment sizes.
So if Max had millions in the bank then he might be able to invest in same investments but there are a lot of investments hoi poloi cannot chuck their money at.
And the only leader worthy of mention is Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine
Some parts of the public sector are badly run. Very badly run. As I've heard from family members with direct experience. And the problem is that badly run parts of the public sector don't go bust in the way that a badly run private company should eventually, they sort of just limp on, driving away anyone who can't bear the dysfunction.
(That's surely the mechanism, but how long it might take to play out is anyone's guess)
As to your earlier point on smashing it all up - I think the establishment has had enough time to achieve what it says it wants to, it has failed, abjectly and is now simply attempting to call managed decline something other than that. Smashing it all up at least gives us a chance of changing this for the better, staying on this path we know ends in failure. This isn't just true of the UK, it's true all over Europe.
A simpler summary: almost no winnable contest is Conservative-Green, so putting them in the anti-Tory polling bloc is a category error unless assuming big swings toward local options.
I'm not so convinced by the Netherlands - it comes across to me as in parts one big Legoland suburb, and the UK has been successful in preserving diversity and a good measure of local vernacular. My impression is that they build mainly outside towns, and in brand new suburbs.
In London I'm inclined to take Green Belt scrubland to an extent - with land speculation gains heavily mitigated by a social homes tax or similar, and also one or two of the low rise modern council estates and develop on the density of the Barbican.
We already have very strong building regs for build quality, including flat conversions; the main issue is that eg regulation is often done on a sample basis rather than each dwelling, which allows abuses (eg gaps in insulation) through.
One issue you have with demanding apartments be 'family sized' (3 bed?) is that household sizes are smaller and smaller. That is down from 2.9 to approx 2.3 in 50 years.
We don't need to drive densification of villages; we mainly just need to take off blanket bans on development, which can apply even to suitable sites. I'm inclined to allow long-run 1% growth per annum.
Sometimes, rules just have to be changed for the greater good.
Thinly veiled, he's just sent me a tax rebate. The other view is that grasping Rishi helped himself to an unauthorised loan at zero interest.
If MPs claim they want him gone but oh no the rules mean they cannot they are liars.
https://twitter.com/BNHWalker/status/1540168144995684356
The party foot solders might see it very differently though. More feeling for the hard work put into the seats won, remove Boris as best chance to hold them.
See how the view of this between MPs and the party’s foot soldiers could be very different in the coming months?
But when someone who is well paid and well off, when asked to pay more, immediately starts pointing at others and asks them to pay more, we have a problem.
The fact is that all will have to pay more, including well-remunerated City folk, as well as those who have been allowed to shield income and wealth through various loopholes. I have been saying this for years. I will be affected I expect. I won't like it. But if it helps make a better future for my children so much the better.
@MaxPB's response is to say "not me" - which is a pretty common one, even if he is honest enough to admit it, and it is one reason why the party he supports and has voted for has been in power for the last 12 years.
He is, whether he likes it or not, part of the establishment he so derides.
Not computer science but a similar field. My last job in England was a good job in the private sector which paid lots more than 60K. After 8 years the job was no longer interesting and the job area was not personally rewarding. I moved to Germany and got a teaching chair, where my many years in the private sector was seen as great experience. Teaching at university level is far from a hassle. The students really appreciate bringing wide practical experience of the field to my course material, and seeing students improving from struggling with basic concepts to understanding the difficult stuff is really personally rewarding.
I do admit, though, that teachers/lecturers/professors get much less hassle and pressure from the government and quangos (eg. Ofstead) in Germany compared to in Britain.
(& Mitchell has broken the series record for NZ against England.)
You'll find, over time with washing and if passing down from one child to another that the sizes become even more random. Ours is in some 0-3 things already, we have the same problem with legs and also with feet - all the baby clothes with feet built in seem to have tiny, tiny feet.
Best stuff we got was from a Dutch friend, from Albert Heijn (supermarket) so not super fancy, but long legs for Dutch babies and feet that fold over so you can open them up if too small or too hot.
Nappies - well, I thought I was a pro after two others, but newborn nappies are a challenge. There's not much there to put the nappy on!
- Ministers planning fresh cull of deer as population reaches a staggering 2million...
- Will urge supermarkets to buy and sell
- Farmers could get grants to shoot more
- shake up deer act
Really got the priorities in order
The moment it looked like he was trying for it, the 22 rules would be changed and the letters in by tea-time.
The only way we have an election before 2024 (probably autumn) is if there is a new PM who gets a significant "she's not Boris" honeymoon bounce. And even that is fraught (ask Theresa May).
He says he used to live in Ethics, but now he lives in Thussex.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html
He is less worried about winning it than still being in the job for another day
He won a sizeable majority for his party 30 months ago. Getting legislation through isn't a problem, and won't be for the next two years.
He's literally just seen by-election results that indicate he is personally unpopular at the moment, and that it is very likely he would lose significant numbers of seats with an immediate election, and ALL his advisors will be saying the same.
He's under pressure from his party, but isn't facing an immediate confidence vote as we've just had one.
Whilst opponents would no doubt welcome the chance to kick the Conservatives, Tory voters and those considering Tory would view it as crackers. At best they'd see it as an annoying waste of time for a Government with a good majority, and a cavalier gamble by someone who has lost the plot. At worst, they will very strongly suspect the reason is that he knows that the state of the nation in 2024 will be Defcon F***ed, so is going to the ballot box before the punters figure it out.
It has no logic and no merit that can survive serious scrutiny. And, for all his flaws, Johnson is not totally stupid in terms of political calculation.
And he believes his own "just give me a chance to deliver" and "tomorrow I'll be better and things will be better" rhetoric. One of his flaws is that, in the moment, he always absolutely believes his own bluster and flim-flam.
The City has some clever people in it and run well it can add value. But it has not been run well and clever people in it are as prone to self-delusion as everyone else, more so in fact. In my experience anyway.
At any event, I need to go so thanks for the debate.
BTW I don't think I congratulated you on your baby girl. Hope all is going well.
Put it this way, if I ever get an interview question about an example of when I effectively multitasked, I've got a few. Also some examples of when multitasking went wrong and lessons learnt
"I'm heading back to my seat while I still have one."
"There's an overwhelming sense that this has to come to an end."
"It's pretty dire. The Prime Minister must take personal responsibility."
https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1540304074939273216
The Labor primary vote fell. Yet led to a majority.
Others have noted that third and fourth in Wakefield were ex-Tories. And are already adding their votes to the Tory pile.
It doesn't work like that
What you are probably referring to is I predicted end of May for the Tory vote share to drop in June but for first few weeks it ticked up a little bit. I took a lot of flak for “ramping” the Tory uptick - which I didn’t really, I was just flabbergasted it was ticking in the different direction than my methodology had predicted the Tories less popular those weeks note more popular. As it was across many polls the uptick was real enough, not MOE on a couple, But in hindsight, though there was the inexplicable tick upwards in their share two weeks after vonc, it proved short lived, they didn’t get above 34 and this weeks polls Tory share appears to be ticking down.
The voter shave told Boris to fuck off. Red Wall, Blue Wall. 3/4 of his backbenchers have told Boris to fuck off. They don't want a liar as a PM. He either goes of his own resignation, or he will be spectacularly resigned, whenever he goes to the country. You can't game to voters. This is now like Winchester 1997. Squared.
Although Anthony Eden might be chuckling at somebody taking his Worst. PM. Ever. title....
I should also probably get back to work given everything that's happening.
LAB: 38% (-1)
CON: 32% (-1)
LDEM: 14% (+1)
GRN: 6% (+1)
via @techneUK, 22 - 23 Jun
(Actually, there's a lot to be said for proper deer control - a big problem having been those landowners who prioritise blood sports and won't cooperate with others in the district. I don't suppose they support Labour.)
You think he won't, but doing something really stupid is his entire M.O.
Says he has got to explain how he will turn things round, or face a leadership contest
"A lot of conversations taking place next week"
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1540292025672671232
Incidentally the Yougov daily poll doesn't look good for the Tories. Wrong leader and wrong policies according to 72%, albeit before the weighting cuts in for the final results.
Failure meant that whoever had the nightshift needed to be on duty.
https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1540307071819718657